Service Archives - Page 7 of 93 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

June 20, 2026 9:56 am

Reservation in Public Employment — Migration of Reserved Category Candidates — Reserved category candidates who score higher marks than the cut-off for General Category candidates must be treated as qualified against an open/unreserved post, provided they did not avail of any concession or relaxation. Their appointment on merit in the general category does not count against the reserved category quota. (Para 33)

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SHAM KRISHNA B AND OTHERS ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )…

Service

Service Law — Appointment — Ayurvedic Nursing Training Course — Right to Appointment — Candidates admitted to the course in a Government institution do not acquire an automatic right to appointment as Ayurvedic Staff Nurse upon completion of training, especially when there is a significant change in Government policy and the number of candidates available due to the grant of permission to private institutions to impart the training; earlier appointments were made because of fewer candidates (20 seats) and higher demand, a situation that drastically changed with the increased number of pass-outs. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 26, 27)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 38 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. BHAWANA MISHRA ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Service

Service Law — High Court Staff — Regularization — Discrimination — Appellants (Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants/Routine Grade Clerks) appointed by Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41, and 45 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 — High Court refused regularization of Appellants while regularizing numerous similarly situated employees appointed through the same channel — Justification based on whether initial appointment was labelled ‘ad-hoc’ or whether appointment letter stipulated an examination — Held, distinction based solely on stipulations in appointment letters, when the channel of appointment and nature of work are identical, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and superficial — Such differential treatment violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, as equals must be treated equally without rational differentia. (Paras 3, 4, 17, 23-28)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1477 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATNANK MISHRA AND OTHERS Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay…

Service

Service Law — Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules, 2001 — Rule 18(b) — Recruitment: Disqualification — Second Marriage — Rule 18(b) disqualifies a person who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with another person from appointment to the Force — Respondent, a CISF Constable, was dismissed from service for marrying a second time while his first marriage subsisted, violating Rule 18(b) — Held, the rule is a service condition intended to maintain discipline, public confidence, and integrity in the Force, and is not a moral censure — The rule is clear and mandatory, and the maxim “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law) applies — The statutory rule prescribing penal consequences must be strictly construed — Dismissal upheld. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 9)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1479 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. PRANAB KUMAR NATH ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil…

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1462 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RADHIKA T. Vs. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND OTHERS ( Before : Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. )…

Service

Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 — Section 34(4) — Transfer of proceedings and effect of orders — Section 34(4) provides that any order made by the High Court at Patna before the appointed day in certain proceedings, shall for all purposes have effect not only as an order of the High Court at Patna but also as an order made by the High Court of Jharkhand — This deeming provision ensures continuity of judicial authority and mandates that judgments (like Nagendra Sahani) rendered by the Patna High Court before the reorganization, concerning employees subsequently allocated to Jharkhand (Successor State), must be treated as binding precedent by the High Court of Jharkhand. (Paras 17, 19, 20, 21, 31)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1445 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service

Service Law — Compassionate Appointment — Nature of right — Appointment on compassionate bases is a concession, not a matter of right, and serves as an exception to the general rule of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India — Core objective is to enable the dependent family to tide over sudden financial crisis following the death of the employee, providing relief against destitution — It is not intended to provide a post much less a post held by the deceased or a higher post based on educational qualification. (Paras 3, 7, 7.1, 7.3, 11)

Dec 15, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1423 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT AND OTHERS Vs. M. JAYABAL AND ANOTHER ETC. ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ.…

Service

General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules, 1960 — Rules 5(5), 5(6), 33 and Note 2 to Rule 476(V) of Official Manual (Part V) — Interpretation — While Rules 5(5) and 5(6) read together do not automatically cancel a nomination where the subscriber fails to send a notice of cancellation and a fresh nomination — The express condition in the original nomination form stating it invalidates upon the subscriber acquiring a family renders the nomination void the moment the condition (marriage) occurs, triggering distribution under Rule 33(i)(b) to all family members in equal shares. (Paras 5, 7, 8)

Dec 14, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1391 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. BOLLA MALATHI Vs. B. SUGUNA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

General Insurance Service

Insurance Scheme — PMGKY Package — Requisition of Services of Private Doctors — The invocation of special laws (Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897) and implementing regulations (Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations, 2020), coupled with executive actions such as the NMMC notice directing private dispensaries to remain open under threat of penal action (IPC S. 188), constitutes a “requisition” of services for doctors and health professionals under the scheme requirements — A narrow interpretation of “requisition” requiring specific individual appointment letters is rejected due to the compelling, emergent circumstances of the pandemic. (Paras 23-26, 30(a))

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1420 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP ARORA AND OTHERS Vs. DIRECTOR, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R.…

Service

Service Law — Resignation — Forfeiture of past service — Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 — Rule 26(1) — Distinction between Resignation and Voluntary Retirement — An employee who resigns from service forfeits past service as per Rule 26(1) of the 1972 Rules, regardless of the length of service completed (20 years or more) — The act of resignation cannot be re-classified as voluntary retirement to claim pensionary benefits, as this would nullify the distinction between the two concepts and render Rule 26 nugatory — Claim for pension correctly denied where the employee resigned from service. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 9, 9.1, 9.5, 9.6, 12)

Dec 10, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1404 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK KUMAR DABAS (DEAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS) Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil…

SEARCH

You missed

Service

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority.

Jun 18, 2026 sclaw

Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

RTI

Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

Category: Service

You missed