State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Bhawana Mishra

2026 INSC 38 REPORTABLE

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

Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2026.01.08 VERSUS 17:38:42 IST

ANKITA MAURYA AND ORS. … Respondent(s) Reason:

Page 1 of 20 JUDGMENT

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

17.01.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court1 in Special

Appeals2 filed by the State. The same were filed against 3 different orders

passed by the Single Bench of the High Court in Writ Petitions 3 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

granted permission in the meeting of the Board4 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

Commission. 5 Notification further stated that for the posts

aforementioned, the requisitions already forwarded to the Uttar Pradesh

Public Service Commission 6 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

respondent filed Writ Petition7 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

challenged by the respondent by filing Writ Petition8 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.

14. The State preferred intra-court appeal.9 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

and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.10

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

being conducted only by government institution 11 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

Sivanandan C T and Others vs. High Court of Kerala and Others12.

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