Contractual Appointment Against Regular Post Advertisement Is 'Patently Illegal': Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 13) held that appointing a candidate on a contractual basis against an advertisement issued for regular vacancies is “patently illegal and unconstitutional” when no reasons are recorded for such differential treatment.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti allowed an appeal filed by an Assistant Professor, who was granted a contractual appointment (which was later on revoked) against a regular job advertisement for the teaching posts in the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad. The Court directed the institute to issue him a regular appointment as Assistant Professor within four weeks, with continuity of service but without financial benefits for the intervening period.

“The record does not disclose any reason for denying the post for which the Appellant was shortlisted and interviewed.”, the court observed, when the Respondent No.2, institute, failed to justify denying him a regular appointment.

The dispute arose from an advertisement issued in January 2013 by IIIT-Allahabad for regular faculty positions in Pay Band-IV and Pay Band-III.

Appellant applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the Information Security/MSCLIS stream. His qualifications included a Ph.D. in Information Security from the University of Allahabad, a first-division M.S. in Cyber Law and Information Security from IIIT-Allahabad with a CGPA of 9.02/10, and teaching experience at Ewing Christian College, along with guest faculty work at IIIT-Allahabad.

The Selection Committee interviewed candidates on March 18, 2013. While 13 candidates were recommended for regular appointments, Tiwari and another candidate were recommended only for contractual appointments for 12 months at a fixed salary of ₹40,000 per month.

All appointments were later cancelled in March 2014, leading to litigation before the Allahabad High Court. Although earlier writ petitions resulted in reconsideration of the appointments, the Institute again issued only a contractual appointment to Tiwari in 2017.

His challenge before the Single Judge and subsequently before the Division Bench failed, primarily on the ground that he had accepted the contractual appointment without protest and had continued to work under those terms, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Bhatti observed that the issue was not about regularisation of a contractual employee, but about the legality of offering a contractual appointment through a recruitment process meant exclusively for regular vacancies.

The Court held that although the Appellant possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed in the advertisement for a regular post, he was denied regular appointment despite the recruitment being conducted for regular vacancies, which amounted to a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as other similarly situated candidates were offered regular posts.

“We observe that the procedure initiated is for a regular appointment, and the Selection Committee, after perusing the candidates' applications and credentials, has not given equal or uniform treatment to all candidates invited for an interview.”, the court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: LOKENDRA KUMAR TIWARI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 495

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sr. Adv.(argued by) Mr. Aviral Saxena, AOR Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Paritosh Goyal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanyat Lodha, AOR (argued by) Ms. Lakshita Jain, Adv.