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

Deependra Yadav and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Not available · 2024 INSC 362Decided 1 May 2024
Not available
Justice C.T. Ravikumar · Justice Sanjay Kumar

Background

The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) advertised 571 posts in 2019 and held a preliminary examination in January 2020 for over 3 lakh candidates. Midway through the process, the State amended a service rule governing how the merit list was prepared, changing how reserved-category candidates who qualified purely on merit were counted; this amended rule was applied to the ongoing recruitment before being reversed back to its original form in December 2021. This "lapse" triggered a string of litigation before the Madhya Pradesh High Court by both general and reserved-category candidates over which version of the rule should govern their selection.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court traced the litigation history, including an earlier judgment (Kishor Choudhary) that had already directed the process be completed under the unamended 2015 Rules, and a later High Court ruling (Harshit Jain) that devised a special main examination for reserved-category candidates who became eligible once the preliminary results were revised. The Court held that this remedial process was legally sound and consistent with the settled principle that an "open" or unreserved merit list must include any candidate who qualifies on merit alone, regardless of their reservation category. Finding no fault in the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Division Bench judgment upholding this approach, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal and the connected special leave petitions.

Lesson Learnt

When a government wrongly changes recruitment rules mid-process, courts will unwind the resulting unfairness by restoring the original rules and creating a fair mechanism (like a special supplementary exam) for candidates who were wrongly excluded, rather than letting a flawed rule change decide people's careers.

Deependra Yadav and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware