Summary
Candidates who completed the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course from a government institution in Uttar Pradesh claimed direct appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurses, relying on the State's past practice of appointing every pass-out. The Court held that admission to the course conferred no right to appointment, the doctrine of legitimate expectation did not apply after the policy changed (private institutions admitted, selection moved to UPSSSC, rules framed in 2021), and there was no discrimination under Article 14; the High Court's directions were set aside.
Issues
- Whether admission to and completion of the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course in a government institution conferred a right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse.
- Whether the respondents could invoke legitimate expectation based on the State's earlier practice of appointing all pass-outs.
- Whether denial of direct appointment was arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 14.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaApplying the Constitution Bench test that a claimant must show both a legitimate expectation and that its denial violated Article 14, the Court found no arbitrariness or discrimination, since no candidate admitted after the 2010-11 session, including the respondents' batchmates, had been directly appointed. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27)
- Rules generally, Uttar Pradesh Ayush Department (Ayurved) Nursing Service Rules, 2021The Court noted that service rules for the post were framed only in 2021, after which selections were made only by the UPSSSC, as part of the change in the selection regime that defeated the claim to direct appointment. (¶¶ 22, 27)
Held
- Mere admission to the training course does not confer a right to appointment. The advertisement made no such promise; its bond clause bound only candidates actually selected and appointed to government service to serve for five years, and the absence of an express disclaimer in the government college advertisement does not imply a right to appointment. (¶¶ 19, 21)
- The past practice of appointing all pass-outs arose when only one government institution with 20 seats ran the course; once private institutions were permitted to run it (about 311 by 2019-20), pass-outs far exceeded vacancies, and appointing only government-institution candidates would itself have been discriminatory. (¶¶ 18, 20, 26)
- Legitimate expectation is not a legal right; a claimant must establish the legitimacy of the expectation and that its denial violated Article 14. Given the substantial change in policy and in the selection process, the doctrine could not be applied. (¶¶ 21, 25, 26)
- Where vacancies are limited, the normal rule is a selection process to choose the best candidates; the State showed that no candidate admitted after 2010-11 was directly appointed (the few 2015 appointments were of earlier batches under a court order), so the respondents could point to no similarly situated person treated preferentially and the plea of discrimination failed. (¶¶ 22, 26, 27)
- N. Suresh Nathan, which declined to unsettle a long-standing practice in construing recruitment rules, was distinguishable. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's judgment directing the State to consider the respondents for appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurses set aside; pending applications disposed of.