The Supreme Court on January 8, 2026, set aside a series of High Court orders that had directed the Uttar Pradesh government to consider trained Ayurvedic nurses for direct appointment. The top court ruled that mere admission to, or completion of, an Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course does not create a legal right to government employment.
The judgment came in appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against three candidates who had completed their training and sought automatic appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurses.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to admissions made in 2013–14 to the Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course at a government institution in Lucknow. For decades, only one government college offered the course, with an intake of 20 students. Since vacancies were more than trainees, candidates were often appointed after completing training.
However, a policy shift began in 2011 when private institutions were also permitted to run the course. As a result, the number of trained candidates rose sharply, while vacancies remained limited.
After completing her training in 2017, one of the respondents sought appointment. When her representation was rejected in 2019, she approached the High Court, which accepted her plea based on “legitimate expectation” and directed the State to consider her for appointment. Similar relief was granted to other candidates.
Read also:- Supreme Court Defers Unitech Homebuyers' Pleas, Sets Fresh Hearing Amid Crowd of Pending Applications
The State challenged these directions before the Supreme Court of India, arguing that training never assured a job and that recruitment rules had changed.
The Uttar Pradesh government told the court that:
- The original government orders regulated training, not appointments.
- A clause in the admission advertisement required a bond only if a candidate was later appointed.
- After 2014, recruitment to the post of Ayurvedic Staff Nurse fell under the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission.
- With hundreds of institutions offering the course, automatic appointments would be unfair and discriminatory.
The State also pointed out that no candidates admitted after the 2010–11 batch were appointed under the old system, except in rare cases due to court orders.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal Case After Parties Reach Settlement in Gonda Dispute
Candidates’ Stand
The respondents argued that:
- From the 1970s till 2015, candidates trained in government institutions were routinely appointed.
- They had joined the course relying on this long-standing practice.
- The absence of an explicit disclaimer in government college advertisements created a legitimate expectation of employment.
They relied on earlier Supreme Court rulings that recognised long-followed administrative practices.
Court’s Observations
Rejecting these claims, the bench noted that circumstances had changed fundamentally after private colleges were allowed to run the course.
“The past practice existed in a completely different factual scenario,” the bench observed, adding that once the number of trained candidates multiplied, the State was bound to adopt a fair selection process.
The court clarified that the bond clause only applied after selection and appointment. It did not promise a job to every trainee. The judges further held that legitimate expectation cannot override policy changes or create a right where none exists.
The bench also found no discrimination. “Not a single candidate from the same or subsequent batches was directly appointed,” the judgment recorded, ruling out unequal treatment.
Read also:- Kerala HC nudges State on anti-superstition law, suggests special police cell to tackle black magic
Final Decision
Allowing the State’s appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s directions and upheld the government’s stand.
“The direction mandating the State to consider the respondents for appointment cannot be legally sustained,” the court held, bringing the long-running dispute to an end.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh vs Bhawana Mishra & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 14250–14252 of 2025
Case Type: Service Law / Recruitment Dispute
Decision Date: January 8, 2026
