Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Mrigank Mishra, Adv. Mr. Shakti Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Varun Singh, Adv. Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Somesa Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mudit Gupta, AOR Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. M Shaz Khan, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Faizan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Rafid Akhter, Adv.

What is the applicability of the principle of legitimate expectation in cases of change in government policy regarding appointments? What are the rights of candidates admitted to a training course when there is a change in the selection process for subsequent appointments? What constitutes discrimination in the context of government appointments when the number of candidates far exceeds available vacancies?

Key Points: - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh (!) . - The core issue was whether mere admission to the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course conferred a right to appointment as an Ayurvedic Staff Nurse (!) . - The advertisement for the training course did not promise a right to appointment; a bond was only required if a candidate was selected for government service after training (!) . - A change in government policy allowed private institutions to conduct the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course, significantly increasing the number of pass-outs (!) (!) (!) . - The increased number of candidates made it impossible to recruit all pass-outs, necessitating a selection process to choose the best available candidates (!) (!) . - The principle of legitimate expectation was deemed far-fetched due to the substantial shift in facts and circumstances following the change in government policy (!) . - Appointing candidates from government institutions while not offering the same to those from private institutions would have led to discrimination (!) . - No appointments were made under the old system for candidates admitted after the 2010-11 session, except for a few in 2015 due to a court order (!) (!) (!) . - The respondents failed to point out any similarly situated person from their batch or subsequent batches who was directly appointed by the State, rendering the plea of discrimination unsustainable (!) . - There was no violation of Article 14 as the State's actions were not arbitrary and there was no unequal treatment of equals (!) .

What is the applicability of the principle of legitimate expectation in cases of change in government policy regarding appointments?

What are the rights of candidates admitted to a training course when there is a change in the selection process for subsequent appointments?

What constitutes discrimination in the context of government appointments when the number of candidates far exceeds available vacancies?