Dr Manoj Kumar Rawatv.State of UP & Ors

Legal Analysis: Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 508
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date of Decision: May 19, 2026
Nature of Case: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15989 of 2025

Synopsis

The appellant, a waitlisted candidate for the post of Principal in non‑Government aided colleges in Uttar Pradesh, was initially recommended for appointment to a college in Ballia on 03.08.2022 under the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (the “old Act”). He did not join and, after about ten months, requested a change of posting to Meerut College. The Director rejected this request on 17.08.2023. On 21.08.2023, the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 (the “New Act”) came into force, repealing the old Act. Nevertheless, on 13.12.2023 and 12.01.2024, the authorities issued fresh orders recommending the appellant to Meerut College. The High Court quashed those orders, holding that after the repeal and the earlier rejection, the appellant had no right to be considered under the old Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the “act done” under the old Act was only the initial recommendation; the subsequent orders after the New Act came into force were without jurisdiction. The Court also held that the word “otherwise” in Section 13(4) of the old Act must be construed ejusdem generis and does not cover a candidate’s voluntary non‑joining or request for change of place.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

• Citation: 2026 INSC 508

• Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15989 of 2025

• Bench: Division Bench (Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar)

• Date of Decision: May 19, 2026

• Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

• Impugned Order: Judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 05.05.2025 affirming the Single Judge’s order quashing the appointment orders.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (old Act) – Sections 12 (procedure for appointment of teachers), 13 (recommendation of Commission), 14 (duty of management), particularly Section 13(4) (power of Director to intimate name from the list for a vacancy occurring due to death, resignation or “otherwise”).

• Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 (New Act) – Sections 10 (determination of vacancies and selection procedure), 11 (panel/list of candidates), Section 31 (repeal and savings – anything done under old Act deemed to be done under New Act).

• Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 – Section 6 (effect of repeal).

Key Precedents

• Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta – Interpreted the word “otherwise” in Section 13(4) of the old Act ejusdem generis, i.e., limited to unforeseen vacancies akin to death or resignation, not to a candidate’s own failure to join or request for change.

• Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai – On locus standi (distinguished).

• Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra – On locus standi (distinguished).

3. Relevant Facts

• Advertisement No. 49 of 2019 was issued for Principal posts in PG and UG colleges. A final select list of 290 candidates and a waitlist of 73 candidates was published on 05.10.2021. The appellant was at Sl. No. 59 in the waitlist.

• On 03.08.2022, the Director recommended the appellant’s name for appointment as Principal of Shri Bajrang P.G. College, Ballia. The management was required to issue appointment letter within 30 days.

• The appellant did not take any steps to contact the management or to join. After about ten and a half months, on 26.06.2023, he submitted a representation stating “due to family circumstances” he had not taken charge and requested appointment to Meerut College (where a vacancy had arisen).

• The Director, on 17.08.2023, wrote to the Special Secretary that there was no provision under the old Act to change the place of posting after a recommendation had been made.

• On 21.08.2023, the New Act came into force, repealing the old Act.

• Despite this, on 13.12.2023, the Director issued a letter stating that in view of the appellant’s family circumstances, his posting was being changed. On 12.01.2024, the Joint Secretary issued an order for change of posting to Meerut College, and on 15.01.2024, the Director directed the management of Meerut College to appoint the appellant.

• The Officiating Principal of Meerut College (respondent No. 6) filed a writ petition challenging these orders. The Single Judge allowed the petition, and the Division Bench affirmed.

• The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

4. Issues Before the Supreme Court

• Issue No. 1: Whether Section 13(4) of the old Act permits a change in the place of posting of a waitlisted candidate who had already been recommended for appointment elsewhere but did not join, and whether such action is consistent with the law laid down in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma.

• Issue No. 2: Whether, after the enforcement of the New Act (repealing the old Act), the recommendation dated 13.12.2023 and consequential orders dated 12.01.2024 and 15.01.2024 can be sustained within the statutory scheme of the New Act.

• Issue No. 3: Whether the Officiating Principal had locus standi to challenge the appointment of a regular Principal.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. The word “otherwise” in Section 13(4) of the old Act must be construed ejusdem generis and does not cover a candidate’s voluntary non‑joining or request for change of place.
The Court relied on Kamlesh Kumar Sharma to hold that the word “otherwise” takes colour from the preceding words “death” and “resignation”. It applies only to unforeseen vacancies that could not be notified earlier, not to a situation where a waitlisted candidate, after being recommended, fails to join and later seeks a different college. The appellant’s own inaction did not create a vacancy under Section 13(4). (Paras 18-21)

B. The “act done” under the old Act was only the initial recommendation dated 03.08.2022; the subsequent orders after the repeal were not protected by the savings clause.
Section 31(2) of the New Act saves only “anything done or any action taken” under the old Act. The Court held that the only action taken prior to 21.08.2023 was the recommendation of the appellant to Ballia College and the Director’s letter of 17.08.2023 declining any change. The orders of 13.12.2023, 12.01.2024 and 15.01.2024 were issued after the New Act had come into force, and they were not saved. Moreover, the list prepared under the old Act lapsed upon repeal, and the authorities were required to follow the selection procedure under Sections 10 and 11 of the New Act. (Paras 22-24)

C. The savings provision in Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 does not revive the old list or allow new actions after repeal.
The Court noted that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act protects only things duly done before repeal; it does not authorise the continuation of actions that were not completed. Since the appellant had not joined and no appointment order had been issued before the repeal, the old list could not be used after 21.08.2023. (Para 24)

D. The issue of locus standi of the Officiating Principal need not be decided when the impugned orders are ex facie illegal.
The Court observed that when the illegality is writ large, the question of locus becomes academic. It left the issue open for decision in an appropriate case. (Para 27)

E. The State authorities acted contrary to law and their conduct was deprecated.
The Court noted that the State officials had taken an “unlawful stand” before the High Court and this Court by supporting the appellant despite the clear legal position. It directed the Chief Secretary to look into the conduct of the officers. (Para 26)

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• First, the word “otherwise” in Section 13(4) of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 is not a residuary clause of wide amplitude. It must be read ejusdem generis with “death” and “resignation”, covering only unforeseen vacancies that could not have been anticipated at the time of advertisement. A candidate’s own failure to join or request for transfer does not fall within its ambit.

• Second, a savings clause in a repealing statute (Section 31(2) of the New Act) protects only actions that were already completed or rights that had crystallised before repeal. It does not authorise the continuance of a selection process or the revival of a waitlist after the new Act has come into force, unless the new Act itself provides for such continuity.

• Third, the State and its officers have a duty to act fairly and to assist the court with correct legal positions. Taking a partisan stand contrary to law, especially after having earlier rejected the claim, is a serious matter and may invite administrative action.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis of Concepts

The Court examined the scheme of Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the old Act. It noted that the Director’s role is to intimate the management of a candidate’s name from the Commission’s list. Once a candidate is recommended, the management must issue an appointment order within one month. If the candidate fails to join, the management can ask for a fresh name, but the Director has no power to unilaterally change the place of posting.

The Court then applied the ejusdem generis rule to Section 13(4). It observed that if “otherwise” were given a wide meaning, it would defeat the object of the Act – which requires vacancies to be advertised and applicants to indicate their preferences. A waitlisted candidate cannot, after being recommended to one college, arbitrarily demand a different college.

On the repeal and savings issue, the Court contrasted the position under the old and new Acts. The New Act provides a fresh mechanism: vacancies are to be notified, the Commission conducts fresh selection, and a panel is prepared. There is no provision for continuing the old waitlist. Therefore, the authorities acted without jurisdiction when they issued orders after 21.08.2023 on the basis of the old list.

The Court also noted that the appellant’s own conduct was not diligent. He did not contact the management of Ballia College for his appointment letter; he waited for ten months and then sought a change only after a vacancy arose at Meerut College. This was not a case of the management’s fault but the appellant’s own choice.

Finally, the Court strongly criticised the State’s officers for supporting the appellant after having earlier rejected his claim, and for filing affidavits that were contrary to law. It referred the matter to the Chief Secretary for appropriate action.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment correctly interprets Section 13(4) in line with earlier precedent and prevents the misuse of the “otherwise” clause. It upholds the principle that selection processes are time‑bound and that a waitlist does not confer an indefinite right to appointment. The decision on the effect of repeal is also sound – a new Act with a different scheme must be followed, and the old list cannot be resurrected. The Court’s strong words on the conduct of State officers are necessary to maintain discipline in litigation.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly consider whether the Officiating Principal had any direct legal right to challenge the appointment. The Court left that issue open, which may cause confusion in future cases. However, given the patent illegality, the outcome would have been the same even if the issue of locus had been decided against the respondent.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in service matters where a repealed statute’s savings clause is invoked to claim continuation of a selection process. It will also be used to oppose claims of waitlisted candidates who seek change of place of posting after being recommended to one college. Government officers will be cautious about filing affidavits that are not consistent with the legal position.

9. Final Outcome

• The civil appeal was dismissed.

• The impugned orders of the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) were affirmed.

• The orders dated 13.12.2023, 12.01.2024 and 15.01.2024 recommending and appointing the appellant as Principal of Meerut College were held to be without jurisdiction and void.

• No order as to costs.

• The Court directed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to look into the conduct of the officers who had taken an unlawful stand before the courts.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

First, a candidate who has been recommended for appointment to a particular college under a selection process cannot claim a change of place of posting merely because of personal inconvenience. The Court will interpret “otherwise” in Section 13(4) narrowly and will not permit such requests.

Second, when an enactment is repealed and a new Act with a different selection procedure comes into force, the old select list or waitlist cannot be used to make appointments after the date of repeal, unless the new Act specifically saves pending actions. The savings clause protects only completed acts, not incomplete processes.

Third, a person aggrieved by an illegal appointment (e.g., an officiating principal) may have locus to challenge it even if the appointment is to a higher post, especially when the illegality is patent. However, the court may not even need to decide locus if the action is ex facie void.

11.  Court Lines

Line 1 (Ejusdem generis interpretation – Para 21 quoting Kamlesh Kumar Sharma):
“The word ‘otherwise’ has to be read as ejusdem generis, that is to say, in group similar to death, resignation, long leave vacancy, invalidation, person not joining after being duly selected. In other words, it would be a case of unforeseen vacancies which could not be conceived under Section 12(2).”

Line 2 (Repeal and savings – Para 24):
“Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 protects only things duly done before repeal; it does not authorise the continuation of actions that were not completed. Since the appellant had not joined and no appointment order had been issued before the repeal, the old list could not be used after 21.08.2023.”

Line 3 (Conduct of State officers – Para 26):
“It is necessary to observe that the duty of the State and its officials while filing their counter‑affidavit and arguing the case before the Court is to provide real assistance. Such assistance ought to be based on the facts, and by applying the law applicable to the case at hand. It is not expected from the authorities to support any party contrary to the law.”

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For a candidate (appellant) in a similar situation:

• If you are a waitlisted candidate and receive a recommendation for a college you do not wish to join, you must either join or formally decline. Do not remain silent and later seek a change. The courts will not entertain a request for change of place after the repeal of the governing Act.

• If the relevant Act is repealed before you receive an appointment order, you cannot rely on the old select list. You must apply afresh under the new Act.

• Avoid making representations that admit your own failure to join – this will be used against you.

For a management or an aggrieved person (like the Officiating Principal):

• If you are an officiating principal and a regular principal is appointed in clear violation of the law (e.g., after repeal of the governing statute), you have locus to challenge the appointment. The court may not even require you to prove locus if the illegality is manifest.

• Immediately approach the High Court under Article 226 when such illegal orders are issued, before the appointee takes charge.

For State officials defending such actions:

• Never file an affidavit supporting a candidate contrary to the clear legal position, especially if you had earlier rejected the same claim. The Court may refer your conduct to the Chief Secretary for disciplinary action.

• Before issuing any order under a repealed statute, check whether the savings clause actually permits it. Incomplete processes are not saved.