The Supreme Court has held that a waitlisted candidate who was already recommended for appointment to one institution cannot later seek a change in place of posting on personal grounds and claim appointment elsewhere under the guise of a vacancy arising subsequently.
The bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar also ruled that after the coming into force of a new statutory regime repealing the earlier law, authorities cannot revive old select lists to create fresh appointments.
The controversy arose after a recruitment process under Advertisement No. 49 of 2019 for the post of Principal in postgraduate and undergraduate colleges. A final list consisting of selected and waitlisted candidates was published in October 2021, and the appellant was placed in the waitlist. Subsequently, in August 2022, the appellant’s name was recommended for appointment as Principal at a college in Ballia. However, instead of joining the institution, the appellant chose not to assume charge and later sought appointment in another college citing family circumstances.
The Court noted that despite receiving a recommendation for appointment, the appellant remained inactive and did not pursue the appointment process with the management of the college where he had initially been posted. Nearly ten months later, he submitted a representation requesting a transfer to another institution, including Meerut College, where vacancies had arisen.
The Supreme Court examined Section 13(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. This provision permits the Director to recommend names from the waiting list when vacancies arise because of death, resignation, or similar unforeseen circumstances during the validity of the selection list. The appellant argued that his case fell within the phrase “otherwise” contained in the provision.
Rejecting this argument, the Court observed that the expression “otherwise” cannot be interpreted in an unrestricted manner. It held that allowing such a broad reading would defeat the legislative intent and permit candidates to manipulate vacancies for securing preferred postings. The Court emphasized that the expression should be interpreted narrowly and only cover unforeseen situations similar to resignation, death, invalidation, or candidates not joining after selection.
The Bench observed that the appellant had consciously chosen not to join the institution where he was initially recommended and later attempted to secure a more favourable posting after vacancies emerged elsewhere. According to the Court, permitting such conduct would effectively nullify the scheme of appointment under the legislation and undermine the recruitment process itself.
The Court further examined the effect of the new statutory framework introduced through the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023, which repealed the earlier legislation with effect from August 21, 2023. It noted that while acts already completed under the old law could survive through saving provisions, the authorities could not revive or extend old recommendations after the new Act came into force.
The Court found that the subsequent orders issued in December 2023 and January 2024 attempting to recommend and appoint the appellant at Meerut College after commencement of the new Act had no legal basis and were beyond jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court also expressed concern over the conduct of officials of the State Government. The Bench remarked that the authorities had aggressively supported the appellant’s stand despite such support being contrary to the statutory framework and legal position. The Court stated that government officials are expected to provide genuine assistance to courts and not advocate positions inconsistent with law. It left it open to the State Government to examine the conduct of the concerned officers and take action if required.
The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision, concluding that the arguments advanced by the appellant were inconsistent with both the repealed and the new statutory schemes.
Case Details
Case Title: Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat Versus State Of UP & Ors.
Citation: JURISHOUR-1304-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15989 of 2025
Date: 19/05/2026
