Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Akhilesh Prasad vs Jharkhand Public Service Commission and Ors.

Civil AppealDecided 26 Apr 2022
Civil Appeal No. 3180 of 2022
Uday Umesh Lalit · S. Ravindra Bhat · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

The appellant was selected in 1994 for a government post in the undivided State of Bihar under the Scheduled Tribe category, based on a caste certificate from an area that, after the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, became part of the new State of Bihar (while the appellant's service itself was allocated to the newly created State of Jharkhand). Years later, when he sought benefit of the reserved-category promotion route (a limited departmental competitive examination) in Jharkhand, the State denied it on the ground that a 2008 government circular restricted such promotion-reservation benefits to SC/ST employees who were "permanent residents" of Jharkhand. The Jharkhand High Court's Single Judge ruled in the appellant's favour, but a Division Bench reversed that, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Sections 73 and 74 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act protect the service conditions of employees allocated to a successor state, and that an employee's caste/tribe status recognised at the time of original appointment in undivided Bihar continues to attach to him even after his service is allocated to Jharkhand: the 2008 circular's "permanent resident" condition could not be used to strip him of reservation benefits in promotion. It restored the Single Judge's order in the appellant's favour and set aside the Division Bench's ruling. In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Bhat added that when a state is reorganised through no choice of the individual, the affected Scheduled Caste/Tribe member should not be left worse off as a result of a political decision, and Parliament has a constitutional obligation (flowing from Articles 14, 15(1), 341 and 342) to ensure consistent protection for such persons across reorganised states.

Lesson Learnt

When a state splits into two, an employee's caste/tribe-based service protections travel with them into whichever successor state their service is allocated to: a state cannot use a later "permanent residence" rule to retroactively deny reservation benefits that were valid at the time of original recruitment.

Akhilesh Prasad vs Jharkhand Public Service Commission and Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware