The Supreme Court observed that the role of government authorities is to provide objective assistance to the court based strictly on facts and applicable law, rather than taking an unlawful stand to favor an individual litigant.

The Court held that a waitlisted candidate recommended for an institutional vacancy under Section 13(4) of the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, cannot legally demand a subsequent change in their designated place of posting. The Court noted that statutory provisions governing unforeseen vacancies must be interpreted strictly and cannot be manipulated to permit a candidate to bypass initial allocations in pursuit of a preferred venue.

The bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar while dismissing a civil appeal that challenged a decision of the Allahabad High Court, “…It is suffice to say that the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh may look into the conduct of the officers who have filed the affidavit taking such unlawful stand before the High Court and even before this Court, which is completely impermissible under the law and contrary to the finding of the High Court. It is necessary to observe that the duty of the State and its officials while filing their counter-affidavit and arguing the case before the Court is to provide real assistance. Such assistance ought to be based on the facts, and by applying the law applicable to the case at hand. It is not expected from the authorities to support any party contrary to the law or by filing affidavit which does not disclose the facts in conformity with the law…”.

“…In our view, after commencement of the New Act, the validity of the list/panel under the Old Act will automatically lapse and the authorities are duty bound to follow the procedure under Sections 10 and 11 of the New Act to take steps for appointment on the post of Principal…”, the Bench further observed.

Advocate Manish Vashishtha appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Shweta Sinha appeared for the respondent.

For the facts, an advertisement was issued by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Selection Commission for the post of Principal in non-government aided colleges.

The appellant, Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat, was placed at Serial No. 59 in the waitlist published on October 05, 2021.

On August 03, 2022, the Director of Education recommended the appellant for appointment as the Principal of a college in Ballia. Instead of joining the assigned institution, the appellant cited family constraints and remained inactive for over ten months before submitting a representation requesting a reassignment to Meerut College, where a vacancy had subsequently arisen due to a resignation.

The Director initially noted on August 17, 2023, that no provision existed for altering a posting venue once a recommendation was finalised. However, following the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023, which repealed the 1980 Act on August 21, 2023, state authorities reversed their stance and issued orders transferring the appellant to Meerut College.

Thereafter, the officiating Principal of Meerut College, respondent no. 6, successfully challenged these reassignment orders before a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The Single Judge quashed the transfer directives as being completely without jurisdiction.

This decision was subsequently affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court referring to Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others (1998) 3 SCC 45 noted that the word "otherwise" in Section 13(4) of the old Act must be read ejusdem generis with "death" or "resignation", meaning it refers strictly to unforeseen vacancies and cannot be used to facilitate back-door entries or personal venue preferences.

“…We are clear in our mind that the said action will not fall within the purview of “otherwise during the period of validity of the list.” In case such interpretation is permitted, the intention of the State Legislature as contemplated under Section 13(3) of the Old Act will not sustain. Therefore, after the recommendation dated 03.08.2022, if the appellant was not willing to join due to his family circumstances and on finding vacancy at Meerut College, submitted a representation to post him at some other place with the intent to compel the authorities to bring his case within the ambit of Section 13(4) of the Old Act, such action will superseding the earlier recommendation and frustrate the purpose of Section 13(3) of the Old Act”, the Bench observed.

The Bench noted that the appellant deliberately avoided joining the Ballia college to wait for a preferred vacancy. Crucially, the Court held that the 2023 Act contains no provision equivalent to Section 13(4) of the old Act.

Under Section 31(2) of the new Act read with the U.P. General Clauses Act, the only action protected was the original 2022 recommendation, meaning the select list had effectively lapsed, and the state had no authority to issue fresh assignment orders in 2024 based on a defunct list.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed both parties to bear their own costs, thereby upholding the High Court's ruling that vacancy notifications must proceed under the new 2023 Act.

It was left open to the State of Uttar Pradesh to review the conduct of the officers who had filed the unlawful affidavits. On the issue of the officiating Principal’s locus standi, the Bench noted that when administrative illegality is writ large, technical objections regarding locus lose their relevance.

Cause Title: Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 508)

Appearances:

Appellant: Manish Vashishtha, Advocate.

Respondents: Pragya Baghel, Samar Vijay Singh, Nikhil Jain, Shweta Sinha, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment



Tags: