State Officers Cannot File Affidavits Supporting Litigants Contrary To Law: Supreme Court

In a strong censure of the conduct of government officers in litigation, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said State authorities cannot support a litigant by taking a stand contrary to law, and asked the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary to examine the conduct of officers who filed affidavits backing an unlawful position.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar made the observation while dismissing an appeal by a waitlisted candidate seeking appointment as Principal of Meerut College through a change in posting under the repealed Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980.

The Court found that after the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023, the authorities could not have relied on the old selection list to facilitate the appellant's appointment. It noted that the State authorities had initially taken the position that no change in place of posting was permissible after the candidate had already been recommended for appointment elsewhere, but later reversed course and supported his claim.

Taking exception to this, the bench observed:

“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 or by filing affidavit which does not disclose the facts in conformity with the law.”

The Court said it was “completely impermissible” for State officers to take an unlawful stand before the High Court and the Supreme Court. It noted that just four days before the new law came into force, the authorities had themselves concluded that no provision existed for changing the appellant's place of posting. Despite this, after the repeal of the old law, officials attempted to revive the old selection list and support the appellant's appointment.

“It is suffice to say that the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh may look into the conduct of the officers who have filed the affidavit taking such unlawful stand before the High Court and even before this Court,” the bench observed.

However, since the officers concerned were not parties to the proceedings, the Court stopped short of issuing adverse directions, leaving it to the State government to take action in accordance with law if necessary.

The case arose from a dispute over the appointment of a waitlisted candidate who had been recommended in 2022 for appointment as Principal in a college in Ballia but did not join, citing personal circumstances. He later sought appointment to Meerut College after that post fell vacant.

The Appellant claimed appointment at the PG College in Meerut, arguing that since the vacancy fell vacant, he shall be accommodated therein, pursuant to the New Act, which empowered the State to make a recommendation for posting based on choice.

The Respondent-State opposed the Appellant's claim, stating that the vacancy arose at the Meerut PG College cannot be filled up by the Appellant, as the Appellant deliberately failed to join the posting at Ballia, solely to wait for the vacancy to arise at Meerut. In essence, the State argued that it is only in case a vacancy occurs due to “death, resignation or otherwise, during the period of the validity of the list”, the name of a new candidate can be intimated.

The Appellant claimed that his situation fell within the third category i.e., “otherwise during the period of validity of the list”, as the vacancy at Meerut PG college didn't arise due to death or resignation, and thus the inaction on his part to join Ballia College wouldn't be a reason to deny the benefit of the new recommendation of his posting in Meerut.

Aggrieved by the Allahabad High Court's Single Bench and Division Bench decisions to deny him the appointment, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Maheshwari refused the Appellant's argument that his case falls within the third category of appointment i.e., “otherwise during the period of validity of the list”. The Court said that since the Appellant had deliberately failed to join as Principal of PG college, Ballia, for nearly 10 months, this alone would not grant him an indefeasible right to claim an appointment to Meerut PG College, otherwise it would frustrate the objective of the scheme.

“In the facts as narrated, it is clear that the Director initially recommended the name of the appellant for appointment to PG College, Balia, but he has failed to join there. The appellant has also not raised any demanded with the Management of P.G. College, Balia for issuing the order of appointment; but has continued to wait till vacancies as stated in his representation have occurred, including the vacancy of the post of Principal in Meerut College. We are clear in our mind that the said action will not fall within the purview of “otherwise during the period of validity of the list.”, the court observed.

The Court applied the principle of ejusdem generis while interpreting the statute and held that the expression “otherwise during the period of validity of the list” could not be construed to include the Appellant's case, where he had consciously chosen not to join the post. The Court observed that the expression “otherwise” must be read in the context of the preceding contingencies, such as death or resignation, and would therefore cover only similar unforeseen situations, not circumstances wholly unrelated to or disconnected from those preceding categories.

“…if a wider interpretation is given, it would run contrary to the very object of the Old Act and permit filling of vacancy which was never advertised and a person, who did not apply, would inadvertently be absorbed on such vacancy…”, the court observed.

Cause Title: DR. MANOJ KUMAR RAWAT VERSUS STATE OF UP & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 517

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Vashishtha, AOR Mr. Upender Thakur, Adv. Ms. Sonal Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Anchal Khanna, Adv. Ms. Deepti Pandey, Adv. Ms. Bhawna Piplani, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Ms. Shweta Singh Parihar, Adv. Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Ms. Sarthak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Vikramaditya Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Ms. Divya Jain, Adv. Mr. S.D. Singh, Adv. Ms. Shweta Sinha, AOR Ms. Meenu Singh, Adv. Mr. Ram Kripal Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv.