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

Sajid Khan v. L Rahmathullah & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 251Decided 20 Feb 2025
Civil Appeal No. 17308 of 2017 (with connected Civil Appeal Nos. 17309, 17310 and 17311 of 2017)
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Manoj Misra

Background

The Union Territory of Lakshadweep advertised posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical), requiring a Degree or Diploma in Electrical Engineering. The appellants, who held a Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (a related but differently named qualification), were selected, but candidates who missed the select list challenged their selection before the Central Administrative Tribunal, arguing their diploma did not match the advertised qualification. The Tribunal and later the High Court agreed and set aside the appellants' appointments, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court noted that the Lakshadweep administration had, years before issuing the advertisement, formally obtained clarification from Kerala's Department of Technical Education that a Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering is equivalent to a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. Since the recruiting authority itself had scrutinized and accepted this equivalence, and courts should generally defer to an employer's assessment of qualification equivalence absent clear evidence of arbitrariness, the Tribunal and High Court erred in second-guessing that judgment on a mere difference in nomenclature. The Court allowed the appeal and restored the appellants' selection and appointments.

Lesson Learnt

Courts exercising judicial review will not readily override an employer's own considered, documented decision that two qualifications are equivalent for a job, especially where the employer sought and relied on expert clarification before advertising the post; equivalence disputes are primarily for the appointing authority, not the courts, to resolve.

Sajid Khan v. L Rahmathullah & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware