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

Jagdish Prasad & Ors. v. P.M. Manoj Kumar & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 572Decided 27 May 2026
C.A. No.-009041-009041 - 2019
Justice Pankaj Mithal · Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Background

Constables in the Andaman & Nicobar Police Department who were promoted to Head Constable found themselves split into two rival groups fighting over promotion to Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive): one group (the appellants) wanted promotion purely by seniority-cum-fitness, while the other group (the respondents) had already been promoted through a 2008 selection process that required a written test and matriculation qualification. The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled for the appellants and quashed the selection-based circular, but the Calcutta High Court reversed that, upholding the respondents' selection-based promotions; the appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the 2014 promotion order relied upon by the respondents was expressly "ad hoc" and made subject to the outcome of the pending tribunal case, so it could not be treated as a "completed act" creating a vested right. Applying settled principles that a "substitution" of rules erases the old rule and operates from the date of substitution, and that an employee's right is only to be considered under the rules in force on the date of actual consideration (not the date the vacancy arose), the Court held that the subsequently notified 2016 Rules, which reverted to a 100% seniority-cum-fitness promotion method, governed the field. It set aside the High Court's judgment and directed that all pending ASI-Executive vacancies be filled strictly under the 2016 Rules within two months, while protecting promotions already validly made under the 2016 process.

Lesson Learnt

An "ad hoc" or interim promotion made expressly subject to the outcome of pending litigation does not ripen into a permanent, vested right merely because time passes; and when service rules are validly "substituted," the new rules, not the ones in force when a vacancy first arose, govern promotions considered thereafter.

Jagdish Prasad & Ors. v. P.M. Manoj Kumar & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware