Lokendra Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India 2026 INSC 487 - Public Employment
Public Employment - An advertisement was issued by IIIT‑Allahabad in 2013 for regular posts of Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor, under which the appellant was fully qualified, shortlisted, interviewed, and then appointed only on a one‑year contractual basis, while others selected through the same process were given regular appointments. The Supreme Court held that issuing a contractual appointment pursuant to an advertisement for a regular vacancy, without recording any reason for this singular and adverse treatment, was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16, especially when the appellant was otherwise found suitable. The Court therefore directed that the appellant be given a regular appointment as Assistant Professor in IIIT‑Allahabad with continuity of service (but without back financial benefits), placing him at the bottom of the seniority list of Assistant Professors recommended on 06.04.2013.
Case Info
Case Information
Case name: Lokendra Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India and Others
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 487
Coram:Justice Pankaj MithalJustice S.V.N. Bhatti (author of the judgment)
Judgment date: 13 May 2026 (New Delhi)
Caselaws and citations
The extracted text you’ve provided does not reproduce or quote any prior judicial precedents or case citations. The Court decides the matter primarily on the admitted facts, the recruitment rules, and constitutional principles, without referencing specific earlier reported decisions in the visible portion of the judgment.
Statutes / laws referred
The following legal provisions are expressly referred to:
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India (equality before law / non‑arbitrariness)
- Article 16 of the Constitution of India (equality of opportunity in public employment)
- Recruitment and Service Rules of IIIT‑Allahabad, 1999, particularly:
- Rule 9
- Rule 9‑A
These Rules govern regular vs contractual appointments and the constitution of separate Selection Committees.
Brief summary (three sentences)
An advertisement was issued by IIIT‑Allahabad in 2013 for regular posts of Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor, under which the appellant was fully qualified, shortlisted, interviewed, and then appointed only on a one‑year contractual basis, while others selected through the same process were given regular appointments. The Supreme Court held that issuing a contractual appointment pursuant to an advertisement for a regular vacancy, without recording any reason for this singular and adverse treatment, was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16, especially when the appellant was otherwise found suitable. The Court therefore directed that the appellant be given a regular appointment as Assistant Professorin IIIT‑Allahabad with continuity of service (but without back financial benefits), placing him at the bottom of the seniority list of Assistant Professors recommended on 06.04.2013.