[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Telangana State Power Generation ... vs T. Saritha on 26 March, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                     AT HYDERABAD
 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                          AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
     WRIT APPEAL Nos.294, 297, 301 and 334 of 2025

                      DATE: 26.03.2026


W.A.No.294 of 2025
Between:
Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another
                                                   ....Appellants
                              And
T.Saritha and 13 others
                                                ....Respondents

W.A.No.297 of 2025
Between:
Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another
                                                   ....Appellants
                              And
Kore Praveen Kumar

                                                ....Respondent
W.A.No.301 of 2025
Between:
Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another
                                                   ....Appellants
                              And
Mundra Tejaswinin
                                                 ....Respondent
                                       2



W.A.No.334 of 2025
Between:
Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another
                                                             ....Appellants
                                     And

Bathu Pavan Kumar
                                                            ....Respondent


                          COMMON JUDGMENT

Since the issues that arise in the above writ appeals are

integrally one and the same, the writ appeals are being disposed of

by this Common Judgment.

2. These four writ appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of the

Letters Patent, against the common order dated 04.10.2024 passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.42734 & 45061 of 2017

and 18962 & 20048 of 2018. By the said order, the learned Single

Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed the appellants-

Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited (TSGENCO)

(hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') to consider the

candidature of the writ petitioners (respondents herein) for

appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) against

42 unfilled notified posts from the selection process of the year

2015.

3. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel

representing Smt. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the appellants;

Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri

K.G.Ravikanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1,2,7,8 and 9

in W.A.No.294 of 2025 and for respondent in W.A.No.334 of 2025

and Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for respondent in W.A.No.297

of 2025.

Factual Matrix (in brief)

4. The appellants-Corporation issued Notification No.02/CGM

(Adm. IS & ERP), dated 23.09.2015, inviting applications for

recruitment to 856 posts of Assistant Engineers in various

disciplines, including Electrical, Mechanical, Electronics and Civil,

keeping in view both the existing vacancies as well as anticipated

requirements in upcoming projects such as KTPS-VII Stage,

Bhadradri Thermal Power Station (BTPS), Yadadri Thermal Power

Station (YTPS-A & YTPS-B), and the O&M Contract at Jaipur

M/s.Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL). The notification

specifically stipulated, under the "Important Note" at Clause (3),

that the notified vacancies were subject to variation depending

upon necessity and were liable to be filled in accordance with the

Rules and Regulations in force, duly following the rule of

reservation.

5. The written examination pursuant to the said notification

was conducted on 14.11.2015. Thereafter, candidates were

shortlisted in the ratio of 1:1 based on merit, and upon verification

of original certificates, 690 candidates were ultimately issued

appointment orders on 17.02.2016.

6. It is further borne out from the record that, in the light of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munja Praveen v.

State of Telangana 1, as also the decision rendered in SLP (C)

Nos.36057-36059 of 2016 concerning recruitment in power

utilities, the appellants decided to fill up leftover vacancies by

operating the merit list downward. Accordingly, further certificate

verification was conducted during October, 2017, and a second

phase of selection was undertaken, pursuant to which 73

candidates in the Electrical stream were issued appointment orders

on 13.11.2017. Even after the said exercise, 42 posts of Assistant

Engineer (Electrical), out of the total notified posts in that stream,

remained unfilled.

7. The respondents herein, who were unsuccessful candidates

in the said selection process, submitted representations seeking

consideration for appointment against the said unfilled posts by

further operation of the merit list. The said representations came to

be rejected by the appellants vide letter dated 04.12.2017,

pursuant to a conscious decision taken by the Board of Directors

in its meeting held on 09.11.2017. The Board had decided not to

(2017) 14 SCC 797

fill the remaining 42 posts for the reasons recorded, which are

extracted hereunder:

TSGENCO has issued a Notification No.02/CGM(Adm, IS&ERP) dt 23.09.2015 for filling up by direct recruitment of 856 posts including posts sanctioned for the upcoming new projects i.e KTPS VII Stage-55 Nos, Bhadradri Thermal Power Station (BTPS)-116 Nos, Yadadri Thermal Power Station (YTPS-A)-116 Nos, Yadadri TPS-B-166Nos and O&M Contract of Jaipur (SCCL)-280 Nos envisaging the completion of BTPS and KTPS-VII Projects and commencement of construction activities of YTPS A within two years.

Subsequently, construction works of upcoming new projects i.e., BTPS, YTPS-A, YTPS-B were delayed as the necessary clearances were not received in time from the concerned competent authorities for commencement of the works.

Subsequent to the issuance of Notification, the O&M Contract of 2X600 MW Jaipur plant of M/s SCCL did not materialize, as it was awarded to the other Company Inspite of non-materialization of the Jaipur/O&M of SCCL, Recruitment process for filling up all the 856 Notified Posts which included 280 posts meant for O&M of SCCL Project, was carried out and appointment orders were issued to all the 690 candidates who have attended for certificate Verification. Subsequently, the 166 posts which fell vacant due to non-attending of selected candidates for certificate verification was sought to be filled up through Notice dt 05.10.2017. Thus more posts than those Immediate requirement were filled up duly following orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The Unit III of KTPS(O&M) is already retired and the other 3 units of the station as well as RTS-B are going to be retired on completion of KTPS-VII (1x800 MW) project. Thus the engineers displaced form the retired units can be utilised at the new projects such as TPS-VII and BTPS (4x270 MW) during construction phase, including those recruited against the posts envisaged for Jaipur/O&M of Singareni Collaries Company Limited

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection, the respondents herein

instituted separate writ petitions, including W.P.Nos.42734 of

2017, 45061 of 2017, 20048 of 2018 and 18962 of 2018, inter alia

seeking a direction to the appellants to fill up the unfilled posts by

continuing the selection process. The learned Single Judge, by a

common order dated 04.10.2024, allowed the said writ petitions,

primarily on the premise that the appellants themselves had issued

a subsequent Notification No.01/2023, dated 04.10.2023, notifying

42 vacancies in the Electrical branch, which were treated as having

been carried forward from the earlier 2015 recruitment process. On

that basis, the learned Single Judge held that the earlier decision

of the appellants not to fill up the posts was unsustainable and

directed consideration of the writ petitioners for appointment

against the said vacancies.

9. Aggrieved by the common order dated 04.10.2024 passed by

the learned Single Judge, the appellants-Corporation have

preferred the present batch of writ appeals.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants-Corporation

10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-

Corporation, advanced submissions assailing the impugned

common order dated 04.10.2024 as under:

i) That the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the explicit

condition contained in the recruitment notification itself,

particularly the "Important Note" under Clause (3), which

provides that the notified vacancies are subject to variation

depending upon necessity. That the recruitment undertaken

pursuant to Notification dated 23.09.2015 was not for

existing vacancies but was a projection based on future

projects, which did not materialize.

ii) That owing to supervening circumstances, namely the non-

award of the SCCL contract to the appellant-Corporation and

the delay in execution of the aforesaid projects on account of

non-receipt of requisite statutory clearances, the anticipated

requirement failed to materialise. It is contended that the

decision of the Board of Directors not to proceed further with

the filling up of the remaining posts was taken on objective

and bona fide considerations and does not suffer from

arbitrariness.

iii) Placing reliance on the settled principle of law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union

of India 2, it is contended that mere inclusion of a

candidate's name in a select list does not confer any

indefeasible or vested right to appointment. It is further

submitted that, in the present case, the respondents were

not even within the zone of consideration for the second

phase of selection and, therefore, cannot assert any

enforceable right to seek appointment by compelling the

appellants to operate the merit list further.

iv) That it is the sole prerogative of the employer to determine,

based on administrative exigencies, functional requirements

and financial considerations, as to how many posts are to be

filled and at what point of time. The decision taken by the

(1991) 3 SCC 47

Board of Directors, after due deliberation, to restrict the

recruitment process to the second list and not to proceed

further, is stated to be a policy decision taken in the interest

of the organisation. It is argued that the learned Single

Judge erred in substituting such administrative decision

with judicial discretion, which is impermissible in law,

particularly in matters involving policy and staffing

requirements.

v) That the learned Single Judge erred in placing reliance on

the Government Memo dated 01.06.2016, which permitted

certain other power utilities, namely, Transmission

Corporation of Telangana Limited (TSTRANSCO), Telangana

State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

(TSSPDCL) and Telangana State Northern Power Distribution

Company Limited (TSNPDCL), to operate the merit list

further on multiple occasions, which was issued having

regard to the peculiar circumstances applicable to those

entities. It is contended that the same analogy cannot be

extended to the appellant-Corporation as a matter of course.

vi) That the respondents were not within the zone of

consideration even if the merit list were to be operated

further. Learned Senior Counsel drew attention to the

tabulated data placed on record in the memorandum of

appeal, demonstrating the marks secured, ranks obtained,

and the number of candidates standing above the

respondents in their respective categories. It is submitted

that in view of the large number of more meritorious

candidates placed above the respondents-writ petitioners

and the limited number of available posts in each category,

the respondents would not have been eligible for

consideration in any event.

vii) That the Notification No.01/2023, dated 04.10.2023 was

issued to meet the then prevailing requirements of the

Corporation, which had undergone substantial change over a

period of time. The inclusion of 42 posts in the Electrical

stream in the said notification does not, in any manner,

amount to an admission that such vacancies existed or were

required to be filled in the year 2015 and cannot be

resurrected or operated after a lapse of several years to fill

vacancies arising in a subsequent period.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents-writ petitioners

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents-writ

petitioners supported the common order of the learned Single

Judge and has submitted as under:

i) That the appellants-Corporation, having consciously followed

the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Munja Praveen (supra 1) and having operated the merit list

downward to fill up 73 posts in the second phase of

selection, could not have arbitrarily halted the process

thereafter, particularly when 42 notified posts admittedly

remained unfilled. That similarly placed power utilities,

namely TSTRANSCO, TSSPDCL and TSNPDCL, had operated

their merit lists on multiple occasions, and the refusal of the

appellants-Corporation to adopt a similar course of action

results in hostile discrimination and unequal treatment.

ii) That the reasons assigned by the appellant-Corporation for

not filling up the remaining 42 posts, namely the non-award

of the SCCL contract and the delay in execution of new

projects, are not genuine. It is contended that the O&M

Contract of Jaipur (SCCL) had been awarded to another

entity as early as 08.08.2015, i.e., prior to the issuance of

the recruitment notification dated 23.09.2015, and the said

fact was well within the knowledge of the appellant-

Corporation. Despite being aware of the same, the

Corporation proceeded to notify the posts and conduct the

recruitment process.

iii) That the issuance of a subsequent Notification No.01/2023,

dated 04.10.2023, clearly demonstrates that the requirement

for such posts existed all along. It is contended that it

constitutes a clear admission on the part of the appellant-

Corporation, thereby rendering the earlier decision of the

Board of Directors dated 09.11.2017, untenable and

unsustainable in law.

iv) That the respondents, having participated in the selection

process pursuant to a valid notification and having secured

positions in the merit list, had a reasonable and legitimate

expectation of being considered for appointment against the

notified vacancies, and the State cannot act in a whimsical

or arbitrary manner to defeat this expectation without a

cogent and justifiable reason.

12. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance

on the following decisions hereunder:

i. R.S.Mittal v. Union of India 3 ii. Rajeev Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan and others 4 iii. Dinesh Chandra Pandey v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and another 5 iv. Manoj Manu and another v. Union of India and others 6 v. Munja Parveen (supra 1) vi. Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and others v. South East Central Railway and others 7 vii. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and another viii. Narimetla Vamshi and others 8 ix. Union of India v. Uzair Imran and others 9

13. We have taken note of the respective submissions advanced

and the material on record including the merit lists, the Board

resolution, and the notification conditions.

3 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230 4 (2008) 7 SLR 100 (DB) = 2008 SCC OnLine Raj 165 5 (2010) 11 SCC 500 6 (2013) 12 SCC 171 7 (2019) 12 SCC 798 8 Civil Appeal No.4735 of 2022 dated 23.11.2022 9 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308

Consideration by this Court

14. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the

recruitment process emanates from Notification dated 23.09.2015,

which forms the very foundation of the claims of the parties. A

perusal of the said notification would disclose that it contained a

specific and unambiguous condition, under the "Important Note" at

Clause (3), to the following effect:

The vacancies are subject to variation based on the necessity and shall be filled-up as per the Rules & Regulations in vogue, duly following the Rule of Reservation.

15. It is to be noted that the above condition is not a mere formal

clause, but a substantive condition governing the entire

recruitment process. All candidates, including the respondents

herein, participated in the selection process with full knowledge of

the said condition. The clause expressly reserves to the appellant-

Corporation the discretion to vary the number of posts to be filled,

depending upon its operational and administrative requirements

prevailing at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the respondents

cannot, at this stage, seek to enforce a right contrary to the very

terms of the notification.

16. It is apposite to reiterate the settled legal position that mere

participation in a selection process does not confer upon a

candidate any indefeasible right to appointment. The Constitution

Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash (supra

2) has categorically held that even a candidate whose name finds

place in the select list does not acquire a vested right to be

appointed, and that the State is under no legal obligation to fill up

all or any of the vacancies, so long as the decision not to fill such

vacancies is founded on bona fide and justifiable reasons.

17. The material on record further demonstrates that the

anticipated requirement for filling all the notified posts did not

materialize. It is not in dispute that the O&M Contract relating to

the Jaipur Plant of SCCL, which constituted a substantial

component of the projected vacancies, was ultimately awarded to a

third party. Though it is contended on behalf of the respondents

that such development had occurred prior to the issuance of the

notification, we are unable to accept the submission that the same

vitiates the subsequent decision of the appellants. On the contrary,

the said circumstance only underscores the contingent and

conditional nature of the notification. The recruitment was

premised not merely on existing vacancies, but also on projected

requirements, and once such projections failed to materialise, the

appellant-Corporation was well within its administrative domain to

reassess and recalibrate its manpower needs. Therefore, the

decision not to fill such posts cannot be said to be arbitrary or

lacking in bona fides.

18. Further, the delay in execution and commissioning of the

new thermal projects, namely BTPS and YTPS (A & B), on account

of non-receipt of statutory and environmental clearances, are

matters of administrative record. The Board of Directors, in its

meeting held on 09.11.2017, took a conscious decision that the

remaining 42 posts were not immediately required. Such a

decision, taken by an expert body charged with the administration

and functioning of the Corporation, is essentially a matter of policy

and managerial discretion. In exercise of judicial review under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit in

appeal over such administrative decisions, nor is it within the

province of the Court to substitute its own assessment of

manpower requirements in place of that of the competent

authority. The writ Court, with due respect, fell in error in

undertaking such an exercise.

19. It is also to be noted that the reliance placed by the learned

Single Judge on the subsequent Notification dated 04.10.2023,

whereby 42 posts in the Electrical stream were notified, is

misplaced. The said notification in 2023 was issued nearly six

years after the decision taken by the Board in 2017. The

requirement of the Corporation at a later point of time, when

projects may have progressed or become operational, cannot be

retrospectively imported to invalidate a decision taken on the basis

of the prevailing circumstances in the year 2017. Recruitment to

public posts is necessarily a dynamic process, contingent upon

contemporaneous necessity. The concept of "carry forward" of

vacancies, as sought to be canvassed by the respondents, cannot

be extended to revive a stale merit list of the year 2015, which has,

by efflux of time, lost its relevance and efficacy.

20. The reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Munja Praveen's case (supra 1), also does not advance

the case of the respondents. A careful reading of the said judgment

would indicate that the Apex Court merely upheld the

permissibility of operating the merit list downward in the peculiar

facts of that case, having regard to a specific Government Memo

dated 01.06.2016. The said judgment does not lay down any

inflexible rule mandating that all notified vacancies must

necessarily be filled, nor does it sanction indefinite operation of a

merit list. In the present case, the appellants have, in fact, acted in

conformity with the said judgment by undertaking a second round

of selection and issuing appointment orders to 73 candidates. To

compel the appellants to continue the process indefinitely would

amount to extending the ratio of the said judgment beyond its

permissible limits.

21. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the

respondents are distinguishable for the following reasons:

i) The reliance placed on Rajeev Tiwari (supra 4) is misplaced.

In the said case, the Court interfered on the ground that the

State had refused appointment to a selected candidate on

vague and unsubstantiated "administrative reasons" and had

even declared the post surplus without any statutory basis,

thereby rendering the action arbitrary. In the present case,

however, the decision not to fill the remaining 42 posts was

taken pursuant to a conscious policy decision of the Board of

Directors, based on objective factors such as delay in

execution of projects, non-materialisation of the SCCL

contract, and availability of surplus manpower due to

redeployment. Thus, the decision is supported by cogent and

bona fide reasons, and cannot be termed arbitrary.

ii) The principle laid down in R.S. Mittal (supra 3) does not

advance the case of the respondents. While it is true that the

appointing authority cannot ignore a select panel without

justification, the said judgment itself recognizes that a

candidate has no vested right to appointment and that non-

filling of vacancies is permissible for valid reasons. In the

present case, the appellants have furnished valid and

rational grounds for not filling the posts, rooted in

administrative necessity and changed circumstances, and

hence the action satisfies the test laid down therein.

iii) The decision in Manoj Manu (supra 6) is also

distinguishable. That was a case where certain selected

candidates did not join, and the vacancies arose within the

same recruitment cycle before the process had attained

finality, warranting operation of the reserve list. In the

present case, however, the appellants had already operated

the merit list downward in a second phase of selection in

2017 and filled additional posts. The remaining vacancies are

not merely non-joining vacancies but are the result of

subsequent policy considerations and reassessment of actual

requirements.

iv) The reliance on Narimetla Vamshi (supra 8) is

misconceived. In that case, the Apex Court was dealing with

a situation where candidates had not even completed the

recruitment process, and the authorities had erroneously

declined to call the next meritorious candidates, thereby

leaving vacancies unfilled. In contrast, in the present case,

the entire selection process was duly conducted in two

phases, and a substantial number of candidates were

appointed. The decision not to fill the remaining posts is

based not on any rigid rule but on subsequent

administrative and functional considerations, and therefore

stands on a different footing.

v) The judgment in Dinesh Chandra Pandey (supra 5)

pertains to disciplinary proceedings and principles of natural

justice, and has no bearing on the issue relating to filling up

of notified vacancies or operation of select lists, and is thus

inapplicable to the facts of the present case.

vi) In Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra 7), the employer had

failed to furnish any cogent or justifiable reason for not filling

up the vacancies despite the existence of a valid panel. In

contrast, in the present case, the appellants have placed on

record clear and contemporaneous reasons, namely the non-

materialisation of the SCCL project and delay in

commissioning of new projects, which constitute valid

administrative grounds.

vii) In Uzair Imran (supra 9), the employer had altered the

eligibility criteria midstream, thereby prejudicing the

candidate. No such situation arises in the present case,

where the conditions of recruitment remained unchanged,

and the decision in question pertains only to the extent of

vacancies to be filled, which was expressly made subject to

variation in the notification itself.

22. Furthermore, the contention of the respondents that the

appellants have acted discriminatorily in not following the practice

adopted by other power utilities is also devoid of merit. Each of the

said utilities operates in a distinct sphere, with differing functional

requirements, financial constraints, and project timelines. The

decision-making process in one entity cannot be mechanically

applied to another. The appellant-Corporation, being a generation

company, is guided by considerations fundamentally different from

those applicable to transmission or distribution companies, and

therefore, no claim of parity can be sustained on that basis.

23. At this juncture, it will not be out of the context to note that

even on a factual plane, the claim of the respondents does not

merit acceptance. The appellants have placed on record the merit

position of the respondents that clearly indicates that they were

placed far below in the order of merit in their respective categories,

which is extracted hereunder:

A perusal of the above tabulated data demonstrates that a

substantial number of candidates stood above the respondents,

and the available vacancies within each category were limited.

Thus, even if the merit list were to be operated further, the

respondents would not have fallen within the zone of consideration.

This crucial aspect, which goes to the root of the matter, has not

been adverted to by the learned Single Judge.

Conclusion

24. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion

that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, requiring the

appellants to consider the candidature of the respondents for

appointment against the 42 posts arising out of the 2015

notification based on their merit and roster points, is

unsustainable both in law and on facts. The decision of the Board

of Directors not to proceed further with the recruitment process

was a conscious and bona fide administrative decision, taken on

the basis of relevant considerations and duly recorded in its

proceedings. The respondents, who neither possess any vested

right nor fall within the zone of consideration, cannot seek to

compel the appellants to fill up posts which were, at the relevant