LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. versus BHAWANA MISHRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 409 : 2026 INSC 38 State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Bhawana Mishra (Civil Appeal No. 14250 of 2025) 08 January 2026 [Rajesh Bindal* and Manmohan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether on mere admission in a course, right is conferred for appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse. Headnotes† Service law – Appointment – Post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse – Advertisement inviting application for the course of Ayurvedic Nursing Training – Respondent admitted and thereafter passed out from government institutions between 2015- 19 – Representation before the competent authority seeking appointment, however was rejected – Respondent then filed writ petition – Case of the appellant-State that earlier there were only 20 seats in one government college for imparting Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course, and after completion they were being given appointment, however post 2011, there was a change in policy, the permission was granted to number of private colleges to impart training in that course, and the availability of candidates for appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse was more, hence, due process of selection was required to be followed, and post was now required to be filled up by the UPSSSC – However, the High Court allowed the writ petition – Appeal thereagainst also dismissed – Correctness: Held: Direction issued by the High Court mandating the State to consider the candidature of respondents for appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse in a Medical College, Hospital or Dispensary under the State Government, cannot be legally sustained – Perusal of the advertisement inviting application for the course of Ayurvedic Nursing Training, shows that no promise had been made for * Author 410 [2026] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports appointment – Clause 9 in the advertisement clearly stipulated that only in case the candidate is appointed after training, he/she shall compulsorily serve the government for at least 5 years – Bond was only meant for the candidate selected for the government service – Principle of legitimate expectation cannot be applied as there was a change in policy and scheme of government – Existing facts and circumstances underwent a substantial shift from the year 2012, when the private institutions were granted permission to conduct the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course, by way of government order – Candidates pursuing the said course had grown exponentially and all such candidates could not be recruited after training due to limited vacancies – Respondent-candidates failed to identify any specific clause in the advertisements for admission to the course that guarantees right to appointment upon admission – While advertisements for private colleges explicitly state that admission does not grant a right to appointment, the absence of this specific disclaimer in government college advertisements does not mean a right to appointment is automatically implied – Past practice was merely on the basis of the situation at the relevant time when there were only 20 seats for imparting education for Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course and only one government institution was authorized to conduct the course – Since there were more vacancies, most of them may have been adjusted – There were no appointments made by following the earlier system available – There was change in the process of selection as well, earlier the selection was being made by UPPSC, now it was being made by UPSSSC – After the change in policy of the government permitting private institutions to impart training for Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course, the availability of candidates was much more as compared to the earlier regime – Available vacancies with the government being less, the normal rule provides for a selection process to be followed so that the best available candidate is selected – Thus, no violation of Art. 14 as, there was no discrimination against the respondents or that the action of the State was arbitrary – Essence of discrimination is the unequal treatment of equals; however, the State clearly established that no appointments were made under the old system for any candidate admitted after the 2010-11 session – Since no batchmates of the respondent, nor any other candidates passing out after the first private college in 2016, given direct appointments, no instance of similarly situated person being [2026] 1 S.C.R. 411 State of Utt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.