Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-014250-014250 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 17736/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules High Court order dated 17.01.2025; affirms state policy and UPSSSC selection process |
| Type of Law | Administrative law; service law |
| Questions of Law | Whether mere admission to the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course confers a legitimate expectation or legal right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse after the State permitted private institutions and shifted selection to UPSSSC |
| Ratio Decidendi | The advertisement clause for the 2013-14 course did not promise appointment—only that selected appointees would execute a bond. A 2011 notification permitting private institutions dramatically increased eligible pass-outs, making automatic appointment infeasible. No service rules existed until 2021 and selection shifted to UPSSSC. In these changed circumstances, legitimate expectation cannot override Article 14 and administrative discretion. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | From 1986 to 2011 only one government college trained 20 students—each appointee was hired. A 2011 notification authorized multiple private institutions. Respondents admitted in 2013, passed out by 2017, and sought appointment. Their claims were rejected for lack of service rules and shift of recruitment to UPSSSC. High Court upheld legitimate expectation; Supreme Court set aside that order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate and High Courts |
| Persuasive For | Service tribunals, Administrative tribunals |
| Overrules | Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court dated 17.01.2025 |
| Distinguishes | N. Suresh Nathan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (1992) |
| Follows | Sivanandan C T & Ors. v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. (2023) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Admission to Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course, without an explicit appointment guarantee, does not confer any appointment right.
- Clause 9 of the 2013-14 advertisement binds only those candidates actually appointed to serve five years.
- The 2011 policy change permitting private colleges disrupted the earlier “one-to-one” training-appointment link.
- Service rules for Ayurvedic Nurses were framed only in 2021; recruitment now lies exclusively with UPSSSC.
- The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override a transparent policy shift and competitive selection requirement under Article 14.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Advertisement Interpretation
Clause 9 promised a five-year bond only for candidates selected post-training, not all trainees. -
Policy Change Analysis
The 21.10.2011 notification authorized 15 (ultimately 311) private institutions, vastly increasing pass-outs. -
Service-Rule and Selection Shift
No service rules for Ayurvedic Nurses existed until 2021; in 2014 recruitment moved from UPPSC to UPSSSC. -
Legitimate Expectation Doctrine
Under Sivanandan C T, expectation must be legitimate and its frustration violate Article 14; here policy change was reasonable and transparent. -
Article 14 & Discrimination Test
No similar-situated candidate post-2010-11 received direct appointment; absence of arbitrary or unequal treatment.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (State of U.P.)
- The 1986 and 2013 orders governed training, not appointment.
- Clause 9 bond applies only after selection for service.
- 2011 and 2014 notifications changed policy—private institutions and UPSSSC selection.
- The earlier one-to-one recruitment practice ceased; no entitlement arose.
- Legitimate expectation cannot override a transparent competitive process.
Respondents (Trainees)
- Since 1972, all government-college trainees were appointed on passing.
- No disclaimer in their 2013-14 advertisement removing appointment promise.
- Government continued old practice in 2015 and did not meaningfully alter policy.
- Long-standing practice gave rise to legitimate expectation enforceable under Article 14.
Factual Background
From 1986 to 2011, Ayurvedic Nursing Training (20 seats) was offered only by a government college and passing trainees were routinely appointed. A 2011 notification authorized multiple private institutions, and a 2013 advertisement invited 20-seat applications, requiring a bond only for successful appointees. Respondents completed training in 2017, sought appointment, and were rejected—citing absence of service rules and transfer of recruitment to UPSSSC. The High Court granted relief on legitimate expectation; the Supreme Court set aside that order.
Statutory Analysis
- Government Order 12.11.1986: procedure for selection to training only.
- Notification 21.10.2011 (U.P. Indian Medicines Act, 1939): permitted private institutions to conduct the course.
- Notification 15.12.2014: recruitment for Pay Band II (UPSSSC jurisdiction).
- Uttar Pradesh Ayush Dept. (Ayurved) Nursing Service Rules, 2021 (w.e.f. 18.11.2021): service rules notified post-judgment.
- Article 14, Constitution of India: test for arbitrariness and discrimination.
- Doctrine of legitimate expectation as limited by Sivanandan C T.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Supreme Court overrules the High Court’s legitimate-expectation finding
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation per Sivanandan C T