Where an advertisement is issued for regular appointments and a candidate is selected through the same regular selection process, denial of regular appointment without any recorded reason is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 Const. of India.
Facts
The respondent Institute issued Advertisement No. FS-01/2013 inviting applications for regular posts of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in specified pay bands.
The appellant, possessing a Ph.D. in Information Security and requisite teaching experience, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the Information Security stream. He was shortlisted and interviewed through the same selection process applicable to all candidates.
Following recommendations dated 06.04.2013, thirteen candidates were appointed. However, while most selected candidates received regular appointments, the appellant and one other candidate were offered appointment only on contractual basis for one year at fixed remuneration.
Subsequently, all appointments were cancelled on procedural grounds, leading to litigation before the Allahabad High Court and later this Court. Upon reconsideration, the Institute reiterated the appellant’s contractual appointment.
The appellant challenged this decision contending that the advertisement contemplated only regular appointments and that contractual appointment after undergoing the regular selection process was arbitrary and discriminatory.
The Single Judge and Division Bench dismissed the challenge, principally relying upon the appellant’s acceptance of the contractual appointment without written protest.
Issues Framed
Whether a candidate selected pursuant to an advertisement for regular posts could arbitrarily be offered only a contractual appointment without any recorded reason, despite having undergone the same selection process as regular appointees.
Court’s Reasoning
(a) Nature of the selection process
The Court noted that the advertisement was exclusively for regular posts and made no mention of contractual appointments (Para 12A).
The appellant was subjected to the same interview and selection process as candidates ultimately appointed on regular basis (Paras 12B–12C).
The Court observed that once the appellant was found suitable for appointment, denial of regular appointment required disclosure of valid reasons.
(b) Arbitrary differential treatment
The Court found that no reason whatsoever was recorded by the Selection Committee for treating the appellant differently from similarly situated candidates (Para 12D).
The Court held:
“The Appellant, if unsuitable for appointment, could not have been recommended even on a contract basis…” (Para 13)
The Court observed that the issue was not judicial review of academic assessment by the Selection Committee, but absence of any justification for unequal treatment (Para 13).
(c) Violation of Arts. 14 and 16 Const. of India
The Court held that arbitrary denial of regular appointment despite selection through the same process violated equality guarantees under Arts. 14 and 16 Const. of India.
The Court rejected the argument that acceptance of contractual appointment barred the appellant from challenging illegality, especially when the appellant had limited employment options and accepted the appointment under compulsion (Para 10).
(d) Relief moulded by the Court
The Court took note of existing vacancies in the institution, observing that 32 vacancies of Assistant Professors were available (Para 14).
While granting regular appointment, the Court moulded relief by denying back wages and other financial benefits, but granting continuity of service for seniority purposes.
The appellant was directed to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list among candidates appointed pursuant to the same selection process.
Held
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench.
The Court directed the respondent Institute to appoint the appellant as a regular Assistant Professor within four weeks.
The appellant was granted continuity of service without financial benefits and directed to be placed as the last candidate in seniority amongst those appointed pursuant to the Selection Committee resolution dated 06.04.2013.
Ratio
Where an advertisement is issued for regular posts and candidates undergo a common regular selection process, selective appointment of one candidate on contractual basis without any recorded justification is arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 Const. of India.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 487
Decided on: 13 May 2026
Case Title: Lokendra Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India and Others
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti