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

State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Rehan Khan

Civil AppealDecided 8 Aug 2022
Civil Appeal No. 5212 of 2022
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · A.S. Bopanna

Background

The respondent was given a compassionate appointment as a Junior Assistant after his government-employee father died in service, on the condition that he acquire a computer proficiency certificate and a typing speed of 25 words per minute within a set period (with one extension). He got the computer certificate but failed the typing test twice, and his services were terminated. The Allahabad High Court (Single Judge and then Division Bench) had directed the State to reconsider him for a lower Class IV post instead, relying on an earlier ruling (Mukul Sagar) that took a similar approach.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment and must be strictly confined to the terms of the applicable rules. It is only an entry-level concession, not an open-ended benefit. Since the respondent had failed to meet the mandatory service condition (typing speed) despite being given the extra chance the rules allowed, his termination was lawful, and the High Court had no power to direct his appointment to a different (Class IV) post instead. The Court declared the Mukul Sagar precedent legally incorrect and set aside both the Single Judge's and Division Bench's orders in this case and the connected appeal, dismissing the underlying writ petitions, while clarifying that the person who had already benefited under the wrongly-decided Mukul Sagar case would not be disturbed.

Lesson Learnt

A compassionate appointment is a conditional entry into government service, not a permanent guarantee of a job; if a mandatory qualifying condition attached to the appointment (like a typing test) is not met even after the allowed extension, courts cannot rewrite the terms by ordering placement into a different post.

State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Rehan Khan – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware