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

Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Not available · 2024 INSC 832Decided 5 Nov 2024
Not available
Justice B.R. Gavai · Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Background

The applicants were selected in 2015 for Technician Grade-II posts in the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation after holding a valid computer certificate (CCC) at the time of their interview. Following prolonged litigation over whether candidates needed the certificate by the application deadline or merely by the interview date, their appointments were terminated in 2018 based on a misreading of an earlier Supreme Court judgment in their own favour (2019 INSC 1380). They filed fresh applications asking the Court to clarify and enforce its earlier ruling.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that its 2019 judgment had already clarified that candidates possessing the CCC certificate from the recognized body (DOEACC/NIELIT) at the time of interview were not affected by the High Court's original order, and that the employer-corporation had misinterpreted that ruling when it terminated these employees. Exercising its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, the Court directed that all applicants who held the certificate at interview time be reinstated immediately, with continuity of service and consequential benefits (though without back wages for the period they were out of work).

Lesson Learnt

When a government body misreads or misapplies a court's own judgment to terminate employees who were actually protected by it, the Supreme Court can step in years later using its special constitutional powers to correct the injustice and restore the affected employees to their rightful positions.

Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware