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

Smita Shrivastava vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 378Decided 3 May 2024
Not available
Justice B.R. Gavai · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

The appellant worked as an Instructor in a State-run Non-Formal Education Centre from 1990 until the post was abolished in 1993. Under a later contract-teacher recruitment scheme, she cleared the 2008 selection examination for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III but was never issued an appointment order despite serving a legal notice. The Madhya Pradesh High Court found the denial of appointment "grossly illegal and arbitrary" and even initiated contempt proceedings against the responsible officials, but still refused to actually appoint her, relying instead on a 2018 notification that retrospectively amended the rules from 2008.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held the High Court's approach self-contradictory. It could not simultaneously hold that officials had acted arbitrarily and in contempt while denying the appellant relief based on the very same retrospective rule the officials had used to justify their wrongful conduct. Exercising its powers to do complete justice, the Court directed that the appellant be appointed to the post (or an equivalent one) within 60 days, with the appointment treated as effective from the original 2008 selection, and with continuity of service, though without back wages. It further awarded her Rs. 10 lakh in exemplary costs, payable by the State within 60 days, and directed the State to hold an inquiry to recover that amount from the officials personally responsible for the illegal denial.

Lesson Learnt

A government cannot use its own wrongful delay, combined with a later self-serving rule change, to defeat a citizen's already-established legal entitlement, and courts can order both restitution to the affected person and personal accountability for the officials responsible.

Smita Shrivastava vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware