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 LawDelhi High Court

Union Public Service Commission vs. Krishna Mukund and Ors

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026:DHC:8112-DBDecided 18 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
W.P.(C) 11674/2026CNR: DLHC010375872026
Justice C. Hari Shankar · Justice Vinod Kumar

Background

UPSC had selected candidates for 85 Public Prosecutor posts in the CBI in 2015, with a reserve/waiting list valid until 16 January 2017. Respondent Krishna Mukund was the next-in-line OBC candidate on that reserve list. When 6 OBC-category selected candidates failed to join their posts before the list expired (their names were reported to UPSC by the Department of Personnel & Training, including one "A. Mohammad Ali" flagged as early as February 2016), UPSC sent replacement dossiers for only 5 of the 6 vacancies, leaving the respondent's name unsent. The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled in the respondent's favour, and UPSC challenged that ruling before the High Court.

Decision Breakdown

The High Court dismissed UPSC's challenge, finding from the correspondence itself that the Department of Personnel & Training had flagged all 6 unfilled OBC vacancies, including the one arising from candidate A. Mohammad Ali's failure to join, well before the panel's 16 January 2017 expiry date. UPSC's argument that Mohammad Ali's vacancy was only formally notified in June 2017 (after expiry) was rejected, since the substance of that vacancy had already been communicated in February 2016. Because UPSC should have sent 6 replacement names rather than 5, and the respondent would have been the sixth candidate in line, the Court upheld the Tribunal's direction that his case be considered for appointment, but clarified this relief was limited to this one candidate only, not a wider reopening of the list.

Lesson Learnt

A recruiting authority cannot deny a wait-listed candidate their turn by citing the panel's expiry if the vacancy itself was reported and up for filling while the panel was still valid: what matters is when the vacancy arose and was notified, not when all the paperwork was completed.

Union Public Service Commission vs. Krishna Mukund and Ors – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware