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

The State of Haryana vs. Ashok Khemka & Anr.

Not available · 2024 INSC 190Decided 11 Mar 2024
Not available
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

Ashok Khemka, a senior IAS officer in Haryana, received a performance appraisal grade of 8.22 from the Reporting Authority for 2016-17, which the Reviewing Authority (the Health Minister) upgraded to 9.92, but the Accepting Authority (the Chief Minister) then downgraded again. Khemka challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which rejected his claim, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, restoring the higher grade and expunging the Accepting Authority's remarks. The State of Haryana appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by itself evaluating and comparing the competing assessments of the Reporting, Reviewing, and Accepting Authorities: a specialised administrative exercise for which the High Court lacked the requisite domain expertise. Since the Accepting Authority had not yet decided on the officer's representation against the downgrade, the High Court should not have pre-empted that process. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the Accepting Authority to decide the pending representation within 60 days, after which the officer would remain free to pursue further legal remedies.

Lesson Learnt

Courts should generally refrain from substituting their own judgment for that of specialised administrative or departmental authorities on matters requiring domain expertise, especially while the departmental process itself is still pending.

The State of Haryana vs. Ashok Khemka & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware