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

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sandeep Kaushik and Ors.

Civil AppealDecided 3 Aug 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 4920-4921 of 2022
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

DTC had issued a 2007-08 recruitment advertisement for drivers, with the selection process conducted by a separate examining body (respondent no. 2). The Delhi High Court found the entire recruitment process illegal because candidates were selected solely on marks given in a viva-voce test, with no guidelines on how those marks were allotted, and directed DTC to appoint the respondent (Sandeep Kaushik) as a driver on his merit position, without back wages. DTC appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that 14 years had passed, driver posts were now filled only on contract, the respondent (then about 49) would need to pass a fresh driving test, and DTC itself had not committed any illegality since the selection process was run by respondent no. 2.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the recruitment process was bad in law because selection was based solely on viva marks without proper guidelines. However, it held that actually appointing the respondent as a driver now, 14 years later, was not practically possible given the changed circumstances (no regular driver posts, need to clear a fresh driving test, approaching retirement age). Balancing this, the Court modified the High Court's order and directed DTC to pay the respondent Rs. 7.5 lakh as lump-sum compensation in lieu of appointment, with 6% interest from September 2013 until payment, within eight weeks, with liberty to recover this amount from respondent no. 2 (the body that conducted the flawed selection).

Lesson Learnt

Even where a recruitment process is held illegal, courts may award monetary compensation instead of directing actual appointment when too much time has passed and ground realities have changed, ensuring the wronged candidate is still compensated without forcing an impractical remedy.

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sandeep Kaushik and Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware