Candidates Selected Through a Regular Recruitment Process Cannot Be Arbitrarily Given Contractual Appointments Without Recorded Reasons
Case Name: Lokendra Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 487
Date of Judgment/Order: 13 May 2026
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
Held: The Supreme Court held that where an advertisement is issued exclusively for regular appointments, candidates subjected to the same regular selection process cannot be arbitrarily singled out and offered contractual appointments without any recorded reasons. The Court held that if a candidate was fully qualified and found suitable for appointment through the regular recruitment process, denial of regular appointment while granting regular appointments to similarly selected candidates amounted to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court further held that acceptance of a contractual appointment under economic compulsion would not validate or cure an otherwise unconstitutional and illegal selection outcome.
Summary: The appellant applied for the post of Assistant Professor pursuant to an advertisement issued by IIIT Allahabad in 2013 for filling regular faculty posts in various disciplines. The appellant, possessing a Ph.D. in Information Security and relevant teaching experience, was shortlisted and interviewed through the same selection process as other candidates. While thirteen candidates were granted regular appointments, the appellant and one other candidate alone were recommended for contractual appointments for one year without any reasons being recorded. The appellant accepted the contractual appointment and later challenged the discriminatory treatment after the appointments were cancelled and reconsidered pursuant to earlier litigation. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and appeal primarily on the ground that he had accepted the contractual appointment without written protest and had acquiesced in the arrangement. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the advertisement itself contemplated only regular appointments and that the Selection Committee lacked authority to arbitrarily convert a regular recruitment process into a contractual appointment for selected individuals. The Supreme Court examined the recruitment process, the institutional records, the qualifications of the appellant vis-à-vis other selected candidates, and the absence of any discernible justification for the differential treatment. The Court found that the appellant was fully eligible for regular appointment and that the record disclosed no valid reason whatsoever for denying him regular status while appointing similarly situated candidates on a regular basis.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, and held that denial of regular appointment to the appellant was patently illegal and unconstitutional. The Court directed IIIT Allahabad to issue a regular appointment order appointing the appellant as Assistant Professor within four weeks. However, while moulding the relief, the Court denied back wages and other monetary benefits, but granted continuity of service for all other purposes. The appellant was directed to be placed in seniority as the last candidate amongst those recommended and appointed pursuant to the Selection Committee resolution dated 06 April 2013. Pending applications were disposed of without any order as to costs.