'Far-fetched to apply principle of legitimate expectation,' SC Sets Aside Order For Appointment As Ayurvedic Staff Nurse

The Supreme Court has set aside the Allahabad High Court's order mandating the State to consider the candidates, passed out from a government college for appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse in a Medical College, Hospital or Dispensary, holding that it may be far-fetched to apply the principle of legitimate expectation as there was a change in policy and scheme of government.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan emphasised, an individual who claims a benefit or entitlement based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation has to establish, the legitimacy of the expectation; and that the denial of the legitimate expectation led to the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

"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,'' the bench said.

The court allowed civil appeals filed by the Uttar Pradesh government and set aside the High Court's judgment of January 17, 2025.

Referring to Sivanandan C T and Others Vs High Court of Kerala and Others (2023), the bench said, 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... 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 a number of private institutions were permitted to impart education for the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course,'' the court noted.

The state counsel submitted, 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.

The respondents' counsel, on the contrary, 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 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 counsel said.

The bench examined 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, showed 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, the bench said.

The court also noted, after the change in policy in 2011, allowing private colleges to impart training, availability of candidates was much more as compared to the earlier regime.

The bench also found statutory rules the Uttar Pradesh Ayush Department (Ayurved) Nursing Service Rules, 2021 governing the post 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 UP Public Service Commission, now it was being made by Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission.

The court also said, 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, the bench held.

Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Bhawana Mishra