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

Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand and Others

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 176Decided 10 Feb 2025
C.A. No.-013950-013951 of 2024 (with connected C.A. Nos. 13952, 13953, 13954, 13955 of 2024)
Justice Pankaj Mithal · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

In 2010, the Deputy Commissioner of Palamu district (Jharkhand) advertised Class-IV government posts. An examination was held in 2017, and the appellant was among those appointed in 2018 after a counselling round. Non-selected candidates challenged the process, alleging the State had unfairly introduced an interview/counselling stage not mentioned in the original advertisement. The High Court ordered a fresh merit panel based only on written-exam marks, and the appellant, not making the cut in the fresh panel, was terminated from service in 2020 after several years of employment.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court went further than either party had argued and held that the 2010 advertisement itself was void from the very beginning, because it never disclosed the total number of posts or the reserved-versus-general-category breakdown: a basic transparency requirement for any public employment notice under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Since the recruitment process flowing from a void advertisement is itself a nullity, the appellant's original appointment never conferred a valid right to the post, and no hearing was required before undoing it (natural justice need not be observed where the underlying action is void ab initio and hearing the affected party would change nothing). The Court quashed the entire recruitment and directed the State to issue a fresh, rule-compliant advertisement within six months, with age relaxation for affected candidates.

Lesson Learnt

A public job advertisement that skips basic disclosure requirements (like the number of posts and reservation break-up) can be struck down as void years later, and an employee's appointment under it carries no protected right, even if the employee did nothing wrong. Anyone appointed through a flawed or informal government recruitment process should be aware their job security may ultimately depend on how lawfully the original advertisement itself was framed.

Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand and Others – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware