Holding

Mere admission to the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course does not confer a right to appointment, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation is inapplicable due to the substantive policy change.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh sought to overturn a High Court order that directed it to consider the candidature of several Ayurvedic Nursing Training course graduates, including Bhawana Mishra, for appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurses. The respondents argued that admission to the training course historically created a legitimate expectation of appointment, citing past practice where graduates were automatically appointed after training. The State contended that a policy shift in 2011 allowed private institutions to offer the course, vastly increasing the number of candidates and necessitating a selection process through the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC), thereby extinguishing any automatic right to appointment. The Supreme Court examined the advertisement clauses, the change in policy, the absence of any contractual guarantee of appointment, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation, concluding that the respondents had no enforceable right to appointment. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's direction and allowed the appeals, holding that mere admission does not confer a right to appointment.

Issues considered

Whether mere admission to the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course creates a legal right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse.
Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies to the respondents in view of the policy change permitting private institutions to conduct the course.
Whether the State's shift to a selection process via UPSSSC violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether on mere admission in a course, right is conferred for appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse. Headnotes† Service law – Appointment – Post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse – Advertisement inviting application for the admitted and thereafter passed out from government institutions between 2015- 19 – Representation before the competent authority seeking appointment, however was rejected – Respondent then filed writ petition – Case of the appellant-State that earlier there were only 20 seats

Subjects

AdmissionAppointmentPost of Ayurvedic Staff NurseCourse of Ayurvedic Nursing TrainingGovernment institutionsRepresentation before competent authorityChange in policyAvailability of candidates for appointmentProcess of selectionGovernment servicePrinciple of legitimate expectationRight to appointment upon admissionDiscriminationUnequal treatment of equals

Judgment

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 409 : 2026 INSC 38

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
v.
Bhawana Mishra
(Civil Appeal No. 14250 of 2025)
08 January 2026
[Rajesh Bindal* and Manmohan, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as to whether on mere admission in a course, right
is conferred for appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse.

Headnotes†
Service law – Appointment – Post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse –
Advertisement inviting application for the course of Ayurvedic
Nursing Training – Respondent admitted and thereafter
passed out from government institutions between 2015-
19 – Representation before the competent authority seeking
appointment, however was rejected – Respondent then filed
writ petition – Case of the appellant-State that earlier there
were only 20 seats in one government college for imparting
Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course, and after completion
they were being given appointment, however post 2011,
there was a change in policy, the permission was granted to
number of private colleges to impart training in that course,
and the availability of candidates for appointment on the
post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse was more, hence, due process
of selection was required to be followed, and post was now
required to be filled up by the UPSSSC – However, the High
Court allowed the writ petition – Appeal thereagainst also
dismissed – Correctness:
Held: 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 – Perusal
of the advertisement inviting application for the course of Ayurvedic
Nursing Training, shows that no promise had been made for

* Author
410 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

appointment – Clause 9 in the advertisement clearly stipulated that
only in case the candidate is appointed after training, he/she shall
compulsorily serve the government for at least 5 years – Bond was
only meant for the candidate selected for the government service –
Principle of legitimate expectation cannot be applied as there was
a change in policy and scheme of government – 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 way of government order –
Candidates pursuing the said course had grown exponentially and
all such candidates could not be recruited after training due to
limited vacancies – Respondent-candidates failed to identify any
specific clause in the advertisements for admission to the course
that guarantees 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 – 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 – There were
no appointments made by following the earlier system available –
There was change in the process of selection as well, earlier the
selection was being made by UPPSC, now it was being made by
UPSSSC – 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 – 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 – Thus,
no violation of Art. 14 as, there was no discrimination against the
respondents or that the action of the State was arbitrary – Essence
of discrimination is the unequal treatment of equals; however, the
State 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 in 2016, given
direct appointments, no instance of similarly situated person being
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 411

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Bhawana Mishra

treated preferentially – Plea of discrimination factually and legally
unsustainable – Thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court
set aside. [Paras 19-21, 26-28]

Case Law Cited
N. Suresh Nathan and Anr. v Union of India and Ors [1991]
Supp. 2 SCR 423 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 584; Sivanandan C T
and Others v. High Court of Kerala and Others, 2023 INSC 709 :
[2023] 11 SCR 674 – referred to.

List of Acts
United Provinces [Indian Medicines] Act, 1939; Uttar Pradesh Ayush
Department (Ayurved) Nursing Service Rules, 2021.

List of Keywords
Admission; Appointment; Post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse;
Course of Ayurvedic Nursing Training; Government institutions;
Representation before competent authority; Change in policy;
Availability of candidates for appointment; Process of selection;
Government service; Principle of legitimate expectation; Right to
appointment upon admission; Discrimination; Unequal treatment
of equals.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14250
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2025 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in SPLA No. 214 of 2020
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 14251 and 14252 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Mrigank Mishra, Ms. Gargi.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Varun Singh, Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Somesa Gupta, Shivam
Sharma, Mudit Gupta, M Shaz Khan, Sudhanshu Tewari, Rafid
Akhter, Faizan Ahmed, Talha Abdul Rahman.
412 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

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 Petitions3 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 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,

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
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 413

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Bhawana Mishra

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.
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
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

4 Board of Ayurvedic, Unani, and Tibbia, Systems of Medicine, Uttar Pradesh
414 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 Commission6 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 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

5 Hereinafter, “UPSSSC”
6 Hereinafter, “UPPSC”
7 Service Single No. 19652/2019
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 415

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Bhawana Mishra

the Government; secondly, reliance was placed on the 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 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

8 Service Single No. 33476/2019
9 Special Appeal No. 214/2020
416 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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
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.
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
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 417

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Bhawana Mishra

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 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 permission to impart training of Ayurvedic Nursing Course,
the same was being conducted only by government institution11 with

10 (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 584
11 Government Ayurvedic College and Hospital, located on Tulsidas Marg (also referred to as Turiyaganj)
in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
418 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 419

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Bhawana Mishra

substantial shift from the year 2012, when the private institutions
were granted permission to conduct the Ayurvedic Nursing Training
Course, by 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 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
420 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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

12 2023 INSC 709
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 421

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Bhawana Mishra

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 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
422 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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
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
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 423

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Bhawana Mishra

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.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain