State Officers Cannot Support Illegal Claims Through Affidavits

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar, in Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors. (2026), held that State authorities cannot support a litigant by taking a stand contrary to law, and that it is "completely impermissible" for State officers to file affidavits before courts endorsing an unlawful position. The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary to examine the conduct of officers who had filed such affidavits before the High Court and the Supreme Court. 

• The Court dismissed the appeal of a waitlisted candidate seeking appointment as Principal of Meerut College through a change in posting under the repealed Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, holding that his deliberate failure to join the post recommended to him at Ballia could not entitle him to claim appointment at Meerut.

What was the Background of Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State of UP & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The appellant, a waitlisted candidate, was recommended in 2022 for appointment as Principal of a PG College in Ballia under the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980.  
• He did not join, citing personal circumstances, and waited for a vacancy to arise at Meerut College. 
• After the vacancy arose at Meerut PG College, the appellant sought appointment thereto, claiming that his case fell within the third category of vacancies under the old Act, i.e., "otherwise during the period of validity of the list," since the vacancy had not arisen due to death or resignation. 
• The State authorities initially took the position that no change in place of posting was permissible after a candidate had already been recommended for appointment elsewhere.  
• However, following enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023, the authorities reversed course and filed affidavits supporting the appellant's claim, despite having themselves concluded, just four days before the new law came into force, that no provision existed for changing his place of posting. 
• Both the Single Bench and Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court denied the appellant the appointment. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Duty of State Officers in Litigation: The Court held that the duty of the State and its officials, while filing counter-affidavits and arguing before courts, is to provide real assistance grounded in facts and applicable law. It is not expected of State authorities to support any party contrary to law or by filing affidavits that do not disclose facts in conformity with law. The Court held it "completely impermissible" for State officers to take an unlawful stand before the High Court or the Supreme Court. 
• On the Conduct of UP Officials: The Court noted that just four days before the new Act 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. The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary to examine the conduct of the officers who had filed affidavits taking such unlawful stands. However, since the officers were not parties to the proceedings, the Court stopped short of issuing adverse directions against them. 
• On the Appellant's Claim: The Court held that the appellant's deliberate failure to join the post of Principal at Ballia PG College for nearly ten months did not grant him an indefeasible right to claim appointment at Meerut PG College. Granting such a claim would frustrate the objective of the selection scheme. 
• On the Principle of Ejusdem Generis: The Court applied the principle of ejusdem generis while interpreting the expression "otherwise during the period of validity of the list." It held that the word "otherwise" must be read in the context of the preceding contingencies — death and resignation — and would therefore cover only similar unforeseen situations, not circumstances wholly unrelated to or disconnected from those preceding categories. The appellant's deliberate non-joining could not fall within this expression.

What is the Principle of Ejusdem Generis? 

The principle of ejusdem generis (Latin: "of the same kind") is a rule of statutory interpretation applied when a general word or phrase follows a list of specific words in a statute. 

• Where a general term follows an enumeration of specific terms, the general term is construed to include only things of the same nature, class, or kind as those specifically listed. 
• The principle prevents a general residuary expression from being given an unlimited or unrelated meaning inconsistent with the specific terms preceding it. 
• In the present case, the expression "otherwise during the period of validity of the list" followed "death" and "resignation." Applying ejusdem generis, the Court held that "otherwise" could cover only unforeseen contingencies similar in nature to death or resignation — not a candidate's conscious and deliberate choice not to join the recommended post.

What is an Affidavit? 

About: 

• An affidavit is a sworn written statement made under oath or affirmation before an authorised officer or Magistrate.  
• Though not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Order XIX governs its provisions.  
• It must be drawn up in the first person and contain only facts, not inferences.

Essentials of Affidavit: 

• Declaration made by a person relating to facts. 
• Must be in writing and in the first person. 
• Must be sworn or affirmed before a Magistrate or authorised officer.

Key Provisions Under Order XIX CPC: 

• Contents (Rule 3): Confined to facts within the deponent's personal knowledge; on interlocutory applications, belief statements are permitted if grounds are stated. Costs of unnecessary hearsay or argumentative matter are borne by the filing party. 
• Verification: Essential to test the genuineness and authenticity of the deponent's averments. 
• Power to Prove by Affidavit (Rule 1): Court may order any fact to be proved by affidavit, unless a party bona fide desires cross-examination of the witness and such witness can be produced. 
• Evidence on Affidavit (Rule 2): Court may order attendance of the deponent for cross-examination; such attendance shall ordinarily be in Court.

Affidavit by State: 

• State affidavits must be filed with responsibility. Contradictory affidavits by the same officer show utter disregard for veracity and are unworthy of a government spokesman.