Admission To Government Training Course Doesn’t Create Automatic Right To Government Appointment; Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan has allowed the State government’s appeals and set aside the High Court’s direction requiring consideration of appointment of training-course graduates as Ayurvedic Staff Nurses. The dispute arose after trainees who completed an Ayurvedic nursing training course in a government institution sought government posts on the basis of a claimed legitimate expectation associated with earlier appointments. The Court held that admission to and completion of a government-run course does not, by itself, create an automatic entitlement to a government post, particularly where the State has shifted the recruitment framework and the pool of eligible candidates has expanded substantially following permission to private institutions and commission-based selection.
The respondents contended that historically, candidates admitted to the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course were appointed to government service upon completion of training. They relied on earlier government orders governing the course, the bond executed at the time of admission, and instances where appointments had been granted to earlier batches. It was asserted that admission created a legitimate expectation of appointment, particularly for candidates trained in government institutions.
The State opposed these claims, asserting that the training course was distinct from appointment, that no statutory service rules existed at the relevant time, and that policy changes permitting private institutions to conduct the course had resulted in a significant increase in trained candidates. The State maintained that appointments could only be made through a proper recruitment process conducted by the designated selection commission after the framing of service rules.
The High Court accepted the plea of legitimate expectation and directed consideration of the respondents for appointment. Aggrieved, the State preferred appeals before the Supreme Court of India.
The Court recorded that, on reading the admission advertisement, “no such promise had been made.” It noted that the bond clause showed that “only in case the candidate is appointed after training, he/she shall compulsorily serve the government for at least 5 years,” and that “It is not that the bond was applicable for all the candidates.” It further stated: “It was only meant for the candidate selected for the government service.”
On the recruitment landscape, the Court recorded that the respondents had passed out between 2015–19 and that permissions for private institutions led to a sharp expansion: “by the year 2019-20, nearly 311 institutions were conducting Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course.” It stated: “the number of pass outs had far outnumbered the available vacancies,” and “it was impossible to recruit all the pass outs.” It also noted: “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.”
On legitimate expectation, the Court observed: “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.” It recorded that “the candidates pursuing the aforesaid course had grown exponentially,” and that “all such candidates could not be recruited after training due to limited vacancies.” It further stated: “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.”
Addressing the “disclaimer” point, the Court stated: “While advertisements for private colleges explicitly state that admission does not grant a right to appointment,” and added that “the absence of this specific disclaimer in government college advertisements does not mean a right to appointment is automatically implied.”
On the earlier appointment pattern and policy change, the Court recorded that “no appointments were made as per the old system” after the notification dated 15.12.2014, and that “except for few appointments in the year 2015, no appointments were made.” It stated: “It was on account of order of Court,” and that “Those were also of the students who were admitted upto the session 2010-11.” It further recorded: “the past practice was merely on the basis of the situation at the relevant time,” that “Since there were more vacancies, most of them may have been adjusted,” and that “subsequently there was change in the policy as number of private institutions were permitted to impart education for the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course.” It also recorded: “only the candidates who were admitted till the year 2010-11 were given appointment and that too due to Court order,” and that “The private colleges were permitted to impart education thereafter.”
On the legal framing of legitimate expectation, the Court recorded: “a legitimate expectation is not a legal right,” and “It is merely an expectation to avail a benefit or relief based on an existing promise or practice.” It stated that “the validity of the decision itself can only be questioned on established principles of equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14.”
On recruitment rules and Article 14, the Court stated: “Statutory rules governing the post had not been framed earlier, and the same came to be framed in the year 2021,” and “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.” It recorded: “the normal rule provides for a selection process to be followed so that the best available candidate is selected.” It stated: “it cannot be opined that there was any discrimination against the respondents or that the action of the State was arbitrary,” and added: “The essence of discrimination is the unequal treatment of equals.” It further recorded: “no appointments were made under the old system for any candidate admitted after the 2010-11 session,” and that “The respondent has failed to point out a single candidate from her own batch or subsequent batches who was directly appointed by the State.”
The Court directed that “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. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For Petitioner(s): Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Mrigank Mishra, Adv. Ms. Gargi, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Varun Singh, Adv. Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Somesa Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mudit Gupta, AOR
For Applicant(s) in IA No.161094/ 2025: Mr. M Shaz Khan, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Rafid Akhter, Adv. Mr. Faizan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Bhawana Mishra & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 38
Case Numbers: Civil Appeal Nos. 14250–14252 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Manmohan
