Denying Regular Appointment To Candidate Selected Through Regular Process Is Patently Illegal And Unconstitutional: Supreme Court

" Appellant, if unsuitable for appointment, could not have been recommended even on a contract basis for a period of twelve months. To justify a singular treatment, at least the record must disclose reasons," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that denying a regular appointment to a candidate who was selected through a standard recruitment process for a regular vacancy is patently illegal and unconstitutional.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed that when a selection committee finds a candidate suitable but recommends them only for a contractual post without recording any reasons for such differential treatment, it violates the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Appellant applied for the regular post of Assistant Professor at the Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Allahabad, following a 2013 advertisement for regular vacancies. Despite meeting all criteria and being selected alongside thirteen other candidates who received regular appointments, the Appellant was arbitrarily offered a contractual appointment for twelve months. He challenged this before the Allahabad High Court, but his petitions were dismissed on the grounds that he had accepted the contractual offer and worked under its terms, which the High Court deemed as acquiescence.

The primary question before the Court was whether the Institute could validly issue a contractual appointment against an advertisement specifically meant for regular vacancies after subjecting the candidate to a regular selection process. The Court also considered whether the Appellant’s acceptance of the contractual offer under economic compulsion operated as an estoppel against challenging the illegality of the selection procedure.

Selection Process For Regular Vacancies Cannot Lead To Arbitrary Contractual Appointments

The Court perused the 2013 advertisement and noted that it was issued exclusively for filling sanctioned regular posts in Pay Band-III and Pay Band-IV. There was no mention of contractual appointments in the recruitment notice. The bench emphasized that the selection process was one and the same for all candidates, and the Appellant was considered alongside those who were ultimately appointed on a regular basis.

"The real controversy in the Civil Appeal is not whether a contractual appointee is entitled to regularisation, but whether issuing a contractual appointment against an advertisement meant for a regular vacancy, subjecting it to the regular process and arbitrarily granting a contractual appointment, is sustainable."

Absence Of Recorded Reasons For Differential Treatment Invalidates Selection Decision

The Court expressed concern that while thirteen candidates were recommended for regular positions, only the Appellant and one other were placed on a contractual basis. The bench noted that the official records failed to disclose any reason for this "singular treatment." The judges observed that if a candidate were truly unsuitable for a regular post, they could not have been recommended even for a contractual role for twelve months.

"To justify a singular treatment, at least the record must disclose reasons. The record does not disclose any reason for denying the post for which the Appellant was shortlisted and interviewed."

Judicial Review Of Educational Selection Committees

While acknowledging that courts usually do not sit as an appellate body over the technical views of a Selection Committee, the Supreme Court held that judicial review is necessary when decisions are visibly arbitrary. The bench noted that even by a liberal approach to the autonomy of educational institutions, the denial of a regular appointment to a qualified and selected candidate must be justified by the record.

Denial Of Regular Appointment Is Patently Illegal And Unconstitutional

The Court categorically held that the Institute’s decision to withhold a regular appointment from the Appellant lacked a "just and real reason." It found that the Appellant was fully qualified for the position of Assistant Professor and had been wrongly deprived of the status granted to his peers. The bench declared such a denial to be a violation of the constitutional mandate of fairness in public employment.

"Denying a regular appointment is patently illegal and unconstitutional."

Relief Moulded To Grant Continuity Of Service Without Back Wages

Despite finding the selection process flawed, the Court chose to mould the relief to balance the interests of the institution and the teacher. It directed the Institute to issue a regular appointment letter to the Appellant within four weeks. However, the Court denied back wages or financial benefits for the intervening period, granting only continuity of service and placement in seniority at the end of the 2013 batch.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, allowing the Civil Appeal. The ruling reinforces the doctrine that public authorities cannot bypass regular recruitment norms to enforce contractual tenures on candidates selected through a competitive, regular process without transparent and recorded justifications.

Date of Decision: May 13, 2026