Legal Review and Analysis of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors vs Bhawana Mishra 2026 INSC 38
I. Basic Information & Synopsis
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Bhawana Mishra & Connected Matters
Citation: 2026 INSC 38 (Civil Appeal Nos. 14250-14252 of 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Manmohan
Bench Type: Division Bench (Two-Judge Bench)
Date of Judgment: January 08, 2026
Synopsis & Basic Concept: This Supreme Court judgment deals with the claim of Ayurvedic Nursing Course graduates for automatic appointment to the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse based on past practice and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The Court overturned the High Court’s direction to appoint them, holding that admission to a training course does not confer an enforceable right to appointment, especially when there has been a material change in policy, exponential increase in candidates, and the introduction of a centralized selection process through UPSSSC.
II. Case Identification & Bench Details
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Bhawana Mishra (and connected matters)
Citation: 2026 INSC 38
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal No(s).: 14250/2025, 14251/2025, 14252/2025 (arising from SLPs)
Coram: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Manmohan
Bench Type: Division Bench (Two-Judge Bench)
Date of Judgment: January 08, 2026
III. Legal Framework & Statutory Provisions
1. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation:
As reiterated in Sivanandan C T vs. High Court of Kerala (2023 INSC 709), it requires:
Legitimacy of expectation
Denial leading to violation of Article 14
2. Relevant Government Orders & Notifications:
GO dated 12.11.1986: Procedure for selection for Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course.
Notification dated 21.10.2011: Permitted private institutions to conduct the course.
Notification dated 15.12.2014: Brought posts under UPSSSC for selection.
Uttar Pradesh Ayush Department (Ayurved) Nursing Service Rules, 2021: Statutory rules notified w.e.f. 18.11.2021.
3. Constitutional Provision:
Article 14: Right to equality – tested on arbitrariness and discrimination.
Key Precedents Referenced
N. Suresh Nathan vs. Union of India (1992): On consistent past practice in service matters.
Sivanandan C T vs. High Court of Kerala (2023): On doctrine of legitimate expectation.
IV. Relevant Facts of the Case
Historical Practice (1986–2011): Only one government institution (20 seats/year) conducted Ayurvedic Nursing Training. Most pass-outs were appointed due to sufficient vacancies.
Policy Change (2011): Private institutions permitted to run the course. Number of pass-outs increased dramatically.
Respondents’ Admission: Respondents admitted in 2013–14 session in government college. Bond executed mentioned mandatory 5-year service if appointed.
Post-Training Scenario: Respondents passed out in 2017. No vacancies offered. State insisted on selection through UPSSSC.
High Court’s Order: Directed appointment based on legitimate expectation due to past practice.
State’s Appeal: Argued change in policy, no right to appointment, and UPSSSC is now competent authority.
V. Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether admission to Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course confers a right to automatic appointment?
Whether the respondents could claim legitimate expectation for appointment despite a change in policy and explosion in number of candidates?
Whether the State’s refusal to appoint violates Article 14?
VI. Ratio Decidendi & Supreme Court’s Ruling
1. No Right to Appointment from Admission:
Advertisement only promised training, not appointment.
Bond clause applied only if selected for service.
2. Legitimate Expectation Not Applicable:
Past practice was due to factual necessity (only 20 seats, more vacancies).
Material change in circumstances after 2011 – private colleges increased candidate pool manifold.
No promise or assurance of appointment in advertisement.
3. No Violation of Article 14:
No discrimination – no batchmate or later candidate was appointed under old system after 2010–11 batch.
State acted reasonably in adopting centralized selection to choose best candidates.
4. Statutory Framework Strengthened Selection Process:
Service Rules notified in 2021.
UPSSSC is now competent selecting body.
Outcome
Appeals allowed. High Court’s direction for appointment set aside.
VII. Legal Principles Established & Reinforced
Admission Appointment: Enrollment in a course does not create an enforceable right to a job.
Legitimate Expectation – Not an Absolute Right: Doctrine cannot override policy change justified by changed circumstances.
Article 14 – Equality in Factual Context: No discrimination if similarly placed persons are treated equally; none were appointed after policy shift.
State’s Prerogative in Recruitment: State can change selection process to ensure merit-based appointments.
VIII. Judicial Examination & Analytical Approach
Step 1 – Scrutiny of Advertisement & Bond: Court found no promise of appointment.
Step 2 – Analysis of Past Practice: Found it was situational, not a permanent assurance.
Step 3 – Examination of Policy Change: Noted dramatic increase in candidates post-2011.
Step 4 – Application of Legitimate Expectation Test: Applied Sivanandan’s two-fold test – respondents failed both.
Step 5 – Equality Check: Found no instance of favourable treatment to similarly placed candidates.
IX. Critical Analysis & Final Outcome
Strengths:
Prevents automatic appointment claims in era of expanded education.
Upholds state’s right to reform recruitment for merit.
Clarifies limits of legitimate expectation in face of changed facts.
Potential Considerations
Harsh on students who joined based on past trend.
May encourage states to change policies abruptly, affecting career expectations.
Final Outcome
Civil Appeals (State): Allowed.
High Court’s Judgment: Set aside.
Respondents: Not entitled to appointment; must compete through UPSSSC if eligible.
X. Multiple Choice Questions
1. Which doctrine was primarily argued by the respondents?
A) Estoppel
B) Legitimate Expectation
C) Promissory Estoppel
D) Public Trust
2. What was the key reason the Supreme Court rejected the claim of legitimate expectation?
A) Respondents were from private colleges
B) There was a material change in policy and circumstances
C) The course was discontinued
D) The bond was not executed
3. Which body is now responsible for selecting Ayurvedic Staff Nurses in UP?
A) UPPSC
B) UPSSSC
C) Medical Council
D) State Health Department
4. What did the Supreme Court say about the bond executed during admission?
A) It guaranteed appointment
B) It applied only if candidate is selected for service
C) It was illegal
D) It was not enforceable
5. Which constitutional article was tested in this case?
A) Article 16
B) Article 19
C) Article 14
D) Article 21
Blog Posts
