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 Union of India & Ors. vs. Subit Kumar Das

Not available · 2025 INSC 1235Decided 15 Oct 2025
Not available
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Background

The respondent, a candidate placed in a Scheduled Caste reserved wait-list panel for the post of Technician at the Eastern Zone of All India Radio, relied on a 1999 communication in which the authorities had allegedly committed to absorb him into service. Decades later, the Calcutta High Court's Division Bench directed the Union of India and All India Radio to absorb him into the post on this basis. The Union of India challenged this direction, arguing it improperly extended the life of an expired wait-list panel and exceeded the applicable Recruitment Rules, since all vacancies against the original panel had already been filled back in 1997.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that once the available vacancies under a recruitment process are filled, the wait-list stands exhausted and the recruitment process comes to an end: a wait-listed candidate has no vested right to appointment merely because a vacancy might arise afterward. It found that the 1999 statement relied upon by the respondent could not be enforced years later, as doing so would confer a benefit he was not legally entitled to and would impermissibly extend the life of an already-exhausted wait-list, contrary to the Recruitment Rules. The Court held the High Court had erred in overlooking these facts, set aside the High Court's judgment directing absorption, dismissed the respondent's writ petition, and allowed the Union of India's appeal with no order as to costs.

Lesson Learnt

A candidate on a reserve/wait-list for a government recruitment has no automatic or enduring right to appointment once the sanctioned vacancies are filled and the list is exhausted, even an old administrative assurance cannot be used to revive a recruitment process long after it has concluded.

The Union of India & Ors. vs. Subit Kumar Das – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware