Service Archives - Page 5 of 84 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

July 27, 2025 3:40 pm

Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – Rule 5(1) – Two judicial officers challenged the promotion process for Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the post of Additional District Judge, arguing that the High Court of Gujarat incorrectly applied the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ instead of ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ as stipulated by the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – The main issue was whether the promotion process adhered to the principle and if the final Select List was in contravention of this principle – The petitioners contended that the High Court wrongly assessed all eligible candidates for a minimum merit level and then promoted them based on seniority, which equates to ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ – The High Court argued that ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ should not be confused with pure merit and that seniority should also be considered – The Court analyzed the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32, the legislative history of the 2005 Rules, and the decision in All India Judges’ Association (3), emphasizing the need for merit-based criteria for promotion in the Higher Judicial Service – The final decision on the promotion process’s adherence to ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ was to be determined.

Jun 2, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 436 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dhananjaya Y.…

Constitution Service

Judicial Services – Judicial Appointment – Minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test for appointment to the District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat – The petitioners argue that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce is arbitrary and unreasonable and violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – The respondents argue that the selection process is legally valid and in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations – The court concludes that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce is permissible and is not in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others – The court also finds that the impugned selection process in the State of Bihar and Gujarat is legally valid and is upheld – The court further concludes that the non-consultation with the Public Service Commission would not render the Gujarat Rules, 2005 (as amended in 2011) void – The writ petitions are dismissed without any order on cost.

May 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABHIMEET SINHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant…

Service

Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Sections 70(2) and 95(1) – Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak(Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005 – Rule 7A – Appointment – Denial of – Appellant was denied appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III despite passing the selection exam and the High Court’s ruling in her favor – The main issue was the State Government’s refusal to appoint the appellant based on amended rules, which were applied retrospectively – The appellant argued that the denial of appointment was illegal and arbitrary, and that she fulfilled all qualifications for the post – The State contended that the appellant was not eligible for appointment due to the retrospective application of Rule 7-A – The Supreme Court directed the appellant’s appointment to an equivalent post, without back wages but with compensation for the arbitrary denial of her rightful claim – The Court found the State’s actions to be mala fide and arbitrary, as they denied the appellant’s legitimate claim despite multiple court orders – Referencing the case of Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, the Court emphasized the duty to provide restitution for arbitrary actions – The Court allowed the appeals, ordered the appellant’s appointment, and granted compensation, highlighting the need for restitutive relief.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 378 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMITA SHRIVASTAVA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

Service

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992 – Rule 6(h) – House Rent Allowance (HRA) – The appellant, a retired Inspector(Telecom) in Jammu and Kashmir Police, was charged with unauthorized House Rent Allowance (HRA) drawals and asked to repay Rs.3,96,814/-.- The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to HRA while sharing government accommodation allotted to his retired father – The appellant argued that the quarter was allotted to his father, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, and he only occasionally shared it, thus he should not be charged HRA – The State contended that the appellant was not entitled to HRA as per Rule 6(h)(i) and (ii) because he shared rent-free accommodation allotted to his father – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision and the recovery notice – The Court found no application for Rule 6(h)(iv) in the appellant’s case and held that clauses 6(h)(i) and (ii) covered the controversy – The Court reasoned that since the appellant shared accommodation with a retired government servant, he was not entitled to claim HRA – The appeal is dismissed as devoid of force, and the recovery notice was justified in the eyes of the law

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 365 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R.K. MUNSHI — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

Service

”Backlog Vacancies Get Priority: Supreme Court Orders Re-appointment Based on Reservation Rules” Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 – Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 – Rule 6 – Appointment – The case revolves around a service dispute regarding the appointment to a Scheduled Tribes (ST) reserved post at Bangalore University – The appellant was appointed based on merit, while respondent no. 7 was within the preferential age bracket – The main issue is whether the 2001 Rules apply to the university’s appointment process and if the appointment of the appellant, who was outside the age bracket, was legal – The appellant argued that the university should be governed by the Universities Act, not the 2001 Rules – Respondent no. 7 claimed that the university’s advertisement declaring the ‘Mode of Selection’ as per the 2001 Rules was correct – The court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the university’s advertisement was binding and the 2001 Rules were applicable – The court cited the amendment to Sec. 4(1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990, and subsequent government letters as mandating the university to follow the 2001 Rules for filling backlog vacancies – The court found that the university’s conduct in advertising the ‘Mode of Selection’ as per the 2001 Rules was in compliance with statutory requirements and government demands – The court concluded that respondent no. 7 should be appointed as per the 2001 Rules and suggested the university consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate the appellant.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 367 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHAITRA NAGAMMANAVAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar,…

Service

A. Education Law – The case involves a service rule amendment by the State of Madhya Pradesh, impacting job aspirants – The amendment was later recalled, but not before affecting an ongoing recruitment process – The main issue was the application of the amended rule to the recruitment process, leading to legal challenges and the question of whether meritorious reservation category candidates should be treated as unreserved at the preliminary examination stage – The petitioners challenged the validity of the amended rule and its application to the recruitment process, arguing it caused injustice to candidates who had already cleared the main examination – The State and MPPSC defended the amended rule’s application and the subsequent recruitment process, including the normalization method used for merging examination results – The Court dismissed the civil appeal, finding no merit in the challenge against the High Court’s judgment, which had directed a special main examination for newly eligible candidates – The Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning that holding a special main examination was justified and that the normalization process was consistent with legal requirements – The Court referred to precedents affirming that meritorious reservation category candidates are entitled to be selected in the open category without counting against the reserved quota – The Supreme Court concluded that the normalization process was transparent and fair, and upheld the High Court’s judgment directing the completion of the recruitment process as per the unamended rules. B. Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 – Rule 4 of 2015 Rules was amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh – The Supreme Court of India dismissed a civil appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission’s (MPPSC) decision to normalize the marks of candidates who appeared in two different main examinations – The court found that the process of normalization and the consequent merger of marks secured by the candidates in the two main examinations was transparent and above board – The court also noted that the earlier amendment to the rules, which harmed the interests of reservation category candidates, was restored, enabling the drawing up of the result of the preliminary examination by segregating deserving meritorious reservation category candidates with meritorious unreserved category candidates – The court concluded that the impugned judgment did not brook interference on any ground, be it on facts or in law.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

UPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEEPENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…

Service

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – Sections 7, 8 and 9 – Procedure for resignation by employees of private schools – The appellant challenged his termination from, which was set aside by the Tribunal but reinstated by the High Court – The main issues were whether the appellant’s resignation was lawfully withdrawn and if the documents related to his resignation were fabricated – The appellant argued that his resignation withdrawal was not considered and that the school committee’s resolutions were fabricated – The respondents contended that the resignation was accepted by the management committee and the school committee, and the appellant was informed accordingly – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the appellant’s resignation was voluntary and lawfully accepted – The Court found no evidence of fabricated documents and determined that the management committee’s acceptance of the resignation was valid – The Court referenced the MEPS Act and Rules, concluding that non-communication of resignation acceptance does not invalidate the termination – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s resignation was accepted before his attempted withdrawal, and thus the termination was lawful.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 337 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRIRAM MANOHAR BANDE — Appellant Vs. UKTRANTI MANDAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar,…

Service

Service Law – Appointment of Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers in the PWD, Tamil Nadu, based on service and qualifications – Court reasoned that the appointments did not encroach upon the quota for direct recruits and were equitable, considering the long-standing practice and the need to fill vacancies – The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to established rules and procedures while also recognizing the practical considerations of government administration – The conclusion reaffirms the validity of the appointments made and the discretion of the executive in the absence of specific rules.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 306 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERS AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before…

Service

Service Law – Termination – The Supreme Court found that the termination was unjustified and in violation of natural justice principles, as no disciplinary enquiry was conducted – The Court quashed the High Court’s judgments and the termination order, reinstated the appellant, and allowed the Institute to conduct disciplinary proceedings if desired.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 309 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. GB PANT INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY GHURDAURI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R.…

Service

Service Law – Selection Process – The main issue was whether the appellants’ appointments should be regularized after the merger of their posts with the regular establishment of the university – Court relied on UGC’s statutory authority and previous court decisions to conclude that the appellants should be continued after the merger – The appellants are to be reinstated to their posts, and any appointments made by the University under subsequent advertisements were subject to the outcome of this judgment. Disciplinary enquiries may proceed if necessary.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 303 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MEHER FATIMA HUSSAIN — Appellant Vs. JAMIA MILIA ISLAMIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj…

You missed

G S T

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Section 129 — Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit — Show cause notice — Payment of penalty — Obligation to pass final order — Where a show cause notice is issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act and the taxable person files objections against the proposed levy, the proper officer is duty-bound to pass a reasoned, speaking order under Section 129(3), even if the penalty is paid. Such an order is crucial for enabling the taxpayer to exercise their statutory right of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Jul 27, 2025 sclaw

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 174 — Inquiry by Police into cause of unnatural death — Requirement of fair and impartial investigation — Evidence considered — Inconsistencies in CCTV footage, suspicious medical findings, and failure to preserve crucial forensic evidence indicated failures in local investigation.

Jul 27, 2025 sclaw

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 156(3) — FIR Registration — Application to Magistrate without approaching Police/SP — While a Magistrate ought not ordinarily entertain an application under Section 156(3) CrPC directly without the informant having availed and exhausted remedies under Section 154(3) CrPC, the Magistrate is competent to direct FIR registration if allegations disclose cognizable offence — Such an order is not without jurisdiction and not vitiated on this count, but it is a procedural irregularity.

Jul 27, 2025 sclaw

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 170(3) — Proviso — Readjustment of seats in Legislative Assemblies — Constitutional bar on readjustment of seats in State Legislative Assemblies until publication of census data after 2026 — Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, Section 26 — Increase in seats subject to Article 170(3) — Petitioners’ claim for delimitation in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana dismissed as it contravened constitutional mandate.

Jul 27, 2025 sclaw

Category: Service

You missed