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

Mandeep Kumar & Others vs. U.T. Chandigarh & Others

Civil AppealDecided 9 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal No. 1908 of 2022
Indira Banerjee · J.K. Maheshwari

Background

The Punjab government advertised thousands of posts of Elementary Trained Teachers (ETT) in 2015-2016, with separate quotas for SC/ST, OBC and other categories. After the selection process, 595 posts reserved for the SC/ST category remained unfilled because not enough eligible SC/ST candidates were available. The appellants, who belonged to the Backward Classes category, wanted those unfilled SC/ST posts to be given to them instead, relying on an old 1954 government policy letter that allowed "interchangeability" of unfilled reserved posts between categories. The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected their plea, noting the government's decision to simply re-advertise the unfilled posts instead.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that under Section 7 of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Service) Act, 2006, only the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes, not the appointing department (Education), has the power to order de-reservation or interchangeability of an unfilled reserved post, and only after recording reasons that it is expedient in the public interest. Here the concerned welfare department had not agreed to interchange the posts, so the appointing authority could not do so on its own. The Court also found it would be unjust, six years after the original merit list was prepared, to now fill those vacancies from a stale 2016 list. The appeal was dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

Interchanging reserved vacancies between SC/ST and Backward Classes categories is not something an appointing department can decide unilaterally. It requires a reasoned order from the specific department entrusted with that power under the reservation statute, and courts are reluctant to disturb old, lapsed selection lists years after the fact.

Mandeep Kumar & Others vs. U.T. Chandigarh & Others – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware