Waitlisted Principal Cannot Use Family Hardship to Force Change of Posting Under Old UP Education Act
A Supreme Court bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar dismisses a waitlisted candidate's claim to a fresh posting after he refused to join his originally recommended college.
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of a waitlisted candidate for the post of Principal in Uttar Pradesh’s aided colleges, holding that a candidate who deliberately declined to join the college to which he was recommended cannot later invoke Section 13(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 to claim a posting at a college of his choice. The Court also held that after the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 came into force on 21 August 2023, the authorities had no power to act on the old select list to recommend or appoint any candidate.
The judgment, authored by Justice J.K. Maheshwari and decided on 19 May 2026, additionally directed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to examine the conduct of state officers who filed affidavits supporting the appellant’s legally untenable position before both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court
In October 2021, the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Selection Commission published a final select list of 290 candidates and a waitlist of 73 candidates for the post of Principal in post-graduate and under-graduate non-government aided colleges. The appellant, Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat, was placed at serial number 59 in the waitlist.
On 3 August 2022, the Director recommended the appellant’s name to the management of Shri Bajrang P.G. College, Ballia for appointment as Principal. Under the scheme of the old Act, the management was required to issue an appointment order within thirty days. The management waited for the appellant to contact them. He never did.
About ten and a half months later, on 26 June 2023, the appellant submitted a representation to the Director stating that due to family circumstances he had not taken charge at PG College, Ballia, and requesting posting to one of several other colleges where vacancies existed — including Meerut College. The Director, in a letter dated 17 August 2023 to the Special Secretary, Higher Education, stated plainly that once a recommendation had been issued, no provision existed under the old Act or applicable government instructions for changing the place of posting.
Four days later, on 21 August 2023, the new Act came into force, repealing the old Act. Despite this, the Director issued an order on 13 December 2023 indicating that the seating arrangement of one Principal had been changed and that fifteen other cases of change in posting were being processed. The Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, then issued an order on 12 January 2024 directing a change in the appellant’s place of posting to Meerut College, and the Director followed with a recommendation on 15 January 2024 to the management of Meerut College to appoint the appellant as Principal within thirty days.
Respondent no. 6, Yudhveer Singh, the then Officiating Principal of Meerut College, challenged these orders by writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition on 17 February 2025, quashing the orders of 13 December 2023, 12 January 2024, and 15 January 2024. The Division Bench of the High Court confirmed this on 5 May 2025. Dr. Rawat then obtained special leave and the matter came before the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 15989 of 2025.
The Two Questions the Court Framed
The Court identified two distinct questions. First, whether Section 13(4) of the old Act could be interpreted to permit a fresh recommendation or a change in place of posting for a waitlisted candidate who had already been recommended for appointment elsewhere. Second, whether, after the new Act came into force and repealed the old Act, the recommendation of 13 December 2023 and the consequential orders of 12 January 2024 and 15 January 2024 could be sustained under the statutory scheme of the new Act.
Section 13(4) and the Meaning of “Otherwise”
Section 13(4) of the old Act allowed the Director to recommend a candidate from the valid list for a vacancy that arose “due to death, resignation or otherwise” during the period of validity of the list, provided the vacancy had not already been notified to the Commission. The appellant argued that his situation, the management not issuing an appointment order, fell within the word “otherwise,” entitling the Director to recommend him for a different college.
The Court rejected this. It traced the facts carefully: the appellant himself chose not to contact the management at PG College, Ballia, and not to demand issuance of an appointment order. He then waited until vacancies arose at other colleges and submitted a representation seeking a posting of his preference. The Court found this conduct did not create a vacancy of the kind contemplated by Section 13(4).
The Court relied on its earlier decision in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and Others, (1998) 3 SCC 45, which had held that the word “otherwise” in Section 13(4) must be read ejusdem generis , that is, in a group similar to death, resignation, long leave vacancy, invalidation, or a person not joining after being duly selected. The 1998 judgment had explained that a wider interpretation would permit filling vacancies that were never advertised, absorbing panel candidates who had not applied for those vacancies, and thereby defeating the object of the Act to draw larger applicants by advertising every vacancy.
Applying that reasoning, the Court held that permitting the appellant to use his own refusal to join as a trigger for Section 13(4) would supersede the earlier recommendation under Section 13(3) and frustrate the purpose of that provision. The vacancy at Meerut College was not an unforeseen vacancy of the kind Section 13(4) was designed to address.
Effect of the New Act and the Repeal and Savings Clause
The Court then turned to the second question. The new Act, which came into force on 21 August 2023, contains a repeal and savings clause in Section 31. Section 31(2) provides that anything done or any action taken under the repealed Acts shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the new Act. The appellant argued that the recommendation of 3 August 2022 was an “act done” under the old Act that was saved and could be built upon.
The Court accepted that the recommendation of 3 August 2022 was indeed an act done under the old Act. However, it held that the act done was only that recommendation, and nothing more. The Director’s own letter of 17 August 2023, issued just four days before the new Act came into force, had made clear that no change in place of posting was permissible. There was therefore no further act done under the old Act that could be saved.
After 21 August 2023, the Court held, the validity of the list prepared under the old Act lapsed automatically. The authorities were duty-bound to follow the procedure under Sections 10 and 11 of the new Act for any fresh appointment to the post of Principal. The orders of 13 December 2023, 12 January 2024, and 15 January 2024 were all issued after the new Act came into force and purported to act on the old list. They could not be sustained.
The Court also referred to Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904, which provides that a repeal shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time the repeal takes effect, and shall not affect anything duly done or suffered under the repealed enactment. Reading Section 31(2) of the new Act alongside Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the Court concluded that the effect of repeal did not revive the old list or permit fresh action under it after 21 August 2023.
Observations on State Officers’ Conduct
Before concluding, the Court made pointed observations about the conduct of state officers. It found it “surprising” that after the Director himself had written on 17 August 2023 that no change in posting was permissible, the Joint Secretary issued the order of 12 January 2024 recommending the appellant’s posting to Meerut College. The Court observed that the state officers had filed affidavits before the High Court and the Supreme Court taking a stand that was “completely impermissible under the law and contrary to the finding of the High Court.”
The Court said the duty of the State and its officials when filing counter-affidavits and arguing before courts is to provide real assistance based on facts and applicable law, not to support any party contrary to law. Since the concerned officers were not parties to the appeal, the Court declined to issue adverse directions against them directly. It left it open to the State of Uttar Pradesh, through the Chief Secretary, to examine the conduct of those officers and take recourse in accordance with law if necessary.
Locus Standi of the Officiating Principal
The appellant had argued that respondent no. 6, being only an Officiating Principal, had no locus standi to challenge the appointment of a regular Principal selected through the Commission’s process. The Court declined to decide this question on its merits. It observed that when the illegality of the authorities’ action was manifest, the issue of locus standi was not germane on the facts of this case. The Court left the question open for decision in an appropriate case, noting that in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma (Supra) this Court had found that Officiating Principals have locus to challenge such orders under the scheme of Sections 12, 13, and 14 of the old Act.
Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal. It upheld the conclusions of both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, while adding more elaborate reasoning of its own. The Court directed that parties bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of. The Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh was left free to examine the conduct of the officers who had supported the appellant’s position before the courts.