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

Manoj Kumar vs Union of India

Not available · 2024 INSC 126Decided 20 Feb 2024
Not available
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

The appellant, Manoj Kumar, applied for a primary school teacher post at an institute for the physically handicapped in 2016. The institute changed its selection procedure midway, replacing an interview with a marks-based system that awarded points for additional qualifications. The appellant, who held a postgraduate (PG) degree, was denied the 6 marks allotted for a "PG Degree" on the newly invented ground that his degree was not "in the relevant subject": a restriction not stated anywhere in the original scheme. Denied those marks, he narrowly lost the post to another candidate. His writ petition and writ appeal in the Delhi High Court were both dismissed on the ground that courts should not interfere in academic/selection matters.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the institute's reliance on its general "discretion" clauses could not be stretched to justify inventing a new, unstated qualification criterion after the fact: this was "a classic case of arbitrary action." It rejected the High Court's reasoning that judicial restraint in academic matters barred any scrutiny, holding that courts must still intervene in the face of manifest arbitrariness even while respecting institutional flexibility. However, because the school for which recruitment was originally advertised had since been closed down (over seven years after the illegal denial), the Court could not order actual appointment. Instead, invoking its duty to provide meaningful restitution even when the primary remedy has become impossible due to the passage of time, the Court directed the institute to pay the appellant Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation plus Rs. 25,000 in costs.

Lesson Learnt

Public authorities cannot manufacture new eligibility criteria after a selection process has begun to disqualify a candidate who otherwise qualifies: such action is arbitrary and can be struck down; and even where years of delay make the original remedy (like a job appointment) impossible, courts can still order monetary compensation so that a citizen wronged by illegal executive action is not left without any relief.

Manoj Kumar vs Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware