Contractual appointment against regular advertisement without recorded reasons is discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 16.

In January 2013, IIIT-Allahabad (Respondent No. 2) issued an advertisement (FS-01/2013) for regular appointments to the post of Assistant Professor.

The Appellant, possessing a PhD and First-Class MS degree, applied and was interviewed on March 18, 2013.

Although the advertisement was for regular vacancies, Respondent No. 3 issued the Appellant a contractual appointment letter for 12 months on April 6, 2013.

Out of thirteen candidates selected, only the Appellant and one other were offered contractual terms instead of regular positions, with no reasons recorded for this distinction.

Following a series of litigations and a 2017 Supreme Court remand for reconsideration, the Institute reiterated the contractual offer on June 27, 2017.

The Appellant challenged this before the High Court of Allahabad, which dismissed his petition and subsequent appeal on the grounds of acquiescence and the discretionary powers of the Selection Committee.

1. Whether a Selection Committee can arbitrarily grant a contractual appointment to a qualified candidate selected through a process specifically initiated for regular vacancies.

2. Whether the Appellant's acceptance of a contractual appointment under economic pressure operates as an estoppel (acquiescence) against challenging the legality of the selection procedure.

3. Whether the differential treatment of the Appellant vis-à-vis other regularly appointed candidates violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Court primarily applied the constitutional mandates of Articles 14 and 16, which ensure equality of opportunity in public employment and prohibit arbitrary state action.

It relied on the principle that while judicial review of a Selection Committee's merit assessment is limited, the process must remain non-discriminatory and transparent.

Statement on the doctrine that "singular treatment" or denial of regular status without recorded reasons constitutes patent illegality, and that economic compulsion may mitigate the rigor of estoppel by conduct in employment disputes.

The Court reasoned that the recruitment process was explicitly for regular positions in Pay Band-III and IV, making no mention of contractual posts.

It found that the Appellant was shortlisted and interviewed through the same rigorous process as those given regular appointments.

The Court observed that if the Appellant was deemed unsuitable for regular appointment, he should not have been recommended at all; his recommendation for a contract role without any recorded justification indicated arbitrary and unequal treatment.

The Court rejected the Respondents’ argument regarding the finality of the Selection Committee’s discretion, noting that even a liberal approach to institutional primacy cannot justify the denial of a regular post to a fully qualified candidate when vacancies exist.

It further held that the lower courts were "excessively swayed" by the Appellant’s conduct in accepting the contract, overlooking the "patent illegalities" and "economic compulsion" that often govern such acceptances.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and directing Respondent No. 2 to issue a regular appointment letter within four weeks, granting continuity of service for seniority purposes while denying back-wages.