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

Girish Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 665Decided 10 May 2019
Civil Appeal No. 4894 of 2019
Justice L. Nageswara Rao · Justice M.R. Shah

Background

Girish Kumar, a Senior Assistant, was overtaken in seniority and promotion by a junior colleague (respondent no. 3) after the latter was granted a "deemed date" of earlier promotion under Maharashtra's seniority rules following reinstatement from suspension. When respondent no. 3 was further promoted to Section Officer ahead of him, Girish Kumar challenged it, arguing respondent no. 3 had not actually completed the three years of continuous service in the feeder post required by the separate Recruitment Rules of 1967. The Additional Divisional Commissioner agreed and cancelled the promotion, but the High Court (both the Single Judge and the Division Bench) reversed that, upholding the deemed-date-based promotion.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982 and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 operate in entirely different fields: the former governs only inter se seniority, while eligibility for promotion is governed exclusively by the latter. A "deemed date" of promotion granted for seniority purposes under the 1982 Rules cannot be used to satisfy the Recruitment Rules' independent requirement of three years of actual, continuous service in the feeder cadre, since "continuous service" there carries its plain, unmodified dictionary meaning of uninterrupted actual service. Since respondent no. 3 had not in fact rendered three years of continuous service in the post of Office Superintendent before his promotion to Section Officer, he was ineligible, and the High Court erred in conflating the two sets of rules. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgments, and restored the Additional Divisional Commissioner's order cancelling respondent no. 3's promotion.

Lesson Learnt

A seniority benefit (such as a "deemed date" of promotion) and an eligibility requirement for a higher promotion are governed by separate rules and serve separate purposes, getting credit for seniority does not automatically mean the underlying actual-service eligibility conditions for the next promotion have also been met.

Girish Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Others – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware