Table of Contents
Case Title
Lokendra Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India
Citation
2026 INSC 487
Introduction
The Supreme Court examined whether educational institutions can offer contractual appointments after advertising regular teaching vacancies. The Court held that candidates selected through a regular recruitment process cannot arbitrarily be given contract appointment teaching posts without any valid or recorded reason. It observed that such unequal treatment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and undermines fairness in public employment.
The judgment came in a case where a qualified candidate applied for a regular Assistant Professor post at IIIT Allahabad but was offered only a one-year contractual appointment, while other similarly selected candidates received regular appointments.
Background Of The Case
In 2013, IIIT Allahabad issued an advertisement inviting applications for regular posts of Professor, Associate Professor, and Assistant Professor. The advertisement did not mention any contractual appointments.
The appellant, Lokendra Kumar Tiwari, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Information Security. He possessed the required qualifications, including a Ph.D. and teaching experience. After the interview process, the Selection Committee found him suitable.
However, despite being selected through the same recruitment process as other candidates, the appellant received only a contractual appointment for one year. Most other selected candidates were appointed on a regular basis.
Later, the institute cancelled all appointments made through the selection process due to alleged irregularities. After litigation, the appointments of other candidates were reconsidered and restored. However, the appellant continued to receive only contractual offers.
Aggrieved by this discriminatory treatment, he approached the High Court and later the Supreme Court.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant argued that:
- The advertisement was issued only for regular posts.
- The recruitment rules prescribed separate procedures for regular and contractual appointments.
- The Selection Committee had no authority to arbitrarily convert a regular vacancy into a contractual appointment.
- He possessed all qualifications required for regular appointment.
- Other similarly situated candidates were appointed regularly.
- Denial of regular appointment violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
He further argued that accepting the contractual appointment due to economic necessity could not prevent him from challenging the illegality.
Institute’s Stand
The institute argued that:
- The Selection Committee had discretion to recommend either regular or contractual appointments.
- The appellant accepted the contractual appointment voluntarily.
- He worked under the contractual arrangement for a considerable period without protest.
- Judicial review in matters of academic selection should remain limited.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court strongly criticised the unequal treatment given to the appellant.
The Court noted that the recruitment process was initiated for regular appointments and the advertisement never mentioned contractual posts. Therefore, the institute could not arbitrarily offer a contractual appointment after completing the regular selection process.
The Court observed that if the appellant was unsuitable for regular appointment, he could not have been considered suitable even for a contractual appointment.
The bench further held that no reasons were recorded for treating the appellant differently from other selected candidates.
The Court stated that educational institutions must follow fairness and equality while making appointments. Arbitrary denial of regular appointment to a fully qualified candidate is unconstitutional.
Also Read:
SC/ST Act: Essential Ingredients of Offence Explained with Supreme Court Principles https://legalpaathcoaching.com/sc-st-act-essential-ingredients/
Important Observation By The Court
The Supreme Court observed:
“Denying a regular appointment is patently illegal and unconstitutional.”
The Court also noted that the institute failed to disclose any genuine reason for denying the appellant a regular appointment despite several vacancies being available.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed IIIT Allahabad to appoint the appellant as a regular Assistant Professor within four weeks.
The Court granted continuity of service to the appellant but denied retrospective financial benefits. It also directed that his seniority be fixed as the last candidate among those selected through the same recruitment process.
Conclusion
The judgment reinforces the principle that public institutions cannot arbitrarily alter the nature of advertised posts after completing the selection process. The Supreme Court made it clear that qualified candidates selected for regular vacancies cannot be unfairly pushed into temporary or contractual positions without valid justification.
The ruling is significant for teachers, researchers, and job aspirants facing irregular or discriminatory recruitment practices in educational institutions across India.
Also Read:
Wife’s Career Choice Cannot Be Treated as Cruelty or Desertion – Supreme Court Judgment Explained https://legalpaathcoaching.com/wife-career-cruelty-desertion/
