In the intricate landscape of administrative law and public employment, a recurring conflict pits the expectations of individuals against the evolving policies of the state. The recent Supreme Court judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Bhawana Mishra & Ors. provides a seminal examination of this tension, particularly concerning the doctrine of "legitimate expectation." This case, involving candidates who completed an Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course, serves as a crucial reminder that historical practice, without a concrete promise or right, cannot fetter the government's power to reform recruitment processes in the public interest.
I. The Core of the Controversy: From Training
to Claimed Entitlement
The dispute originated in the
State of Uttar Pradesh's administration of the Ayurvedic Nursing Training
Course. For decades, a specific pattern existed:
1. A Government Order from 1986
outlined a selection procedure (written exam and interview) for admission to
this course at the sole government institution—the Government Ayurvedic College
and Hospital, Lucknow, with an annual intake of 20 students.
2. Historically, upon successful
completion of the training, these candidates were routinely appointed as Ayurvedic
Staff Nurses in state institutions. This created a perceived
"pipeline" from admission to employment.
The petitioners—Bhawana Mishra,
Anshu Gautam, and Ankita Maurya—were admitted under the 2013-14 session based
on an advertisement issued on 23.09.2013. Clause 9 of this advertisement
required selected candidates to execute a bond. This bond stipulated that if
the government appointed them after training, they would be compelled to serve
the state for at least five years, failing which the training stipend would be
recoverable with interest.
The petitioners completed their
training in 2017 and subsequently demanded appointment, relying on the past
practice. The state refused, leading to a series of writ petitions and appeals,
culminating in the Supreme Court.
II. The State's Defence: A Changed Landscape
and the Rule of Law
The State of Uttar Pradesh
presented a multi-pronged argument to justify its denial of automatic
appointments:
1. The Nature of the Original Policy: The state contended that the 1986 Government Order and the 2013 advertisement were solely for selection for training, not a guarantee of subsequent employment. The bond condition was triggered only upon a future selection for appointment, not by mere admission.
2. The Paradigm Shift in Policy
(2011-2014): A pivotal change occurred with a notification dated
21.10.2011, which permitted private institutions to also conduct the Ayurvedic
Nursing Training Course. By 2012, 15 private institutions were granted permission.
This fundamentally altered the candidate pool. From a limited cohort of 20
government-trained nurses annually, the number of qualified
"pass-outs" increased exponentially (reaching 311 institutions by
2019-20).
3. Institutional Change in
Recruitment (2014): A notification dated 15.12.2014 brought the post of
Ayurvedic Staff Nurse (now in a higher pay band) under the purview of the Uttar
Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC). This mandated a
competitive selection process through a dedicated commission.
4. Cessation of the Old
Practice: The state asserted that after 15.12.2014, no appointments were
made under the old "direct appointment" system, except for a limited
number in 2015 pursuant to a court order, covering only candidates admitted up
to the 2010-11 session—i.e., before the policy shift.
5. Formalization of Rules
(2021): The Uttar Pradesh Ayush Department (Ayurved) Nursing Service Rules,
2021 were finally notified, providing a statutory framework for recruitment.
The state's central thesis was
that in light of vastly increased candidate availability and limited vacancies,
a fair, transparent, and competitive selection process (through UPSSSC) was
necessary to select the best candidates, in compliance with Article 14
(Equality before Law) and Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public
Employment) of the Constitution.
III. The High Court's View and the Doctrine of
Legitimate Expectation
The High Court had ruled in
favour of the candidates. It applied the doctrine of legitimate expectation,
holding that the decades-long practice of appointing government-trained nurses
created a legitimate expectation for the petitioners that they too would be
appointed. The state's failure to do so was seen as arbitrary.
Legitimate expectation, in administrative law, arises when a public authority, through its past practice, promises, or policy, induces a reasonable expectation in an individual, which it would be unfair or abusive of power to frustrate.
IV. The Supreme Court's Analysis: Dissecting
the Expectation
The Supreme Court, in a judgment
authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal, allowed the state's appeals and reversed the
High Court's direction. The Court's rigorous legal analysis rested on several key
findings:
A. Scrutinizing the Source of
Expectation: The Court first examined the foundational documents. It found
that the 1986 Order and the 2013 advertisement contained no express promise of
appointment. Crucially, Clause 9 of the advertisement referred to a bond
conditional on "in case the government selects any candidate for mandatory
service." This language pointed to a future, uncertain selection, not an
automatic consequence of training. The bond was a security for future service,
not a contract for present employment.
B. The Doctrine of Legitimate
Expectation: Its Limits and Tests: The Court extensively relied on the
Constitution Bench ruling in Sivanandan C T vs. High Court of Kerala (2023) to
outline the contemporary scope of the doctrine in India. It reiterated that:
I. Legitimate expectation is not
an independent legal right but a ground for judicial review based on
arbitrariness under Article 14.
II. For a claim to succeed, a
claimant must establish:
1. The legitimacy of the
expectation: That it is based on a specific promise or an unequivocal,
consistent past practice.
2. Violation of Article 14: That
the denial of that expectation was arbitrary, unfair, or discriminatory.
C. Applying the Tests to the Facts:
1. Legitimacy of Expectation: The Court held the petitioners' expectation was not legitimate in the changed context. The past practice was a product of a specific historical circumstance: only 20 seats existed, and vacancies may have exceeded candidates. This was an "adjustment" to a unique situation, not a declared policy of perpetual appointment. When the policy changed in 2011-2014, expanding training institutions and formalizing recruitment through UPSSSC, the basis for the old expectation evaporated.
2. Violation of Article 14
(Arbitrariness/Discrimination): The Court found no arbitrariness or
discrimination in the state's action.
a. No Discrimination: The essence
of discrimination is unequal treatment of equals. The state demonstrated that no
candidate admitted after the 2010-11 session (whether from government or
private institutions) was appointed under the old system. The petitioners could
not point to a single batchmate or subsequent candidate who received direct
appointment. Since all similarly situated persons (post-2011 admissions) were
treated alike—i.e., required to go through UPSSSC—there was no discrimination.
b. Rational Policy Change: The
policy change was rational and in the public interest. Faced with a surge in
qualified candidates and finite vacancies, instituting a merit-based,
competitive selection process was a logical, fair, and transparent
administrative response. It ensured the selection of the "best available
candidate," a cornerstone of public employment.
D. Distinguishing Precedent:
The Court distinguished the case of N. Suresh Nathan vs. Union of India, relied
upon by the petitioners. That case dealt with the interpretation of service
rules where a long-standing departmental practice was sought to be upheld.
Here, there were no statutory service rules at all until 2021, and the state
was not interpreting a rule but changing an administrative practice based on
transformed factual circumstances.
V. The Verdict and Its Broader Implications
The Supreme Court concluded that
the High Court erred in applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation. It set
aside the direction to appoint the petitioners, upholding the state's revised
recruitment policy through UPSSSC.
Key Takeaways for Lawyers and
Laypersons:
1. Admission ≠ Appointment:
This judgment emphatically establishes that admission into a government
training course, even one with a history of leading to jobs, does not create an
enforceable right to public employment unless such a right is explicitly
promised in the relevant advertisement or rules.
2. Legitimate Expectation is
Not a Blank Cheque: The doctrine is a shield against arbitrariness, not a
sword to claim substantive benefits absent a clear, specific assurance. It
cannot freeze government policy in time. Governments retain the power to modify
policies for legitimate administrative reasons, such as optimizing recruitment
in the face of changing demographics or resource constraints.
3. The Primacy of Article 14
and Fair Competition: When resources (here, government jobs) are scarce and
claimants are many, the Constitution mandates a fair and non-arbitrary method
of selection. A competitive process open to all eligible candidates is the
hallmark of such fairness. The Court prioritizes this constitutional principle
over an individual's expectation born from a bygone administrative convenience.
4. The Importance of
Documentary Language: The specific wording of advertisements, government
orders, and bonds is critical. Vague notions of "past practice" will
be weighed against the explicit text of official documents.
Conclusion
State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
Bhawana Mishra is a significant restatement of the balance between individual
expectations and state authority. It reinforces that while the state must act
fairly and not capriciously destroy expectations it has itself created, it is
not eternally bound by historical practices that were contingent on specific,
since-altered, realities. The ruling affirms that in a dynamic society,
administrative policies must be allowed to evolve to meet contemporary
challenges, provided the evolution is rational, non-discriminatory, and in
pursuit of the public good. For the aspiring public servant, the message is
clear: secure your place through merit in the notified selection process, for
an offer of training is not a guarantee of a government chair.
Judgment Name: State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Bhawana Mishra & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.
14250-14252 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 19707-19709 of 2025),
Supreme Court of India, decided on January 08, 2026.
0 Comments