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

Salam Samarjeet Singh vs. The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr.

Not available · 2024 INSC 647Decided 22 Aug 2024
Not available
Justice Hrishikesh Roy · Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia · Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Background

The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate for the post of District Judge in Manipur, cleared the written examination but was declared unsuccessful because he scored below a 40% cut-off in the interview: a cut-off that the High Court's Full Court had introduced by resolution just before the interviews began, without amending the actual recruitment rules or notifying candidates in advance. The existing rules only required selection based on the combined/aggregate marks of the written exam and interview together. An earlier two-judge bench had split on whether this was lawful, sending the matter to a larger bench.

Decision Breakdown

The three-judge bench held that an administrative resolution cannot override or effectively rewrite statutory recruitment rules, especially where those rules already specify how the final merit list is to be prepared (here, on combined/aggregate marks, with no separate interview cut-off). Introducing an interview cut-off mid-process, without informing candidates in advance, breached the petitioner's legitimate expectation and violated Article 14 of the Constitution (right to equality/fairness). Applying the unamended rules, the petitioner's combined score qualified him. The Court directed the High Court to declare him successful and appoint him, with notional seniority from 2015 but without retrospective monetary benefits.

Lesson Learnt

A recruiting authority cannot change the rules of selection, such as introducing a new minimum interview cut-off, midway through a recruitment process by mere administrative resolution if it conflicts with, or was never disclosed under, the governing statutory rules; any such change must be made transparently and before the process starts.

Salam Samarjeet Singh vs. The High Court of Manipur at Imphal & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware