The Supreme Court held that mere admission to or completion of the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course did not confer an enforceable right to appointment as an Ayurvedic Staff Nurse under the State Government, setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s directions that had ordered consideration of such appointments.
Allowing a batch of appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan ruled that the principle of legitimate expectation could not be invoked in favour of candidates who completed the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course after a significant change in policy and selection framework.
The case arose from writ petitions filed by candidates who had completed the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course conducted by government institutions in Uttar Pradesh. Historically, when the course was conducted only by a single government institution with limited intake, candidates were often appointed as Ayurvedic Staff Nurses upon completion of training.
In 2011-2012, the State permitted private institutions to conduct the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course, leading to a sharp increase in the number of trained candidates. Subsequently, the recruitment process for Ayurvedic Staff Nurses underwent a structural change, with selection being brought under the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC), and service rules being notified only in 2021.
Despite this, the High Court had accepted the candidates’ plea of legitimate expectation and directed the State to consider them for appointment, relying on past practice.
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s approach, holding that “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.”
The Bench observed that once private institutions were permitted to conduct the course, the number of trained candidates far exceeded the available vacancies, making it impossible to appoint all pass-outs without a proper selection process. Granting appointments only to candidates from government institutions would also result in discrimination against similarly qualified candidates from private institutions.
The Court observed that there had been a clear change in policy, recruitment mechanism, and factual circumstances. Since no candidates admitted after the 2010-11 session were granted direct appointments under the old system, the respondents failed to establish discrimination or arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The court held that “the essence of discrimination is the unequal treatment of equals;…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 instance of a similarly situated person being treated preferentially.”
Accordingly, the court set aside the High Court’s judgment 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.
Appearances
Appellants- Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Mrigank Mishra, Adv. Mr. Shakti Singh, Adv.
Respondent- Mr. Varun Singh, Adv. Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Somesa Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mudit Gupta, AOR Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. M Shaz Khan, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Faizan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Rafid Akhter, Adv.
