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

Jitesh Kumar Srivasatava vs. Airport Authority of India & Anr.

Letters Patent Appeal · 2026:DHC:8004-DBDecided 7 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
LPA 697/2026CNR: DLHC010419462026
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya · Justice Tejas Karia

Background

A candidate appeared for a written test for Junior Executive (Air Traffic Control) posts with the Airports Authority of India (AAI) before he later joined Indian Railways as a trainee. By the time he reached the document-verification stage of the AAI recruitment process, he was already employed with the Railways, and the advertisement required such candidates to submit a "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) from their current employer. He undertook to submit the NOC within seven days but could not, despite repeated requests to his employer and to AAI for more time. AAI cancelled his candidature, and his challenge to this decision failed before a Single Judge.

Decision Breakdown

The Division Bench held that the relevant date for the NOC requirement was the date of document verification (when he was undisputedly employed with the Railways), not the earlier date of the written test. Having personally signed an undertaking to submit the NOC within seven days, he could not later avoid the consequence of failing to do so, even though his efforts to obtain it were found to be genuine. The Court held that a recruiting authority must apply eligibility conditions uniformly to all candidates in a large recruitment drive (309 posts), and cannot be compelled to indefinitely wait for one candidate's document from another department outside its control. The appeal was dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

In recruitment to public posts, eligibility conditions such as producing an NOC are assessed as of the date specified in the recruitment process (often document verification), and a candidate's voluntary written undertaking to meet a deadline is strictly enforceable: genuine efforts to comply are not a substitute for actual compliance.

Jitesh Kumar Srivasatava vs. Airport Authority of India & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware