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 LawDelhi High Court

Ashwin Jawaharlal Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026:DHC:8075Decided 14 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
W.P.(C) 3859/2018CNR: DLHC010836892018
Justice Sanjeev Narula

Background

The petitioner's son, who has a hearing impairment, was shortlisted through GATE scores for jobs at Indian Oil Corporation (2014) and ONGC (2017) under the disability quota but was not finally selected because he did not meet the minimum composite/interview cutoff marks, even after the relaxations already given to disabled candidates. The petitioner argued that once a post is reserved for a disability category, any eligible disabled candidate must be appointed, and that unfilled reserved vacancies should trigger further relaxation of standards.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that identifying a post as suitable for persons with a disability does not mean every eligible candidate must be appointed regardless of merit: a genuine, even if relaxed, standard of suitability can still apply, and an unfilled reserved vacancy is meant to be carried forward, not filled by endlessly lowering standards. IOCL had already relaxed its benchmark from 45% to 40% for disabled candidates, and the son's score fell below even that. A later, one-time further relaxation to 30% made in 2018 for accumulated backlog vacancies could not be retroactively applied to the 2014 selection. Similarly, in the ONGC case, there was no power to award a "grace mark" to bridge a shortfall.

Lesson Learnt

Disability reservation guarantees a fair, relaxed opportunity to compete: it does not guarantee appointment regardless of whether a candidate meets even the relaxed minimum standard; unfilled reserved vacancies get carried forward under law, not force-filled.

Ashwin Jawaharlal Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware