Supreme Court holds IIIT Allahabad acted arbitrarily in appointing candidate on contract basis against advertisement for regular Assistant Professor posts.
The Supreme Court has held that the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad acted illegally and unconstitutionally by appointing a candidate on contract basis, even though it had advertised only regular posts.
The case concerned recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor.
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti delivered the judgment on May 13, 2026 in Lokendra Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India and Others.
Justice S.V.N. Bhatti authored the judgment.
The Court directed IIIT Allahabad to issue a regular appointment order to the appellant. However, it denied financial benefits for the intervening period.
Recruitment Was For Regular Posts
The dispute arose from Advertisement No. FS-01/2013 issued by IIIT Allahabad in January 2013.
Through the advertisement, the institute invited applications for regular posts of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor.
The appellant applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the Information Security stream.
He held a Ph.D. in Information Security from the University of Allahabad.
He also had teaching experience as Lecturer at Ewing Christian College and Guest Faculty at IIIT Allahabad.
After the interview held on March 18, 2013, the institute issued him an appointment letter on April 6, 2013.
However, the institute appointed him as Assistant Professor on contract basis for twelve months.
Appellant Alleged Arbitrary Treatment
The Supreme Court noted that the institute selected thirteen persons through the same process.
They included candidates for the posts of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor.
Most of them received regular appointments.
However, the institute appointed the appellant and another candidate, Dr. Ranjana Vyas, only on contract basis.
Later, IIIT Allahabad cancelled all appointments made on the basis of the Selection Committee’s recommendation dated April 6, 2013.
This led to litigation before the Allahabad High Court.
After reconsidering the matter pursuant to earlier judicial directions, the institute again offered only contractual appointment to the appellant through a letter dated June 27, 2017.
Challenge Before Allahabad High Court
The appellant challenged the institute’s decision before the Allahabad High Court.
He argued that the advertisement contemplated only regular appointments.
He also relied on Rules 9 and 9-A of the Recruitment and Service Rules of IIIT Allahabad, 1999.
According to him, these rules prescribed separate procedures for regular and contractual appointments.
The appellant argued that the Selection Committee could not convert a regular recruitment process into a contractual appointment process.
He said the institute applied this change selectively against him.
He also contended that the decision violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
According to him, all similarly placed candidates received regular appointments.
He further stated that he accepted the contractual appointment due to economic compulsion and assurances given by the then Director.
Institute Defended Contractual Appointment
IIIT Allahabad opposed the plea.
The institute argued that the Selection Committee had discretion to recommend regular or contractual appointments.
It said the committee could do so based on merit and availability of posts.
The institute also claimed that the appellant accepted the contractual appointment without protest.
According to IIIT Allahabad, he worked under those terms for a considerable period.
It further argued that the appellant accepted a fresh contractual offer after cancellation of the earlier appointments.
On that basis, the institute said he could not later challenge the contractual nature of the appointment.
The institute also contended that the appellant could not seek regularisation because he was no longer in service.
It added that he had refused to complete the contractual tenure.
High Court Dismissed The Challenge
The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the appellant’s plea.
The Division Bench also ruled against him.
The High Court held that the appellant had accepted the contractual appointment without formal protest.
It also held that he had continued in service under those terms.
The Division Bench further observed that the appellant could not claim regularisation only because other candidates received regular appointments.
Supreme Court Finds Arbitrary Treatment
Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Sudhir Kumar Saxena appeared for the appellant.
Advocate Sanyat Lodha represented IIIT Allahabad.
The Supreme Court said the case did not involve regularisation of a contractual employee.
Instead, the real issue was different.
The Court examined whether an institution could advertise regular vacancies, conduct a regular selection process, and then issue contractual appointments to selected candidates.
The Bench noted that the advertisement did not mention contractual appointments.
It also noted that the appellant participated in the same selection process as other candidates.
The institute found him suitable for appointment as Assistant Professor.
Therefore, the Court said there was no clear reason to deny him regular appointment.
Selection Committee Gave No Reasons
The Supreme Court found that the Selection Committee did not record any reason for treating the appellant differently.
The Court held that the institute’s decision lacked justification.
It also noted that IIIT Allahabad itself had disclosed thirty-two vacant posts of Assistant Professors.
The total sanctioned strength was sixty-seven.
In these facts, the Bench held that denial of regular appointment was “patently illegal and unconstitutional.”
Relief Granted By Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
It directed IIIT Allahabad to issue a regular appointment order to the appellant within four weeks.
The Court granted him continuity of service.
However, it denied financial benefits for the intervening period.
The Bench also directed the institute to place him at the bottom of seniority among Assistant Professors appointed pursuant to the Selection Committee recommendation dated April 6, 2013.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
The civil appeal was allowed without costs.
