Scope and limits of judicial orders as past-practice precedents.

Court-mandated appointments granted to specific historical batches pursuant to judicial interventions do not create a binding precedent or confer parity upon subsequent batches who operate under altered policies. Where the State makes sporadic appointments exclusively in compliance with High Court orders for candidates admitted prior to a specific cutoff or policy shift, such compliance does not constitute an ongoing administrative policy of regular absorption. Subsequent batches cannot claim discrimination under Article 14 by relying on appointments made solely under the compulsion of judicial decrees. An isolated appointment executed to obey an order of the court cannot be equated with an intentional, overarching executive policy capable of generating an enforceable legitimate expectation for later batches of candidates. (State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs Bhawana Mishra | 2026 INSC 38).