The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a sharp rebuke to government officers in Uttar Pradesh, warning that State authorities cannot become advocates for positions that run against the law merely to favour a litigant.
A Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar said affidavits filed by State officials must assist the court with lawful and factual clarity — not attempt to rescue claims that lack legal foundation.
The remarks came while the Court dismissed an appeal filed by a waitlisted candidate seeking appointment as Principal of Meerut College through a modified posting request tied to an old recruitment process under the repealed Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980.
The Bench expressed particular displeasure over the shifting stand taken by State authorities. Initially, officials had maintained that once a candidate had already been recommended for another institution, there was no provision permitting a change in posting. Later, however, the same authorities supported the candidate’s plea even after the old law had ceased to operate.
The Court observed that such conduct crossed a clear line.
According to the Bench, State officers are expected to place accurate facts and the correct legal position before courts. They cannot file affidavits supporting a litigant in a manner inconsistent with the governing statute.
The judges described it as “completely impermissible” for officers to defend an unlawful position before both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The Court noted that only days before the new Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 came into force, authorities themselves had concluded that no rule allowed alteration of the candidate’s posting. Despite that conclusion, officials later attempted to rely on the repealed framework and revive the old selection list to justify the appointment claim.
Taking serious note of the episode, the Bench asked the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary to examine the conduct of the officers involved and determine whether action was warranted under law.
The Court, however, refrained from issuing direct punitive orders because the concerned officials were not parties to the proceedings.
The Appointment Dispute
The litigation stemmed from the recruitment process for college principals in Uttar Pradesh.
The appellant had originally been recommended in 2022 for appointment to a college in Ballia. He chose not to join there, citing personal reasons. Later, after a vacancy emerged at Meerut College, he sought appointment to that institution instead.
His argument before the Court was that the new 2023 law permitted recommendations based on preference and that the vacancy at Meerut could be treated as one arising “otherwise during the validity of the list.”
The State opposed this interpretation, contending that the candidate had consciously avoided joining at Ballia while waiting for a more favourable vacancy to appear in Meerut.
It argued that the relevant provision permitting fresh recommendations applied only when vacancies arose because of death, resignation, or similar circumstances during the validity of the selection list — not when a selected candidate intentionally declined to join.
The appellant attempted to place his case within the “otherwise” category mentioned in the rule. The Supreme Court rejected that reading.
Upholding the decisions of both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the Court concluded that the candidate could not claim appointment at Meerut after deliberately bypassing the original posting offered to him.
