STUDYING IN GOVT INSTITUTE DOESN’T GIVE AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO GOVT JOB: SUPREME COURT REJECTS ‘LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION’ CLAIM

Introduction
The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Bhawana Mishra, Civil (SLP (C) No. 19707 of 2025), examined whether candidates who completed the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course in a government college could claim a right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurses on the basis of past practice and legitimate expectation. The Judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan.
The Appeals arose from a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), which had invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation to direct consideration of the Respondents’ cases for appointment, treating earlier practice as a binding norm. The Supreme Court reversed that view, holding that neither the advertisement nor the changed policy conferred any enforceable right to appointment.
Factual Background
Since the 1970s, the State of Uttar Pradesh had been running an Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course through the Government Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Lucknow, with an intake of about 20 students per batch. A Government Order dated 12 November 1986 prescribed the procedure for selection to this training course through a written test and interview, but it was confined to admission to training, not recruitment to government service.
Over time, the State followed a consistent practice: candidates who completed the course in the government institution were generally appointed as Ayurvedic Staff Nurses, apparently because vacancies exceeded the limited number of trained candidates. This practice created an impression that successful completion of the course would be followed by appointment.
Subsequently, two significant policy changes occurred. First, the State allowed both government and non-government institutions to conduct the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course. Second, recruitment to posts was brought within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC), to be filled through a regular selection process under service rules.
The Respondents in these Appeals were admitted to the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course in the government college (session 2013–14). Clause 9 of this advertisement required candidates, if selected for mandatory government service after training, to execute a bond to serve the State for at least five years, failing which the training expenditure with interest could be recovered. After completing training, the Respondents sought appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurses.
When their representations were rejected in 2019 on the grounds that (i) there were no notified service rules at that time and (ii) appointments would henceforth be made only through UPSSSC after framing of the rules, they approached the High Court. A Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions and the Division Bench in special appeals upheld that decision, holding that the Respondents had a legitimate expectation of appointment based on the long-standing past practice and the employment-bond clause. The State carried the matter to the Supreme Court.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s directions.
First, the Court held that mere admission to or completion of a training course does not, by itself, create a right to appointment. A close reading of the 2013 advertisement showed that Clause 9 only imposed obligations on candidates if they were selected for government service after training. The bond was thus contingent upon selection; it was not an assurance that selection would necessarily follow.
Second, the Court emphasized that the factual and policy matrix had undergone a substantial transformation after 2011–2012. With private institutions being permitted to run the course and the number of trained candidates rising dramatically, it became neither feasible nor lawful to automatically appoint all pass-outs. Simultaneously, the 2014 notification and later the 2021 service rules brought the recruitment process for Ayurvedic Staff Nurses squarely within the institutional framework of UPSSSC and formal rules, displacing any informal past practice.
Third, on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala (Writ Petition (Civil) No 229 of 2017), which clarified that:
• Legitimate expectation is not an independent, enforceable right but an expectation that may be protected only if its denial results in arbitrariness or violation of Article 14.
• To invoke it successfully, a claimant must show both (i) legitimacy of the expectation and (ii) that its denial leads to unequal or arbitrary treatment.
Applying these tests, the Court held that any expectation of automatic appointment was not legitimate once the policy changed, private colleges proliferated and statutory rules and institutional selection by UPSSSC came into play. The earlier practice was situational and could not crystallize into a vested right or binding promise in the changed context.
Further, there was no demonstrable discrimination. No candidate admitted after the 2010–11 session, including any batchmates of the Respondents or later pass-outs, had been directly appointed under the old system. The few appointments in 2015 were limited to pre-2010–11 batches and were made under court orders. Since no similarly situated person from the Respondents’ cohort had been favoured, the plea of hostile discrimination under Article 14 failed.
Conclusion
This Judgment reiterates a settled but often litigated principle in public employment: training or inclusion in a feeder stream does not, by itself, confer a right to appointment, especially in the absence of a clear statutory or contractual guarantee. Past administrative practice, however consistent, cannot override later policy changes, statutory rules or the constitutional requirement of fair, competitive selection when the field shifts from a small, closed pool to a large, open one. This Judgment thus strengthens the proposition that expectations built on informal or historical patterns of appointment must yield to later, rational changes in recruitment policy designed to ensure equality, transparency and merit-based selection in public service.

YASH HARI DIXIT
LEGAL ASSOCIATE
THE INDIAN LAWYER AND ALIED SERVICES
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Child Adoption in India 2026 | Laws, Judgments and Process Explained | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma” can be viewed at the link below: