Service Law — Appointment — Training course — No automatic right
Admission to training course — Whether confers right to appointment — Held, no.
Mere admission to and completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course does not confer any vested or enforceable right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse. In absence of a specific promise or statutory rule guaranteeing appointment, candidates can only claim consideration in accordance with prevailing recruitment rules and selection procedure.
(Paras 19–21, 27–28)
Doctrine of legitimate expectation — Limits
Change in policy — Expansion of training institutions — Legitimate expectation not attracted.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked where there is a substantial change in policy and factual circumstances. Past practice of appointing all trained candidates, followed when only one government institution with limited intake existed, cannot create a legitimate expectation once private institutions were permitted and the number of trained candidates increased manifold.
(Paras 21–22, 25–27)
Article 14 — Equality — Discrimination
Negative equality — No parity with past appointments — No violation.
Absence of appointment of any similarly situated candidate from the same or subsequent batches negates the plea of discrimination. Appointments granted earlier pursuant to court orders or under a different policy regime cannot be relied upon to claim parity or enforce appointment under Article 14.
(Paras 22, 26–27)
Recruitment — Statutory rules — Selection through commission
Change in selection authority — Valid and binding.
Where statutory service rules were subsequently framed and the recruitment process was brought within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission, appointments could only be made in accordance with the new rules and selection mechanism. Courts cannot direct appointment dehors the rules.
(Paras 10–11, 18, 22, 27–28)
Bond condition in training advertisement
Conditional obligation — Appointment-dependent — No promise of employment.
A bond stipulating compulsory service for five years “in case of appointment” does not amount to an assurance of appointment. The obligation arises only upon selection and appointment and does not create a right to be appointed.
(Paras 4.1, 19)
ANALYSIS (Issue-wise with Paragraph References)
I. Core Issue — Whether training guarantees appointment (Paras 19–21)
The Court squarely addresses the claim that admission to the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course entitles candidates to appointment. Examining Clause 9 of the admission advertisement, the Court holds that appointment was never promised. The bond requirement operated only upon selection and appointment and did not create any enforceable right.
II. Change in policy and factual matrix (Paras 18, 21–22)
Originally, only one government institution with 20 seats conducted the course, and vacancies were sufficient to absorb pass-outs. This situation fundamentally changed after private institutions were permitted to impart training pursuant to the notification dated 21.10.2011. The number of trained candidates increased exponentially, rendering automatic appointments impracticable and discriminatory.
III. Legitimate expectation — Inapplicability (Paras 25–27)
Relying on the Constitution Bench exposition, the Court reiterates that legitimate expectation is not a legal right. The respondents failed both tests:
(i) legitimacy of expectation, and
(ii) violation of Article 14.
Past practice was context-specific and ceased once policy and circumstances changed. No assurance of appointment existed in the advertisement or in law.
IV. Article 14 — No discrimination established (Paras 22, 26–27)
The Court notes that no candidate admitted after the 2010-11 session was appointed under the old system, except pursuant to court orders. The respondents could not identify any similarly situated person from their batch or later batches who received direct appointment, defeating the plea of unequal treatment.
V. Recruitment through statutory rules and commission (Paras 10–11, 22, 27)
The Court emphasizes that after revision of pay scales and framing of the Uttar Pradesh Ayush Department (Ayurved) Nursing Service Rules, 2021, recruitment fell within the purview of the UPSSSC. Appointments could only be made through the prescribed statutory process, and courts cannot bypass such mechanism.
VI. High Court error (Paras 28)
The High Court erred in directing consideration of the respondents for appointment based on legitimate expectation, ignoring the changed policy, absence of promise, and binding statutory recruitment framework. The direction was therefore unsustainable.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Admission to or completion of a professional training course does not confer a vested or enforceable right to appointment; the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked where policy and circumstances have materially changed, no promise of appointment exists, and recruitment is governed by statutory rules requiring selection through a prescribed authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment