Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2026 INSC 508 - Service Matters -State Officials - Duty To Court
Practice and Procedure - It is 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. (Para 26)
Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (the old Act) – Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 (the New Act) – A waitlisted candidate whose name had already been recommended for appointment as Principal under the old 1980 Act could not later seek a change of institution under section 13(4), especially after the 1980 Act was repealed by the 2023 Act, which introduced a new selection mechanism. (Para 26)
Case Info
Here’s the information extracted from the judgment you shared:
Basic Case Details
Case name: Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 508
Coram:Justice J.K. MaheshwariJustice Atul S. Chandurkar
Judgment date: 19 May 2026 (see last page, “New Delhi; May 19th, 2026.”)
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (the old Act) – especially sections 12, 13(3), 13(4), 14.
- Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 (the New Act) – especially sections 10, 11, 31.
- Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 – section 6 (“Effect of repeal”).
- Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (U.P. Act 4 of 1994).
- Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2020 (U.P. Act 10 of 2020).
Case Law and Citations Referred
- Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others, (1998) 3 SCC 45– Interpreting “otherwise” in section 13(4) of the old Act and upholding locus of officiating principals in a similar context.
- Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 217
- Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 465
Three‑Sentence Brief Summary
The Supreme Court held that a waitlisted candidate whose name had already been recommended for appointment as Principal under the old 1980 Act could not later seek a change of institution under section 13(4), especially after the 1980 Act was repealed by the 2023 Act, which introduced a new selection mechanism. It ruled that the only valid “act done” under the old Act, saved by section 31(2) of the New Act and section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, was the original recommendation dated 03.08.2022 for posting at the Ballia college, and that subsequent orders in December 2023 and January 2024 shifting him to Meerut College were without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory scheme. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the High Court’s quashing of those orders, and also commented adversely on the conduct of State officials for supporting an untenable appointment.