The Allahabad High Court has held that the doctrine of necessity is not limited to cases of bias and can be invoked to save an administrative exercise from becoming futile.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the select list for Principal posts in aided secondary schools drawn up by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board under Advertisement No. 3 of 2013, holding that the Chairman could declare the select panel alone after the other Members of the Board had retired, because the doctrine of necessity could be invoked to prevent the selection exercise from becoming futile [Dr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 6 Others].
Justice Siddharth Nandan decided the petitions by a common judgment, directing that the selection initiated in 2013 be brought to its logical end.
The case
The selection process was delayed for years by litigation. Interviews were held in 2022 and the select lists were published in November 2022. The petitioners, among them senior-most lecturers officiating as Principals, appeared in the interview and were not selected. They challenged the select list on several grounds, including that the Chairman could not alone declare the result when the Board had no other Member, that Commission staff had been involved, and that the panel of candidates should have been formed under earlier guidelines.
The respondents relied on an earlier decision of the Court where the Chairman acting alone in an exigency was accepted, and said that the other Members were present on the interview board when the interviews were held, so that declaring the result was a ministerial act.
What the Court said
The petitioners argued that the doctrine of necessity applies only where bias is in issue. Justice Nandan accepted that the argument appeared attractive at first blush, but rejected it:
the doctrine of necessity cannot be curtailed, to have its applicability only when there is a facet of bias; but it has also to be seen in a proper spectrum, when in cases of administrative exigencies and in performance of a public duty by any authority, a situation arises when there is a possibility of a vacuum and the entire administrative exercise to be rendered as a futile exercise, in order to save the process, the doctrine of necessity can very well be invoked
The Court noted that there was no provision in the Statute or the Regulations containing a negative clause to prevent the Chairman alone from acting as the Board when no other Member was in office, and held:
In case the doctrine of necessity is not invoked, the entire exercise which was initiated in the year 2013 and was sought to be concluded in the year 2022, would have become a futile exercise, since admittedly the Members of the Board were not present.
On the involvement of the Commission’s staff, the Court held that the presence of ministerial and administrative staff alone would not vitiate the entire exercise, and that the declaration of the result by the Chairman could not be said to be beyond the spectrum of the doctrine of necessity. It also rejected the argument that guidelines framed under the earlier Rules of 1983 had to be followed, noting that the Rules of 1998 govern the preparation of institution-wise panels in order of merit, and held that the candidature of senior-most teachers is considered whether or not they express an institutional preference.
The directions
The petitions were grouped in three categories. The Court held that petitioners who were not eligible on the last date of application, 25 February 2014, had no cause of action to challenge the select list, and that candidates who had reached the age of superannuation have no vested right to continue or to be appointed. The remaining petitions were dismissed on the facts and circumstances discussed in the judgment. The Court ordered:
In view of the above, the entire batch of Petitions, stand dismissed; and the consequences shall follow, while the selection which was initiated in the year 2013, shall be brought to it’s logical end. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Why the judgment matters
The doctrine of necessity is usually associated with situations where an adjudicator with a disqualifying interest is the only one who can decide. This judgment extends its use beyond bias to administrative exigency: where a public authority faces a vacuum and a long-running exercise would otherwise be wasted, the doctrine can be applied to save the process.
The Court tied its conclusion to the facts: the Members were present when the interviews were held and recommendations made, and the exigency arose only when the select panel was to be declared. For recruiting bodies, the ruling indicates that a procedural gap arising late in a lengthy selection may not by itself invalidate the result, though the Court stressed that it was deciding in the special facts and circumstances of the case.
Case Title: Dr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 6 Others [Writ – A No. 19537 of 2022, with connected petitions]
Bench: Justice Siddharth Nandan, Allahabad High Court
Date of Judgment: October 5, 2026
Appearances: Siddharth Khare, Senior Advocate, with other counsel, for the petitioners; G.K. Singh, Senior Counsel, K. Shahi, Advocate, for the Commission, and the Chief Standing Counsel and other counsel for the respondents.