Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 38
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14250 OF 2025
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19707 OF 2025)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ORS. … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
BHAWANA MISHRA … Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14251 OF 2025
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19708 of 2025)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ORS. … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
ANSHU GAUTAM AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14252 OF 2025
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19709 of 2025)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ORS. … Appellant (s)
Signature Not Verified
VERSUS
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2026.01.08
17:38:42 IST
Reason:
ANKITA MAURYA AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 20
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. This order will dispose of three appeals involving common
questions of law and facts.
2. The State is before this Court impugning the judgment dated
1
17.01.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Special
2
Appeals filed by the State. The same were filed against 3 different orders
3
passed by the Single Bench of the High Court in Writ Petitions filed by
the respondents.
3. For the purpose of consideration of the issues involved, we
are noticing facts from Civil Appeal No. 14250 of 2025 (arising out of
S.L.P.(C) No.19707 of 2025).
4. Taking us through the long history of facts of the case, learned
counsel for the State submitted that vide Government Order dated
12.11.1986, procedure for selection of candidates for Ayurvedic Nursing
Training Course in the State was circulated. The selection procedure was
specified which provided for written examination followed by an interview
and the marks assigned for the same. Tone and tenor of the aforesaid
1
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2
Special Appeal Nos.214 and 257 of 2020 and Special Appeal No.317 of 2021
3
Service Single Nos. 12609 and 33476 of 2019 and Service Single No. 3415 of 2020
Page 2 of 20
order clearly established that the same was meant for selection of the
candidates for the purpose of training for Ayurvedic Nursing Training
Course and not for appointment. This was followed by another
Government Order dated 22.04.2010. Earlier permission was being
granted to continue with the aforesaid course on year-to-year basis.
Realizing the need thereof, it was directed that no fresh permission was
required every year.
4.1 In the aforesaid backdrop, an advertisement was issued on
23.09.2013 inviting applications for admissions to the Ayurvedic Nursing
Training Course for the year 2013-14. The notice clearly suggested that
for the aforesaid session, the admission was for 20 seats in the
Government Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Lucknow. Clause 9 of the
advertisement provided that after completion of training, in case the
government selects any candidate for mandatory service, it shall be
incumbent for the candidate to serve the State at least for a period of 5
years from the date of appointment. The candidates had to submit a bond
stating that after training, in case they are appointed by the State
government, they shall compulsorily serve the State for at least 5 years.
Upon failure to abide by this bond, the entire amount paid during the
training period to the candidate was recoverable along with interest @12%
per annum.
Page 3 of 20
5. A development which had taken place just prior to the
issuance of the aforesaid advertisement, as referred by the learned
counsel for the State, was a notification dated 21.10.2011, specifying that
Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course in Ayurvedic and General Nursing
(Unani Nurses) shall now be conducted by the institutions both in the
government and non-government sectors. The interested institutions were
to seek permission for the same. After due process, 15 institutions were
4
granted permission in the meeting of the Board held on 29.03.2012 to
impart the aforesaid training. The permission was granted in exercise of
powers under the United Provinces [Indian Medicines] Act, 1939.
6. After this permission was granted, even the private institutions
started admitting candidates for the aforesaid course. Consequently. the
number of pass outs were much more than the vacancies and many times
more than those who were earlier getting admission in the government
institution.
7. Reference was made to the communication dated 23.12.2013,
wherein the respondent was called for appearing in the written
examination. Thereafter, vide letter dated 14.02.2024, she was notified
about her selection and was required to appear and complete the
4
Board of Ayurvedic, Unani, and Tibbia, Systems of Medicine, Uttar Pradesh
Page 4 of 20
formalities to be considered for admission in the Ayurvedic Nurses
Training Session 2013-14.
8. Learned counsel have further referred to a notification dated
15.12.2014 issued by the State directing that the selection process for the
post carrying Pay Band-1 (Rs.5200-20200), Grade Pay Rs.1900/- and
above but below Pay Band-2 (Rs.9300-34800), Grade Pay Rs.4600/- shall
come within the purview of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection
5
Commission. Notification further stated that for the posts
aforementioned, the requisitions already forwarded to the Uttar Pradesh
6
Public Service Commission shall continue to be processed and finalized
by the said Commission. For the present and future vacancies, this
exercise shall be undertaken exclusively by the UPSSSC. It was
submitted that at that relevant time there were no service rules notified for
the post in question.
9. Further, the argument raised by learned counsel for the
appellant is that when the respondents passed out, there was a change
in the process of selection. By that time, number of private colleges having
the requisite infrastructure for imparting Ayurvedic Nursing Training
Course were granted permission to start the aforesaid course. The
5
Hereinafter, “UPSSSC”
6
Hereinafter, “UPPSC”
Page 5 of 20
availability of candidates, thus, became more in number. Due selection
process was required to be followed to select the best available
candidates, as compared to the earlier times, when there were only 20
seats in the State for imparting education for the Ayurvedic Nursing
Training Course. It is not denied that earlier, they were being given
appointment.
10. After the respondent completed her training course in the year
2017, it is claimed that she sent a representation to the competent
authority seeking appointment. To expedite the decision thereon, the
7
respondent filed Writ Petition before the High Court, seeking a direction
for her appointment. The same was disposed of on 19.07.2019 permitting
the respondent/petitioner therein, to file a representation before the
respondent No. 2 therein and the same was directed to be decided within
a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order.
After due consideration, the representation made by the
respondent/petitioner therein was rejected by the competent authority
vide order dated 25.09.2019. The basis for the rejection was twofold:
firstly, it was asserted that there were currently no notified service rules
for Ayurvedic Nurses, and the matter of promulgation was under active
consideration by the Government; secondly, reliance was placed on the
7
Service Single No. 19652/2019
Page 6 of 20
notification dated 15.12.2014 , stating that the pay scales for the post of
Ayurvedic Staff Nurse had been revised, which now fall in Pay Band II
(Rs. 9300-34800) with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 . Due to this revised pay
scale, the direct recruitment for this post fell within the purview of the
UPSSSC. The competent authority concluded that a requisition for
appointment could only be forwarded to the UPSSSC subsequent to the
notification of the relevant service rules.
11. Another factor pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant was that no appointments were made to the post of Ayurvedic
Staff Nurses from 15.12.2014 except some appointments given in 2015.
It encompassed candidates who had been admitted to the training course
up to the year 2010-11. This is evident from the letter dated 28.05.2015,
brought on record by the appellant, which refers to an order passed by the
High Court.
12. The aforesaid rejection order dated 25.09.2019 was
8
challenged by the respondent by filing Writ Petition before the High Court.
Definite stand taken by the State before the High Court was that mere
admission in the course did not give any right of appointment. There was
a change in policy. Permission had been granted to number of private
colleges to impart training in that course. The availability of candidates for
8
Service Single No. 33476/2019
Page 7 of 20
appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse was more. Hence, due
process of selection was required to be followed. Further, the post was
now required to be filled up by the UPSSSC.
13. The aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court.
Reference was made to the letter dated 28.05.2015 placed on record,
which showed the relevant policy being followed for the previous batches
and it further indicated that certain appointments had been made in the
same manner even after the issuance of the government order dated
15.12.2014.
9
14. The State preferred intra-court appeal. The same was
dismissed vide the impugned order. The opinion of the High Court was
that the case of the respondent falls within the principles of legitimate
expectation as the erstwhile policy, which was in accordance with
Government Order dated 12.11.1986, had been followed for number of
years. The candidates who were admitted in the course were being
appointed immediately after completion of their training.
15. In the aforesaid factual matrix, learned counsel for the
appellant argued that the government order issued on 12.11.1986 only
provided a selection procedure for Ayurvedic Nursing Training course for
the academic session commencing from 1986. The permission was only
9
Special Appeal No. 214/2020
Page 8 of 20
for imparting training. The condition in the advertisement regarding the
five-year bond was only in case of selection for the post of Ayurvedic
Nurse Staff but that did not entitle them for appointment. The condition of
bond was applicable only for those who were selected and appointed.
Earlier appointments were being given to all the candidates who passed
the course of Ayurvedic Nursing Training as there were only 20 seats.
Whereas after permission was granted to 15 private colleges to conduct
the Ayurvedic Nursing Training, the number of available candidates
increased manifold and proper process of selection was required to be
followed to select the most competent candidates for the purpose of
appointment. The issue of legitimate expectation will not be applicable in
the case in hand as the process of selection changed later on. As opposed
to the earlier regime, the selection was now required to be undertaken by
the UPSSSC for the most suitable candidates. The appointments given in
May 2015 were due to an order passed by the High Court in a Writ Petition
and that will not give a right of appointment to the respondents. There may
be few candidates before this court, however, there are number of
petitions pending on the same issue in the High Court. Much water has
flown after such candidates have passed out. They can very well compete,
whenever the process of selection is notified, subject to their eligibility and
thereafter, the meritorious candidates shall be selected.
Page 9 of 20
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that from the year 1972 till 2015, the process followed by the
State was that whosoever got admission in the course was given
appointment as an Ayurvedic Staff Nurse. The bond was required to be
furnished at the time of the admission of the course itself. The
respondents had passed out from a government institution and not from a
private college. The language used in the advertisement issued for
admission in a private college was different as it clearly specified that
admission will not bind the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbi System of
Medicine to offer government service to the trained candidates. Such a
clause was missing in the advertisement issued in the present case at the
time when the respondent had got admission. The respondent certainly
had legitimate expectation at the time of admission in the course as the
same system was being followed for decades. Only after seeing those
batches, the respondent thought of choosing this career. Even the
notification issued by the government on 15.12.2014 will not take away
the right of the respondent. In fact, there was no change in the policy after
the government order dated 20.11.2011. It is only that some private
colleges were also granted permission to impart training of Ayurvedic
Nursing course. The process of selection remained the same. In fact, the
appointments made in the year 2015 even after the notification of
Page 10 of 20
15.12.2014 clearly show that, the State was still continuing with the old
process. The original policy remained the same even at the time of
rejection of the representation of the respondent, regardless of the fact
that certain private colleges had been granted permission to impart
training for Ayurvedic Nursing course. The batches admitted up to 2013-
14 prior to the notification dated 15.12.2014, certainly have right of
legitimate expectation. He further referred to a communication of the
government dated 29.02.1968 to submit that the trainees undergoing the
training of Ayurvedic/Unani Nurses will be treated as on duty under the
Fundamental Rule 9(6)(b) of the financial hand book Volume II Part II and
they were to be paid travel allowances. In support of the argument,
reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in N. Suresh Nathan
10
and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.
17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant referred record.
18. Though the facts have been noticed in detail in the previous
paras, still briefly, we reiterate the same. These may be relevant for
consideration of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the
parties. From 1986 onwards, till certain private institutions were granted
10
1992 Supp (1) SCC 584
Page 11 of 20
permission to impart training of Ayurvedic Nursing Course, the same was
11
being conducted only by government institution with intake of 20
students. At that time, the vacancies may have been more, so those were
filled with the available candidates, who were given appointments. With
the change in the policy vide notification dated 21.10.2011 even the
private institutions were permitted to impart education for the aforesaid
course. As a result, the number of pass outs increased. The first batch
which passed out from the private college was in the year 2016. No doubt,
the respondent had passed out from a government institution. However,
the fact remains that when she passed out in the year 2017, there was a
change in the policy. The selection to the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse
was to be made by the UPSSSC.
19. The issue arises as to whether mere admission in a course,
right is conferred for appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse. A
perusal of the advertisement inviting application for the course of
Ayurvedic Nursing Training, shows that no such promise had been made.
Rather, Clause 9 in the advertisement clearly stated that a candidate who
is finally selected for the mandatory service-training by the State
Government, shall have to execute a bond in the favour of the
11
Government Ayurvedic College and Hospital, located on Tulsidas Marg (also referred to as Turiyaganj)
in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
Page 12 of 20
government. It stipulated that only in case the candidate is appointed after
training, he/she shall compulsorily serve the government for at least 5
years. It is not that the bond was applicable for all the candidates. It was
only meant for the candidate selected for the government service.
20. It is on record that the respondents in the present appeals
passed out from government institutions between 2015-19. When the
permission for imparting Ayurvedic Staff Nurse Training Course was
initially granted in the year 2012, only 15 private colleges had started the
course. However, as stated by the appellants in their appeals before the
High Court, with the passage of time, precisely, by the year 2019-20,
nearly 311 institutions were conducting Ayurvedic Nursing Training
Course. Thus, the number of pass outs had far outnumbered the available
vacancies. As a result, it was impossible to recruit all the pass outs.
Besides, appointing candidates passing out of government institutions
and not offering the same to the candidates passing out of private
institutions would have led to discrimination.
21. It may be far-fetched to apply the principle of legitimate
expectation to the case in hand as there was a change in policy and
scheme of government. The 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
Page 13 of 20
way of government order dated 21.10.2011. As noted above, the
candidates pursuing the aforesaid course had grown exponentially and all
such candidates could not be recruited after training due to limited
vacancies. Further, the respondent-candidates have failed to identify any
specific clause in the advertisements for admission to the course that
guarantees a 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. Further, it is pertinent to note that the notice for
admission for 20 seats in the Ayurvedic Nursing Training course was
issued by the government college itself whereas for a private institution,
the notice was issued by the Board.
22. It is the definite case of the State that no appointments were
made as per the old system when the State was offering appointments to
the candidates who had passed out from the government institution. After
the issuance of notification dated 15.12.2014, except for few
appointments in the year 2015, no appointments were made. It was on
account of order of Court. Those were also of the students who were
admitted upto the session 2010-11, which is prior to issuance of
notification dated 15.12.2014 as well as granting of permission to private
Page 14 of 20
institutions to impart training of the Ayurvedic Nursing course. Thereafter,
the selections were made only by the UPSSSC as service rules for the
post in question had also been notified vide the Uttar Pradesh Ayush
Department (Ayurved) Nursing Service Rules, 2021, which came into
force w.e.f. 18.11.2021.
23. As far as the judgment of
N. Suresh Nathan case (supra),
relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent, is concerned, the same
deals with an issue where a long-standing practice of construction of
service rules was sought to be upset. The issue considered in the
aforesaid judgment is summed up in paragraph 2 thereof, which is
extracted below:
“2. The dispute in the present case is whether a
Diploma- holder Junior Engineer who obtains a Degree while
in service becomes eligible for appointment as Assistant
Engineer by promotion on completion of three years' service
including therein the period of service prior to obtaining the
Degree or the three years' service as a Degree-holder for this
purpose is to be reckoned from the date he obtains the
Degree. The Diploma-holders contend that they are entitled
to include the earlier period and would be eligible for
promotion in this category on obtaining the Degree if the total
period of service is three years inclusive of the earlier period.
The Degreeholders contest this position and contend to the
contrary. According to the Degree-holders, these are two
Page 15 of 20
distinct categories. In the first category are Degree-holders
with three years' service in the grade as Degree-holders, the
period of three years being subsequent to the date of
obtaining the Degree as in the case of the Junior Engineers
who join the service with a Degree; and the other category is
of Diploma-holders with six years' experience.”
24. It was finally opined that the relevant recruitment rules must
be interpreted to mean that the three years of service required in the grade
of degree-holder is to be reckoned only from the date of obtaining the
degree, as the department had consistently followed the practice of
counting the three-year period only from the date the degree was
obtained. The Court concluded that since this interpretation was legally
tenable and supported by consistent past practice, it would be
inappropriate to unsettle it.
25. The doctrine of legitimate expectation under the Indian Law
was recently considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in
12
Sivanandan C T and Others vs. High Court of Kerala and Others .
While referring to various judgments of this Court, in paragraphs 43 and
44 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court opined as under:
“43. The underlying basis for the application of the
doctrine of legitimate expectation has expanded and evolved
12
2023 INSC 709
Page 16 of 20
to include the principles of good administration. Since
citizens repose their trust in the state, the actions and policies
of the state give rise to legitimate expectations that the state
will adhere to its assurance or past practice by acting in a
consistent, transparent, and predictable manner. The
principles of good administration require that the decisions of
public authorities must withstand the test of consistency,
transparency, and predictability to avoid being regarded as
arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14.
44. From the above discussion, it is evident that the
doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation is entrenched
in Indian administrative law subject to the limitations on its
applicability in given factual situations. The development of
Indian jurisprudence is keeping in line with the developments
in the common law. The doctrine of substantive legitimate
expectation can be successfully invoked by individuals to
claim substantive benefits or entitlements based on an
existing promise or practice of a public authority. However, it
is important to clarify that the doctrine of legitimate
expectation cannot serve as an independent basis for judicial
review of decisions taken by public authorities. Such a
limitation is now well recognized in Indian jurisprudence
considering the fact that a legitimate expectation is not a legal
right. It is merely an expectation to avail a benefit or relief
based on an existing promise or practice. Although the
decision by a public authority to deny legitimate expectation
may be termed as arbitrary, unfair, or abuse of power, the
Page 17 of 20
validity of the decision itself can only be questioned on
established principles of equality and non-arbitrariness under
Article 14. In a nutshell, an individual who claims a benefit or
entitlement based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation
has to establish: (i) the legitimacy of the expectation; and (ii)
that the denial of the legitimate expectation led to the violation
of Article 14.”
26. Two tests have been laid down, one being the legitimacy of
the expectation and second being denial of legitimate expectation that led
to violation of Article 14. When the facts of the case are examined in the
light of the enunciation of law in the aforesaid judgment of the Constitution
Bench of this Court, may be, at the cost of petition, we need to add that in
the case in hand, the 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. However,
subsequently there was change in the policy as number of private
institutions were permitted to impart education for the Ayurvedic Nursing
Training Course. It is also on record that there were no appointments
made by following the earlier system available after 15.12.2014, except
few as is evident the letter dated 28.05.2015. It is evident therefrom that
Page 18 of 20
only the candidates who were admitted till the year 2010-11 were given
appointment and that too due to Court order. The private colleges were
permitted to impart education thereafter.
27. Statutory rules governing the post had not been framed
earlier, and the same came to be framed in the year 2021. There was
change in the process of selection as well, namely, earlier the selection
was being made by UPPSC, now it was being made by UPSSSC. Further,
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 where only
20 seats in the government institution were there. The 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.
There is no violation of Article 14 as, in the facts of this case, it cannot be
opined that there was any discrimination against the respondents or that
the action of the State was arbitrary. The essence of discrimination is the
unequal treatment of equals; however, the State has 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 batch in 2016, were given direct appointments, there is no
Page 19 of 20
instance of a similarly situated person being treated preferentially. The
respondent has failed to point out a single candidate from her own batch
or subsequent batches who was directly appointed by the State, thereby
rendering the plea of discrimination factually and legally unsustainable.
28. For the reasons mentioned above, in our view, the 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 and is set aside. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed,
while setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.
29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
……………….……………..J.
(MANMOHAN)
New Delhi;
January 08, 2026.
Page 20 of 20
2026 INSC 38
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14250 OF 2025
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19707 OF 2025)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ORS. … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
BHAWANA MISHRA … Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14251 OF 2025
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19708 of 2025)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ORS. … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
ANSHU GAUTAM AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14252 OF 2025
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19709 of 2025)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ORS. … Appellant (s)
Signature Not Verified
VERSUS
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2026.01.08
17:38:42 IST
Reason:
ANKITA MAURYA AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 20
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. This order will dispose of three appeals involving common
questions of law and facts.
2. The State is before this Court impugning the judgment dated
1
17.01.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Special
2
Appeals filed by the State. The same were filed against 3 different orders
3
passed by the Single Bench of the High Court in Writ Petitions filed by
the respondents.
3. For the purpose of consideration of the issues involved, we
are noticing facts from Civil Appeal No. 14250 of 2025 (arising out of
S.L.P.(C) No.19707 of 2025).
4. Taking us through the long history of facts of the case, learned
counsel for the State submitted that vide Government Order dated
12.11.1986, procedure for selection of candidates for Ayurvedic Nursing
Training Course in the State was circulated. The selection procedure was
specified which provided for written examination followed by an interview
and the marks assigned for the same. Tone and tenor of the aforesaid
1
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2
Special Appeal Nos.214 and 257 of 2020 and Special Appeal No.317 of 2021
3
Service Single Nos. 12609 and 33476 of 2019 and Service Single No. 3415 of 2020
Page 2 of 20
order clearly established that the same was meant for selection of the
candidates for the purpose of training for Ayurvedic Nursing Training
Course and not for appointment. This was followed by another
Government Order dated 22.04.2010. Earlier permission was being
granted to continue with the aforesaid course on year-to-year basis.
Realizing the need thereof, it was directed that no fresh permission was
required every year.
4.1 In the aforesaid backdrop, an advertisement was issued on
23.09.2013 inviting applications for admissions to the Ayurvedic Nursing
Training Course for the year 2013-14. The notice clearly suggested that
for the aforesaid session, the admission was for 20 seats in the
Government Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Lucknow. Clause 9 of the
advertisement provided that after completion of training, in case the
government selects any candidate for mandatory service, it shall be
incumbent for the candidate to serve the State at least for a period of 5
years from the date of appointment. The candidates had to submit a bond
stating that after training, in case they are appointed by the State
government, they shall compulsorily serve the State for at least 5 years.
Upon failure to abide by this bond, the entire amount paid during the
training period to the candidate was recoverable along with interest @12%
per annum.
Page 3 of 20
5. A development which had taken place just prior to the
issuance of the aforesaid advertisement, as referred by the learned
counsel for the State, was a notification dated 21.10.2011, specifying that
Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course in Ayurvedic and General Nursing
(Unani Nurses) shall now be conducted by the institutions both in the
government and non-government sectors. The interested institutions were
to seek permission for the same. After due process, 15 institutions were
4
granted permission in the meeting of the Board held on 29.03.2012 to
impart the aforesaid training. The permission was granted in exercise of
powers under the United Provinces [Indian Medicines] Act, 1939.
6. After this permission was granted, even the private institutions
started admitting candidates for the aforesaid course. Consequently. the
number of pass outs were much more than the vacancies and many times
more than those who were earlier getting admission in the government
institution.
7. Reference was made to the communication dated 23.12.2013,
wherein the respondent was called for appearing in the written
examination. Thereafter, vide letter dated 14.02.2024, she was notified
about her selection and was required to appear and complete the
4
Board of Ayurvedic, Unani, and Tibbia, Systems of Medicine, Uttar Pradesh
Page 4 of 20
formalities to be considered for admission in the Ayurvedic Nurses
Training Session 2013-14.
8. Learned counsel have further referred to a notification dated
15.12.2014 issued by the State directing that the selection process for the
post carrying Pay Band-1 (Rs.5200-20200), Grade Pay Rs.1900/- and
above but below Pay Band-2 (Rs.9300-34800), Grade Pay Rs.4600/- shall
come within the purview of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection
5
Commission. Notification further stated that for the posts
aforementioned, the requisitions already forwarded to the Uttar Pradesh
6
Public Service Commission shall continue to be processed and finalized
by the said Commission. For the present and future vacancies, this
exercise shall be undertaken exclusively by the UPSSSC. It was
submitted that at that relevant time there were no service rules notified for
the post in question.
9. Further, the argument raised by learned counsel for the
appellant is that when the respondents passed out, there was a change
in the process of selection. By that time, number of private colleges having
the requisite infrastructure for imparting Ayurvedic Nursing Training
Course were granted permission to start the aforesaid course. The
5
Hereinafter, “UPSSSC”
6
Hereinafter, “UPPSC”
Page 5 of 20
availability of candidates, thus, became more in number. Due selection
process was required to be followed to select the best available
candidates, as compared to the earlier times, when there were only 20
seats in the State for imparting education for the Ayurvedic Nursing
Training Course. It is not denied that earlier, they were being given
appointment.
10. After the respondent completed her training course in the year
2017, it is claimed that she sent a representation to the competent
authority seeking appointment. To expedite the decision thereon, the
7
respondent filed Writ Petition before the High Court, seeking a direction
for her appointment. The same was disposed of on 19.07.2019 permitting
the respondent/petitioner therein, to file a representation before the
respondent No. 2 therein and the same was directed to be decided within
a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order.
After due consideration, the representation made by the
respondent/petitioner therein was rejected by the competent authority
vide order dated 25.09.2019. The basis for the rejection was twofold:
firstly, it was asserted that there were currently no notified service rules
for Ayurvedic Nurses, and the matter of promulgation was under active
consideration by the Government; secondly, reliance was placed on the
7
Service Single No. 19652/2019
Page 6 of 20
notification dated 15.12.2014 , stating that the pay scales for the post of
Ayurvedic Staff Nurse had been revised, which now fall in Pay Band II
(Rs. 9300-34800) with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 . Due to this revised pay
scale, the direct recruitment for this post fell within the purview of the
UPSSSC. The competent authority concluded that a requisition for
appointment could only be forwarded to the UPSSSC subsequent to the
notification of the relevant service rules.
11. Another factor pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant was that no appointments were made to the post of Ayurvedic
Staff Nurses from 15.12.2014 except some appointments given in 2015.
It encompassed candidates who had been admitted to the training course
up to the year 2010-11. This is evident from the letter dated 28.05.2015,
brought on record by the appellant, which refers to an order passed by the
High Court.
12. The aforesaid rejection order dated 25.09.2019 was
8
challenged by the respondent by filing Writ Petition before the High Court.
Definite stand taken by the State before the High Court was that mere
admission in the course did not give any right of appointment. There was
a change in policy. Permission had been granted to number of private
colleges to impart training in that course. The availability of candidates for
8
Service Single No. 33476/2019
Page 7 of 20
appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse was more. Hence, due
process of selection was required to be followed. Further, the post was
now required to be filled up by the UPSSSC.
13. The aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court.
Reference was made to the letter dated 28.05.2015 placed on record,
which showed the relevant policy being followed for the previous batches
and it further indicated that certain appointments had been made in the
same manner even after the issuance of the government order dated
15.12.2014.
9
14. The State preferred intra-court appeal. The same was
dismissed vide the impugned order. The opinion of the High Court was
that the case of the respondent falls within the principles of legitimate
expectation as the erstwhile policy, which was in accordance with
Government Order dated 12.11.1986, had been followed for number of
years. The candidates who were admitted in the course were being
appointed immediately after completion of their training.
15. In the aforesaid factual matrix, learned counsel for the
appellant argued that the government order issued on 12.11.1986 only
provided a selection procedure for Ayurvedic Nursing Training course for
the academic session commencing from 1986. The permission was only
9
Special Appeal No. 214/2020
Page 8 of 20
for imparting training. The condition in the advertisement regarding the
five-year bond was only in case of selection for the post of Ayurvedic
Nurse Staff but that did not entitle them for appointment. The condition of
bond was applicable only for those who were selected and appointed.
Earlier appointments were being given to all the candidates who passed
the course of Ayurvedic Nursing Training as there were only 20 seats.
Whereas after permission was granted to 15 private colleges to conduct
the Ayurvedic Nursing Training, the number of available candidates
increased manifold and proper process of selection was required to be
followed to select the most competent candidates for the purpose of
appointment. The issue of legitimate expectation will not be applicable in
the case in hand as the process of selection changed later on. As opposed
to the earlier regime, the selection was now required to be undertaken by
the UPSSSC for the most suitable candidates. The appointments given in
May 2015 were due to an order passed by the High Court in a Writ Petition
and that will not give a right of appointment to the respondents. There may
be few candidates before this court, however, there are number of
petitions pending on the same issue in the High Court. Much water has
flown after such candidates have passed out. They can very well compete,
whenever the process of selection is notified, subject to their eligibility and
thereafter, the meritorious candidates shall be selected.
Page 9 of 20
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that from the year 1972 till 2015, the process followed by the
State was that whosoever got admission in the course was given
appointment as an Ayurvedic Staff Nurse. The bond was required to be
furnished at the time of the admission of the course itself. The
respondents had passed out from a government institution and not from a
private college. The language used in the advertisement issued for
admission in a private college was different as it clearly specified that
admission will not bind the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbi System of
Medicine to offer government service to the trained candidates. Such a
clause was missing in the advertisement issued in the present case at the
time when the respondent had got admission. The respondent certainly
had legitimate expectation at the time of admission in the course as the
same system was being followed for decades. Only after seeing those
batches, the respondent thought of choosing this career. Even the
notification issued by the government on 15.12.2014 will not take away
the right of the respondent. In fact, there was no change in the policy after
the government order dated 20.11.2011. It is only that some private
colleges were also granted permission to impart training of Ayurvedic
Nursing course. The process of selection remained the same. In fact, the
appointments made in the year 2015 even after the notification of
Page 10 of 20
15.12.2014 clearly show that, the State was still continuing with the old
process. The original policy remained the same even at the time of
rejection of the representation of the respondent, regardless of the fact
that certain private colleges had been granted permission to impart
training for Ayurvedic Nursing course. The batches admitted up to 2013-
14 prior to the notification dated 15.12.2014, certainly have right of
legitimate expectation. He further referred to a communication of the
government dated 29.02.1968 to submit that the trainees undergoing the
training of Ayurvedic/Unani Nurses will be treated as on duty under the
Fundamental Rule 9(6)(b) of the financial hand book Volume II Part II and
they were to be paid travel allowances. In support of the argument,
reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in N. Suresh Nathan
10
and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.
17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant referred record.
18. Though the facts have been noticed in detail in the previous
paras, still briefly, we reiterate the same. These may be relevant for
consideration of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the
parties. From 1986 onwards, till certain private institutions were granted
10
1992 Supp (1) SCC 584
Page 11 of 20
permission to impart training of Ayurvedic Nursing Course, the same was
11
being conducted only by government institution with intake of 20
students. At that time, the vacancies may have been more, so those were
filled with the available candidates, who were given appointments. With
the change in the policy vide notification dated 21.10.2011 even the
private institutions were permitted to impart education for the aforesaid
course. As a result, the number of pass outs increased. The first batch
which passed out from the private college was in the year 2016. No doubt,
the respondent had passed out from a government institution. However,
the fact remains that when she passed out in the year 2017, there was a
change in the policy. The selection to the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse
was to be made by the UPSSSC.
19. The issue arises as to whether mere admission in a course,
right is conferred for appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse. A
perusal of the advertisement inviting application for the course of
Ayurvedic Nursing Training, shows that no such promise had been made.
Rather, Clause 9 in the advertisement clearly stated that a candidate who
is finally selected for the mandatory service-training by the State
Government, shall have to execute a bond in the favour of the
11
Government Ayurvedic College and Hospital, located on Tulsidas Marg (also referred to as Turiyaganj)
in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
Page 12 of 20
government. It stipulated that only in case the candidate is appointed after
training, he/she shall compulsorily serve the government for at least 5
years. It is not that the bond was applicable for all the candidates. It was
only meant for the candidate selected for the government service.
20. It is on record that the respondents in the present appeals
passed out from government institutions between 2015-19. When the
permission for imparting Ayurvedic Staff Nurse Training Course was
initially granted in the year 2012, only 15 private colleges had started the
course. However, as stated by the appellants in their appeals before the
High Court, with the passage of time, precisely, by the year 2019-20,
nearly 311 institutions were conducting Ayurvedic Nursing Training
Course. Thus, the number of pass outs had far outnumbered the available
vacancies. As a result, it was impossible to recruit all the pass outs.
Besides, appointing candidates passing out of government institutions
and not offering the same to the candidates passing out of private
institutions would have led to discrimination.
21. It may be far-fetched to apply the principle of legitimate
expectation to the case in hand as there was a change in policy and
scheme of government. The 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
Page 13 of 20
way of government order dated 21.10.2011. As noted above, the
candidates pursuing the aforesaid course had grown exponentially and all
such candidates could not be recruited after training due to limited
vacancies. Further, the respondent-candidates have failed to identify any
specific clause in the advertisements for admission to the course that
guarantees a 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. Further, it is pertinent to note that the notice for
admission for 20 seats in the Ayurvedic Nursing Training course was
issued by the government college itself whereas for a private institution,
the notice was issued by the Board.
22. It is the definite case of the State that no appointments were
made as per the old system when the State was offering appointments to
the candidates who had passed out from the government institution. After
the issuance of notification dated 15.12.2014, except for few
appointments in the year 2015, no appointments were made. It was on
account of order of Court. Those were also of the students who were
admitted upto the session 2010-11, which is prior to issuance of
notification dated 15.12.2014 as well as granting of permission to private
Page 14 of 20
institutions to impart training of the Ayurvedic Nursing course. Thereafter,
the selections were made only by the UPSSSC as service rules for the
post in question had also been notified vide the Uttar Pradesh Ayush
Department (Ayurved) Nursing Service Rules, 2021, which came into
force w.e.f. 18.11.2021.
23. As far as the judgment of
N. Suresh Nathan case (supra),
relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent, is concerned, the same
deals with an issue where a long-standing practice of construction of
service rules was sought to be upset. The issue considered in the
aforesaid judgment is summed up in paragraph 2 thereof, which is
extracted below:
“2. The dispute in the present case is whether a
Diploma- holder Junior Engineer who obtains a Degree while
in service becomes eligible for appointment as Assistant
Engineer by promotion on completion of three years' service
including therein the period of service prior to obtaining the
Degree or the three years' service as a Degree-holder for this
purpose is to be reckoned from the date he obtains the
Degree. The Diploma-holders contend that they are entitled
to include the earlier period and would be eligible for
promotion in this category on obtaining the Degree if the total
period of service is three years inclusive of the earlier period.
The Degreeholders contest this position and contend to the
contrary. According to the Degree-holders, these are two
Page 15 of 20
distinct categories. In the first category are Degree-holders
with three years' service in the grade as Degree-holders, the
period of three years being subsequent to the date of
obtaining the Degree as in the case of the Junior Engineers
who join the service with a Degree; and the other category is
of Diploma-holders with six years' experience.”
24. It was finally opined that the relevant recruitment rules must
be interpreted to mean that the three years of service required in the grade
of degree-holder is to be reckoned only from the date of obtaining the
degree, as the department had consistently followed the practice of
counting the three-year period only from the date the degree was
obtained. The Court concluded that since this interpretation was legally
tenable and supported by consistent past practice, it would be
inappropriate to unsettle it.
25. The doctrine of legitimate expectation under the Indian Law
was recently considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in
12
Sivanandan C T and Others vs. High Court of Kerala and Others .
While referring to various judgments of this Court, in paragraphs 43 and
44 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court opined as under:
“43. The underlying basis for the application of the
doctrine of legitimate expectation has expanded and evolved
12
2023 INSC 709
Page 16 of 20
to include the principles of good administration. Since
citizens repose their trust in the state, the actions and policies
of the state give rise to legitimate expectations that the state
will adhere to its assurance or past practice by acting in a
consistent, transparent, and predictable manner. The
principles of good administration require that the decisions of
public authorities must withstand the test of consistency,
transparency, and predictability to avoid being regarded as
arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14.
44. From the above discussion, it is evident that the
doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation is entrenched
in Indian administrative law subject to the limitations on its
applicability in given factual situations. The development of
Indian jurisprudence is keeping in line with the developments
in the common law. The doctrine of substantive legitimate
expectation can be successfully invoked by individuals to
claim substantive benefits or entitlements based on an
existing promise or practice of a public authority. However, it
is important to clarify that the doctrine of legitimate
expectation cannot serve as an independent basis for judicial
review of decisions taken by public authorities. Such a
limitation is now well recognized in Indian jurisprudence
considering the fact that a legitimate expectation is not a legal
right. It is merely an expectation to avail a benefit or relief
based on an existing promise or practice. Although the
decision by a public authority to deny legitimate expectation
may be termed as arbitrary, unfair, or abuse of power, the
Page 17 of 20
validity of the decision itself can only be questioned on
established principles of equality and non-arbitrariness under
Article 14. In a nutshell, an individual who claims a benefit or
entitlement based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation
has to establish: (i) the legitimacy of the expectation; and (ii)
that the denial of the legitimate expectation led to the violation
of Article 14.”
26. Two tests have been laid down, one being the legitimacy of
the expectation and second being denial of legitimate expectation that led
to violation of Article 14. When the facts of the case are examined in the
light of the enunciation of law in the aforesaid judgment of the Constitution
Bench of this Court, may be, at the cost of petition, we need to add that in
the case in hand, the 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. However,
subsequently there was change in the policy as number of private
institutions were permitted to impart education for the Ayurvedic Nursing
Training Course. It is also on record that there were no appointments
made by following the earlier system available after 15.12.2014, except
few as is evident the letter dated 28.05.2015. It is evident therefrom that
Page 18 of 20
only the candidates who were admitted till the year 2010-11 were given
appointment and that too due to Court order. The private colleges were
permitted to impart education thereafter.
27. Statutory rules governing the post had not been framed
earlier, and the same came to be framed in the year 2021. There was
change in the process of selection as well, namely, earlier the selection
was being made by UPPSC, now it was being made by UPSSSC. Further,
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 where only
20 seats in the government institution were there. The 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.
There is no violation of Article 14 as, in the facts of this case, it cannot be
opined that there was any discrimination against the respondents or that
the action of the State was arbitrary. The essence of discrimination is the
unequal treatment of equals; however, the State has 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 batch in 2016, were given direct appointments, there is no
Page 19 of 20
instance of a similarly situated person being treated preferentially. The
respondent has failed to point out a single candidate from her own batch
or subsequent batches who was directly appointed by the State, thereby
rendering the plea of discrimination factually and legally unsustainable.
28. For the reasons mentioned above, in our view, the 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 and is set aside. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed,
while setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.
29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
……………….……………..J.
(MANMOHAN)
New Delhi;
January 08, 2026.
Page 20 of 20