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

Manish Gupta & Anr. Etc. Etc. vs President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors. Etc. Etc.

Civil AppealDecided 21 Apr 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 3084-3088 of 2022
L. Nageswara Rao · B.R. Gavai

Background

Under Madhya Pradesh's "Jan Bhagidari Scheme," local committees managed government colleges and could appoint guest faculty on a contractual, year-to-year basis for self-financing courses. The appellants were selected as guest lecturers for the 2014-15 academic year through a proper selection process, but were discontinued after the year ended when the college issued fresh advertisements for the next year. A single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed their challenge, directing they continue until regular selections were made and be paid per a UGC circular; the Division Bench reversed this and dismissed their claim entirely.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that although termed "guest lecturers," the appellants were effectively ad hoc employees appointed through due selection procedure, and settled law (Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana) holds that an ad hoc employee can only be replaced by a regularly and formally selected candidate, not by another ad hoc appointee. The Court restored the single judge's core protection, that the appellants could continue until replaced by regularly selected candidates, but modified it to make continuation conditional on sufficient student enrolment in their courses, and rejected the UGC-circular pay scale in favor of the Rs. 1,000/hour honorarium the college scheme itself provided for and that was already being paid. The appeals were thus partly allowed.

Lesson Learnt

An employee appointed on an ad hoc or contractual basis through a genuine selection process cannot simply be dropped and replaced by another ad hoc appointee at the end of a term. They are entitled to continue until a properly and regularly selected candidate takes over, though their pay terms remain governed by the scheme under which they were actually appointed, not by unrelated regulatory circulars.

Manish Gupta & Anr. Etc. Etc. vs President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors. Etc. Etc. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware