The Supreme Court has definitively held that once a new statutory regime replaces an old one, any attempt to alter appointments made under the repealed law - especially after its repeal - is legally unsustainable. This judgment clarifies the limits of transitional savings clauses and reinforces the principle that statutory procedures must be followed strictly, even for waitlisted candidates.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the appointment process for Principals in non-government aided colleges in Uttar Pradesh. The appellant, Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat, was placed at Sl.No.59 on the waitlist of 73 candidates published on 05.10.2021 following a selection process conducted under the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (the "Old Act"). On 03.08.2022, the Director recommended him for appointment as Principal of Shri Bajrang P.G. College, Dadar Ashram Sikandarpur, Ballia (PG College, Ballia). However, the appellant did not join the post, citing family circumstances, and submitted a representation on 26.06.2023 requesting reassignment to another college, including Meerut College, where a vacancy had arisen.
Key Facts
- The final select list was published on 05.10.2021, with 290 selected candidates and 73 waitlisted candidates.
- Dr. Sachidanand Sharma (Sl.No.3) was appointed Principal of Meerut College on 23.10.2021.
- Dr. Sharma resigned on 28.05.2023 and was relieved on 09.06.2023.
- Dr. Anjali Mittal was appointed Officiating Principal on 09.06.2023 and superannuated on 30.06.2024.
- Yudhveer Singh (Respondent No.6) was appointed Officiating Principal on 14.06.2024.
- The appellant was recommended for PG College, Ballia on 03.08.2022 under the Old Act.
- The appellant submitted a representation on 26.06.2023 requesting reassignment due to family circumstances.
- The Director responded on 17.08.2023, stating no provision existed under the Old Act to change posting after recommendation.
- The Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 (the "New Act") came into force on 21.08.2023, repealing the Old Act.
- Despite the repeal, the Director issued a fresh recommendation on 13.12.2023 for the appellant’s posting to Meerut College.
- The Joint Secretary issued a consequential order on 12.01.2024, and the Director issued a formal recommendation to the Management on 15.01.2024.
Procedural History
- 05.10.2021: Final waitlist published under the Old Act.
- 03.08.2022: Director recommends appellant for PG College, Ballia.
- 26.06.2023: Appellant requests reassignment to other colleges.
- 17.08.2023: Director confirms no legal provision exists to change posting under the Old Act.
- 21.08.2023: New Act comes into force, repealing the Old Act.
- 13.12.2023: Director issues new recommendation for Meerut College posting.
- 12.01.2024: Joint Secretary directs change in posting.
- 15.01.2024: Director formally recommends appointment to Meerut College.
- 17.02.2025: Single Judge of Allahabad High Court quashes the 13.12.2023, 12.01.2024, and 15.01.2024 orders.
- 05.05.2025: Division Bench of Allahabad High Court affirms the Single Judge’s order.
- 28.03.2026: Civil Appeal filed in the Supreme Court.
The Parties' Positions
Appellant (Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat): Argued that Section 13(4) of the Old Act permitted reassignment due to "otherwise" occurring vacancies, and that the recommendation dated 03.08.2022 remained valid. He contended that the New Act’s savings clause (Section 31(2)) preserved his right to appointment.
Respondent No.6 (Yudhveer Singh, Officiating Principal): Contended that the appellant’s failure to join PG College, Ballia did not create a "vacancy" under Section 13(4), and that the New Act’s commencement on 21.08.2023 rendered all actions under the Old Act invalid unless already implemented. He asserted that the 13.12.2023 and subsequent orders were ultra vires.
State of Uttar Pradesh: Initially opposed the appellant’s claim but later supported him, arguing that past practice allowed reassignment and that the appellant was not at fault for non-joining.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought: (1) setting aside of the High Court’s orders dated 17.02.2025 and 05.05.2025; (2) declaration that the Director’s recommendation dated 13.12.2023 and subsequent orders were valid; (3) direction to appoint him as Principal of Meerut College.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether, after the repeal of the Old Act on 21.08.2023, the Director could lawfully issue a fresh recommendation under Section 13(4) of the repealed Act to reassign a waitlisted candidate to a different college, where the original posting had not been accepted and no vacancy had arisen due to death, resignation, or similar unforeseen circumstances.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on Section 13(4) of the Old Act, arguing that "otherwise" included situations where a candidate, though recommended, did not join due to personal reasons, thereby creating a de facto vacancy. He contended that Section 31(2) of the New Act saved all actions taken under the Old Act, including recommendations, and that the 03.08.2022 recommendation remained valid and enforceable. He cited Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta to argue that "otherwise" should be interpreted broadly to include non-joining, and that the State’s own past conduct supported reassignment.
For the Respondent
Respondent No.6 argued that Section 13(4) applied only to unforeseen vacancies like death or resignation - not to a candidate’s voluntary non-joining. He emphasized that the 03.08.2022 recommendation was never implemented, and the appellant’s inaction did not create a vacancy under the statute. He further contended that the New Act’s commencement on 21.08.2023 terminated the validity of the Old Act’s list, and any subsequent action under the repealed law was void. He relied on Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904, to argue that the repeal did not revive unimplemented recommendations.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed textual and purposive analysis of Sections 12, 13, and 14 of the Old Act and Sections 10, 11, and 31 of the New Act. It emphasized that the Old Act’s selection process was designed to ensure transparency and merit-based appointments through advertised vacancies. Section 13(4) permitted reassignment only when a vacancy arose unexpectedly during the validity of the list - such as death, resignation, or long leave. The Court held that a candidate’s failure to join due to personal reasons did not constitute a "vacancy" within the meaning of Section 13(4), as it would subvert the statutory scheme by allowing candidates to bypass the advertised process.
"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."
The Court further examined Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, reaffirming that "otherwise" must be read ejusdem generis with death and resignation, and cannot be stretched to include self-created non-joining. The Court observed that the appellant’s representation on 26.06.2023 was an attempt to exploit the system, not a legitimate claim under the statute.
Crucially, the Court held that the New Act’s repeal of the Old Act on 21.08.2023 extinguished the validity of the 2021 list. Section 31(2) of the New Act saved only those actions "done or taken" under the Old Act prior to repeal. The recommendation dated 03.08.2022 was merely a recommendation; no appointment order had been issued, and no action had been taken to implement it. Therefore, the subsequent orders dated 13.12.2023, 12.01.2024, and 15.01.2024 were not saved actions but new, unauthorized acts under a repealed regime.
"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."
The Court also rejected the State’s attempt to support the appellant, noting that officials had filed affidavits contrary to the law and the High Court’s findings. It observed that the State’s duty is to assist the Court with legal accuracy, not partisan advocacy.
Regarding locus standi, the Court declined to rule definitively but noted that where an act is "writ large" illegal, the issue of standing may not be decisive, citing Kamlesh Kumar Sharma.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s orders quashing the Director’s recommendations dated 13.12.2023, 12.01.2024, and 15.01.2024. The Court held that the appellant had no legal right to be appointed as Principal of Meerut College under the repealed Old Act, and that the New Act required a fresh selection process. Parties were directed to bear their own costs. The Court left open the possibility of the State initiating disciplinary proceedings against officials who filed misleading affidavits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Repeal Terminates Pending Recommendations
- Practitioners must now treat any unimplemented recommendation under a repealed statute as legally defunct unless action was taken before repeal.
- A mere recommendation without appointment or implementation does not constitute a "saved action" under Section 31(2) of the New Act.
- Any attempt to revive old lists after repeal is void, regardless of the candidate’s merit or delay.
"Otherwise" in Section 13(4) Is Narrowly Construed
- "Otherwise" under Section 13(4) applies only to unforeseen, involuntary vacancies: death, resignation, long leave, or invalidation.
- Voluntary non-joining by a candidate does not create a vacancy under the statute.
- Candidates cannot use personal circumstances to circumvent the advertised selection process.
State Officials Must Adhere to Legal Boundaries
-
Government departments cannot file affidavits supporting unlawful claims merely to favor a party.
-
Courts will not tolerate advocacy that contradicts statutory text or prior judicial holdings.
-
Misconduct by officials may trigger departmental inquiry, even if no direct order is issued.
-
Practitioners should advise clients to pursue fresh applications under new statutes rather than relying on expired recommendations.
-
In service matters, timing of action is critical: if a recommendation is not acted upon before repeal, it cannot be resurrected.
