The Supreme Court has held that offering a contractual appointment to a candidate selected through a regular recruitment process, without any reasoned justification, violates the constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16. The judgment clarifies that when an advertisement explicitly calls for regular appointments, the selection committee cannot arbitrarily downgrade qualified candidates to contractual status.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the recruitment process for Assistant Professor posts at the Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) Allahabad, conducted pursuant to Advertisement No. FS-01/2013 issued in January 2013. The advertisement sought applications for regular appointments in Pay Band-III and Pay Band-IV, with no mention of contractual appointments. The Appellant, Lokendra Kumar Tiwari, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the area of Information Security. He possessed a Ph.D. in Information Security with First Class, an M.S. in Cyber Law & Information Security with a CGPA of 9.02/10, and over five years of teaching experience as Lecturer and Guest Faculty at the University of Allahabad and IIIT Allahabad.
Key Facts
- Advertisement issued on: 01.01.2013
- Last date for application: 25.02.2013
- Interview conducted: 18.03.2013
- Selection Committee recommendation: 06.04.2013
- Appointment letter issued to Appellant: 06.04.2013 (contractual, 12 months, Rs. 40,000/month)
- Appellant accepted appointment on 06.04.2013 without written protest
- Appellant served as contract appointee from 06.04.2013 to 26.03.2014
- On 26.03.2014, Respondent No. 2 cancelled all appointments made on 06.04.2013, including the Appellant’s
- Writ Petition No. 22558 of 2014 filed by aggrieved candidates: 2014
- High Court order dated 11.12.2015: Allowed writ petitions and directed reconsideration
- Appellant’s application for modification filed: 2015
- Disposed of on: 24.03.2017
- Re-issuance of contractual appointment to Appellant: 27.06.2017
- Writ Petition No. 7099 of 2018 filed by Appellant: 2018
- Single Judge dismissal: 12.02.2019
- Division Bench dismissal: 2019
- Civil Appeal filed in Supreme Court: 2024
- Supreme Court directed tabular statement of appointments: 28.01.2026
Procedural History
- 01.01.2013: Advertisement FS-01/2013 issued for regular Assistant Professor posts
- 25.02.2013: Last date for receipt of applications
- 18.03.2013: Interview conducted by Selection Committee
- 06.04.2013: Selection Committee recommended 13 candidates for appointment; 11 for regular posts, Appellant and Dr. Ranjana Vyas for contractual posts
- 06.04.2013: Appellant issued contractual appointment letter
- 26.03.2014: All appointments made on 06.04.2013 cancelled by Respondent No. 2
- 2014: Writ Petition No. 22558 of 2014 filed in Allahabad High Court by aggrieved appointees
- 11.12.2015: High Court allowed writ petitions and directed reconsideration
- 24.03.2017: Appellant’s application for modification disposed of; Civil Appeals Nos. 4406-4418 of 2017 decided
- 27.06.2017: Respondent No. 2 reissued contractual appointment to Appellant
- 2018: Writ Petition No. 7099 of 2018 filed challenging re-issuance of contractual appointment
- 12.02.2019: Single Judge of Allahabad High Court dismissed writ petition
- 2019: Division Bench dismissed appeal
- 2024: Civil Appeal No. 5307 of 2024 filed in Supreme Court
- 28.01.2026: Supreme Court directed submission of tabular statement of appointments
- 13.05.2026: Judgment delivered
The Parties' Positions
Appellant’s Position: The advertisement was for regular posts only. The Selection Committee had no authority to downgrade a qualified candidate to contractual status without justification. The differential treatment vis-à-vis other candidates, all of whom were appointed regularly, was arbitrary and discriminatory. His oral protest at the time of joining and economic compulsion to accept the contract did not estop him from challenging the illegality. The lack of any recorded reason for the differential treatment rendered the decision unconstitutional.
Respondent’s Position: The Selection Committee had discretion to recommend appointments on regular or contractual basis. The Appellant accepted the contractual appointment without written protest and worked for over a year. His subsequent challenge was barred by acquiescence and estoppel. The decision to appoint him contractually was not discriminatory as Dr. Ranjana Vyas was similarly treated. The reconsideration in 2017 was lawful and judicial review was not warranted.
Relief Sought
The Appellant sought: (1) quashing of orders dated 27.06.2017, 19.06.2017 and 01.01.2018; (2) modification of the Selection Committee’s recommendation dated 06.04.2013 to treat his appointment as regular; (3) consequential service benefits from 06.04.2013; and (4) payment of arrears and other entitlements.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an educational institution, having advertised for regular appointments and selected a candidate through the same process as others, can lawfully offer that candidate a contractual appointment without recording any reason for the differential treatment, and whether such action violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The Appellant’s counsel argued that the advertisement was exclusively for regular posts under Pay Band-III, and the Rules of IIIT Allahabad, 1999, prescribed distinct procedures for regular and contractual appointments. The Selection Committee, having evaluated the Appellant under the same criteria as others and found him eligible, could not arbitrarily downgrade him to a contractual position. The absence of any recorded reason for this differential treatment rendered the decision arbitrary. The Appellant’s acceptance of the contract under economic duress and without written protest did not validate an illegal process. The fact that all other candidates were appointed regularly, while he and one other were not, constituted class legislation and violated the principle of equal treatment.
For the Respondent
The Respondent contended that the Selection Committee possessed discretionary power to recommend appointments on either basis, and the Appellant’s conduct - accepting the contract without protest and continuing service - barred him from challenging the nature of his appointment. The decision to appoint him contractually was not discriminatory, as Dr. Ranjana Vyas was similarly treated. The reconsideration in 2017 was conducted after due process, and judicial review could not substitute the Committee’s discretion. The Appellant’s failure to raise the issue during earlier proceedings further weakened his claim.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the advertisement, the selection process, and the differential treatment meted out to the Appellant. It observed that the advertisement did not contemplate contractual appointments, and the selection process was uniform for all candidates. The Appellant was found fully qualified and was shortlisted alongside those who received regular appointments. The Court emphasized that the absence of any recorded reason for treating the Appellant differently was fatal to the Respondent’s case.
"The record does not disclose any reason for denying the post for which the Appellant was shortlisted and interviewed."
The Court rejected the argument that acceptance of the contract estopped the Appellant from challenging the illegality. It held that economic compulsion and oral protest do not validate an unconstitutional process. The Court distinguished between acquiescence to terms and acquiescence to illegality, noting that the latter cannot be condoned under constitutional law.
The Court further noted that the Respondent had thirty-two vacant Assistant Professor posts at the time of hearing, and sixty-seven total vacancies. The denial of a regular appointment to a qualified candidate, without justification, in the face of existing vacancies, was unsustainable. The Court held that the differential treatment was not only unexplained but also irrational, violating the mandate of Articles 14 and 16.
The Court declined to interfere with the selection process for other candidates, as they were not parties to the appeal. However, it held that the Appellant’s entitlement to a regular appointment was clear, and the only issue was the manner of relief.
The Verdict
The Appellant succeeded. The Supreme Court set aside all impugned orders and directed Respondent No. 2 to issue an order of regular appointment to the Appellant as Assistant Professor within four weeks from the date of judgment. The Appellant shall be placed in the seniority list of Assistant Professors as the last candidate among those recommended on 06.04.2013. No financial benefits, arrears, or back wages shall be granted. The appointment shall be effective from the date of issuance of the regular order, with continuity of service recognized from 06.04.2013. No order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Differential Treatment Without Reason Is Unconstitutional
- Practitioners must now argue that any deviation from uniform treatment in public recruitment, without documented justification, invites judicial intervention under Articles 14 and 16
- Selection committees must record reasons for recommending contractual appointments over regular ones, even if rules permit discretion
- A pattern of disparate treatment, even if limited to one or two candidates, can be struck down if no rational nexus exists
Acceptance Under Duress Does Not Validate Illegality
- Oral protests and economic compulsion to accept contractual terms do not constitute waiver of constitutional rights
- Courts will not uphold appointments that violate substantive equality merely because the candidate accepted them
- The doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked to shield arbitrary or illegal administrative action
Regular Vacancies Cannot Be Filled Through Contractual Loopholes
- Advertisements specifying "regular" appointments bind the employer to that mode of selection
- Institutions cannot use contractual appointments to circumvent statutory or rule-based regularisation norms
- Where vacancies exist, qualified candidates selected through a regular process must be offered regular posts unless a compelling, documented reason exists otherwise