The Supreme Court has held that appointing a candidate on a contractual basis against an advertisement issued exclusively for regular vacancies, without recording any reason for differential treatment, is “patently illegal and unconstitutional.” 

The Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti  has directed the Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Allahabad to grant regular appointment to an Assistant Professor who had been appointed on contract despite being selected through the same recruitment process as other regular candidates.

The dispute arose from a 2013 recruitment advertisement issued by IIIT Allahabad for regular posts of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. The advertisement invited applications for regular appointments in prescribed pay bands and did not mention any contractual engagement. The appellant, Lokendra Kumar Tiwari, who possessed a Ph.D. in Information Security along with teaching and research experience, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the Information Security stream. 

After being shortlisted and interviewed along with other candidates, the appellant was issued an appointment letter on 6 April 2013 as Assistant Professor, but only on a contractual basis for 12 months. Most of the other selected candidates, however, were appointed on a regular basis. 

Subsequently, the institute cancelled all appointments made pursuant to the selection process citing certain omissions in the procedure. The affected appointees approached the Allahabad High Court, which directed reconsideration of the matter. Following reconsideration, IIIT Allahabad again offered the appellant only a contractual appointment, leading to fresh litigation. 

Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the recruitment advertisement was exclusively for regular posts and that separate procedures existed under the recruitment rules for regular and contractual appointments. He contended that the Selection Committee had no authority to arbitrarily convert a regular vacancy into a contractual appointment, especially when all candidates underwent the same selection process. He also alleged discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution since similarly situated candidates were granted regular appointments while he alone was denied such benefit. 

The institute defended its action by claiming that the Selection Committee had discretion to recommend appointments either on regular or contractual basis depending upon merit and available vacancies. It further argued that the appellant had voluntarily accepted the contractual appointment and therefore could not later challenge it. 

Both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court rejected the appellant’s challenge, holding that having accepted the contractual appointment and worked under those terms, he could not subsequently seek regularisation. 

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s approach. The Court clarified that the central issue was not regularisation of a contractual employee, but whether a candidate selected through a recruitment process meant for regular vacancies could arbitrarily be offered only a contractual appointment. 

The Court noted several admitted facts, including that the advertisement was solely for regular posts, the appellant possessed all required qualifications, he underwent the same interview and selection process as regular appointees, and no reasons were recorded for treating him differently from other selected candidates. 

While emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in selection matters, the Supreme Court observed that the issue in the present case was not about evaluating the merits of the Selection Committee’s assessment but about the complete absence of justification for denying a regular appointment to a fully qualified candidate selected through a regular recruitment process. 

The Bench observed that if the appellant was unsuitable for regular appointment, he could not simultaneously have been considered suitable for contractual appointment. The Court held that at the very least, the record ought to have disclosed reasons for such “singular treatment,” but no such reasons existed. 

The Court further took note of the institute’s submission that there were presently 32 vacant posts of Assistant Professor out of a total sanctioned strength of 67. After examining the record, the Bench concluded that there was no “just and real reason” for denying the appellant regular appointment. 

The Supreme Court directed IIIT Allahabad to appoint the appellant as Assistant Professor on a regular basis within four weeks. However, the Court clarified that although the appellant would be entitled to continuity of service for seniority purposes, he would not receive past financial benefits. 

The Court also directed that he be placed as the last candidate in seniority among those selected through the same Selection Committee resolution dated 6 April 2013. 

Case Details

Case Title: Lokendra Kumar Tiwari Versus UOI

Citation: JURISHOUR-1249-SC-2026

Case No.: Civil Appeal No(S). 5307 Of 2024

Date: 13/05/2026

Read More: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Clause Incorporated Through Reference in Redevelopment Agreements