2026 Supreme(SC) 554

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. Maheshwari, Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat – Appellant
Versus
State Of UP & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7996 of 2026 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15989 of 2025]
Decided On : 19-05-2026

Actions taken under a repealed statute are void unless consistent with the new legislation. Vacancy provisions using the term 'otherwise' must be interpreted ejusdem generis to include only unforeseen events, and waitlisted candidates cannot unilaterally compel changes in posting locations after the statutory framework has formally shifted.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Statutory Interpretation - Repeal and Savings - Principles of Repeal - Actions taken under a repealed statute must be consistent with the new legislative framework - Non-obstante clauses in repeal legislation save previous actions only to the extent they align with the current statutory scheme - Authorities exercising powers after the effective date of a new act must adhere to the procedures stipulated therein to ensure legal validity. (Paras 17, 22, 24)

(B) Service Law - Appointment of Candidates - Waitlisted candidates - Interpretation of provision governing vacancies - The term “otherwise” must be read ejusdem generis to include only unforeseen vacancies such as death or resignation - It cannot be interpreted broadly to accommodate voluntary requests for changes in the designated place of work based on personal circumstances - Such liberal interpretation would frustrate the object of competitive recruitment and allow for unauthorized absorption into positions. (Paras 20, 21)

(C) Administrative Authority - Post-repeal powers - An authority acting under a repealed statute after the commencement of new legislation without explicit saving or justification under the new act acts without jurisdiction - Legislative intent behind repealing acts is to replace established frameworks with new, comprehensive procedures for selection and advancement, precluding the revival of expired selection lists. (Paras 23, 27)

Facts of the case:
A candidate on a waitlist for a teaching position sought an alteration in his assigned posting location due to personal circumstances. Despite receiving an initial recommendation under the previous legislative framework, the candidate failed to join the designated institution. Subsequent to the full repeal of the old legislation, institutional authorities attempted to facilitate a change of posting location based on the previous selection list. A lower court ruled the act of changing the posting location to be without jurisdiction, prompting the current appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the term “otherwise” in the context of vacancy filling under the previous law does not encompass personal requests for changing a designated place of work. Furthermore, upon the commencement of the new legislation, the validity of the previous select list expired, and all subsequent recruitment actions must strictly follow the new procedural requirements. The actions of the authorities in attempting to revive the old list were found to be legally untenable.

Issues: 1. Whether a waitlisted candidate can claim an alternate posting under the “otherwise” provision of a previous law. 2. Whether post-repeal recommendations under a previous statute are legally sustainable in the absence of explicit saving clauses.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of ejusdem generis dictates that “otherwise” should be interpreted as unforeseen vacancies similar to death, resignation, or invalidation. Additionally, actions taken under a repealed statute without authorization under the new legislation are void, as the legislative intent of the repeal is to replace the old framework with a new, comprehensive procedure for selection.

Result: Appeal dismissed.