Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RAJESH BINDAL, MANMOHAN, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Bhawana Mishra – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 14250 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19707 of 2025)
With
State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Anshu Gautam And Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 14251 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 19708 of 2025)
With
State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ankita Maurya And Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 14252 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19709 of 2025)
Decided On : 08-01-2026
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course – Number of pass outs had far outnumbered available vacancies – It was impossible to recruit all pass outs – No such promise had been made in advertisement – It stipulated that only in case candidate is appointed after training, he/she shall compulsorily serve Government for at least 5 years – It is not that bond was applicable for all candidates – It was only meant for candidate selected for Government service – Besides, appointing candidates passing out of Government institutions and not offering the same to candidates passing out of private institutions would have led to discrimination – It may be far-fetched to apply Principle of Legitimate Expectation to case in hand as there was a change in policy and scheme of Government – Existing facts and circumstances underwent substantial shift from year 2012, when private institutions were granted permission to conduct Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course, by way of Government Order dated 21.10.2011 – Available vacancies with Government being less, normal rule provides for a selection process to be followed so that best available candidate is selected – Essence of discrimination is unequal treatment of equals – Respondent has failed to point out a single candidate from her own batch or subsequent batches who was directly appointed by State, thereby rendering plea of discrimination factually and legally unsustainable – There is no violation of Article 14 – Impugned Judgment of High Court set aside. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
The issue arises as to whether mere admission in a course, right is conferred for appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse.
Findings of Court:
Since no batchmates of the respondent, nor any other candidates passing out after the first private college batch in 2016, were given direct appointments, there is no instance of a similarly situated person being treated preferentially.
Result : Appeal allowed.
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 (!) .
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. This order will dispose of three appeals involving common questions of law and facts.
2. The State is before this Court impugning the judgment dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court [High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench] in Special Appeals [Special Appeal Nos.214 and 257 of 2020 and Special Appeal No.317 of 2021] filed by the State. The same were filed against [Service Single Nos. 12609 and 33476 of 2019 and Service Single No. 3415 of 2020] different orders passed by the Single Bench of the High Court in Writ Petitions3 filed by the respondents.
3. For the purpose of consideration of the issues involved, we are noticing facts from Civil Appeal No. 14250 of 2025 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19707 of 2025).
4. Taking us through the long history of facts of the case, learned counsel for the State submitted that vide Government Order dated 12.11.1986, procedure for selection of candidates for Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course in the State was circulated. The selection procedure was specified which provided for written examination followed by an interview and the marks assigned for the same. Tone and tenor of the aforesaid order clearly established that the same was meant for selection of the candidates for the purpose of training for Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course and not for appointment. This was followed by another Government Order dated 22.04.2010. Earlier permission was being granted to continue with the aforesaid course on year-to-year basis. Realizing the need thereof, it was directed that no fresh permission was required every year.
4.1 In the aforesaid backdrop, an advertisement was issued on 23.09.2013 inviting applications for admissions to the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course for the year 2013-14. The notice clearly suggested that for the aforesaid session, the admission was for 20 seats in the Government Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Lucknow. Clause 9 of the advertisement provided that after completion of training, in case the government selects any candidate for mandatory service, it shall be incumbent for the candidate to serve the State at least for a period of 5 years from the date of appointment. The candidates had to submit a bond stating that after training, in case they are appointed by the State government, they shall compulsorily serve the State for at least 5 years. Upon failure to abide by this bond, the entire amount paid during the training period to the candidate was recoverable along with interest @12% per annum.
5. A development which had taken place just prior to the issuance of the aforesaid advertisement, as referred by the learned counsel for the State, was a notification dated 21.10.2011, specifying that Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course in Ayurvedic and General Nursing (Unani Nurses) shall now be conducted by the institutions both in the government and non-government sectors. The interested institutions were to seek permission for the same. After due process, 15 institutions were granted permission in the meeting of the Board [Board of Ayurvedic, Unani, and Tibbia, Systems of Medicine, Uttar Pradesh] held on 29.03.2012 to impart the aforesaid training. The permission was granted in exercise of powers under the United Provinces [Indian Medicines] Act, 1939.
6. After this permission was granted, even the private institutions started admitting candidates for the aforesaid course. Consequently. the number of pass outs were much more than the vacancies and many times more than those who were earlier getting admission in the government institution.
7. Reference was made to the communication dated 23.12.2013, wherein the respondent was called for appearing in the written examination. Thereafter, vide letter dated 14.02.2024, she was notified about her selection and was required to appear and complete the formalities to be considered for admission in the Ayurvedic Nurses Training Session 2013-14.
8. Learned counsel have further referred t
Appointment – Available vacancies with Government being less, normal rule provides for a selection process to be followed so that best available candidate is selected – Essence of discrimination is u....
A candidate's legitimate expectation for appointment should be honored based on the rules in effect during the recruitment process, despite later amendments altering eligibility criteria.
Candidates do not have a vested right to insist on the completion of a recruitment process if it is cancelled based on valid reasons, including changes in qualifications and reservation policies.
The enhancement of posts in a recruitment process without reopening applications violates the right to equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Administrative authorities must adhere strictly to the terms of public advertisements regarding eligibility and selection, ensuring fairness and the principle of legitimate expectation, particularly ....
Point of Law : Appointment has to be made strictly as per terms of the advertisement and in case, the candidates who did not possess the qualification as mentioned in the advertisement were permitted....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
