Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees

"Legitimate expectation cannot override statutory rules or changed policy – training does not guarantee government employment", In a significant judgment impacting thousands of Ayurvedic nursing trainees in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India on January 8, 2026, held that mere admission into and completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training from a government institution does not confer any enforceable right to be appointed as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse.

Setting aside the Allahabad High Court's direction to consider the appointment of the respondent on the basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan clarified that public employment cannot be claimed merely on past practice, especially in the wake of a substantial policy shift, expansion of training seats, and statutory changes in the recruitment mechanism.

The ruling came in the case titled State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Bhawana Mishra, wherein the State challenged the High Court’s judgment that had upheld the respondent’s claim of legitimate expectation to appointment after completing Ayurvedic Nursing Training at a government institution.

“No clause in the advertisement promised appointment – bond was conditional on actual selection”

The respondent had relied on the long-standing administrative practice wherein candidates completing Ayurvedic Nursing Training from government institutions were routinely appointed to government posts. However, the Apex Court rejected the argument, observing:

"Clause 9 in the advertisement clearly stated that a candidate who is finally selected for the mandatory service-training by the State Government shall have to execute a bond... It is not that the bond was applicable for all the candidates. It was only meant for the candidate selected for the government service."

The Court underscored that the advertisement never promised automatic appointment, and the respondent had failed to establish any violation of Article 14 or any promise of appointment by the government.

“Legitimate expectation cannot be invoked in vacuum – it requires proof of promise or consistent practice”

Rejecting the High Court’s invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the Court held:

“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… The respondent-candidates have failed to identify any specific clause in the advertisements… that guarantees a right to appointment upon admission.”

Referring to the Constitution Bench ruling in Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, the Court reaffirmed that:

“The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot serve as an independent basis for judicial review... although it can supplement a claim under Article 14, it requires the individual to establish (i) the legitimacy of the expectation and (ii) that the denial violates Article 14.”

The Bench held that neither test was satisfied in this case.

“Old administrative practices cannot survive when statutory rules are notified”

The Court emphasized that the policy and legal regime had undergone a sea change since the time the earlier practice of automatic appointment was followed.

Referring to the notification dated 15.12.2014, which brought Ayurvedic Staff Nurse posts under the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC) and the subsequent framing of statutory rules in 2021 (Uttar Pradesh Ayush Department (Ayurved) Nursing Service Rules, 2021), the Court noted:

“Statutory rules governing the post had not been framed earlier, and the same came to be framed in the year 2021. There was change in the process of selection as well... Now it was being made by UPSSSC.”

The Court held that appointments must now follow a transparent and competitive process to select the most meritorious candidates from among a much larger pool of trained nurses, including those from private institutions.

“Past practice based on old factual matrix cannot give rise to enforceable right in a changed regime”

Historically, only 20 students were trained annually at the Government Ayurvedic College, Lucknow, and most were absorbed into service due to availability of vacancies. However, from 2012 onwards, over 300 private institutions were permitted to offer Ayurvedic Nursing Training, resulting in a manifold increase in trained candidates and making direct appointment of all trainees impossible.

“The past practice was merely on the basis of the situation at the relevant time... After 2012, the facts and circumstances changed completely,” the Court observed, holding that no such expectation could arise in the changed policy framework.

“No discrimination shown – others similarly situated were not appointed either”

Rebutting the respondent's argument under Article 14, the Supreme Court highlighted that no other similarly situated candidates had been appointed directly after the policy change.

“It cannot be opined that there was any discrimination against the respondents or that the action of the State was arbitrary... 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 decisively held that equal treatment of equals had been maintained, and the principle of non-arbitrariness was not violated.

“N. Suresh Nathan case not applicable – that was about interpretation of service rules, not policy change”

Respondents had relied on the judgment in N. Suresh Nathan & Anr. v. Union of India to argue that departmental practice could guide interpretation of rules. But the Court distinguished the precedent, noting:

“The judgment in N. Suresh Nathan dealt with interpretation of recruitment rules based on consistent practice. In the present case, statutory rules did not exist earlier and the change was due to a deliberate and express policy shift. Hence, reliance is misplaced.”

High Court’s direction set aside – No right to appointment – Respondents may participate in future selection

Concluding the matter, the Supreme Court declared:

“The direction issued by the High Court mandating the State to consider the candidature of respondents for appointment... cannot be legally sustained and is set aside.”

The appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh were allowed, and the impugned judgments of the High Court were quashed. However, the Court clarified that respondents may participate in future recruitment conducted by the UPSSSC, subject to eligibility.

“The normal rule provides for a selection process to be followed so that the best available candidate is selected,” the Bench reiterated.

Date of Decision: January 8, 2026