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

Unnikrishnan CV and Others vs. Union of India and Others

Civil AppealDecided 28 Mar 2023
Civil Appeal No. 7188 of 2013
Sanjay Kishan Kaul · Manoj Misra · Aravind Kumar

Background

The appellants were employees of the General Reserve Engineer Force who had been appointed as Overseers/Surveyor Draughtsmen between 1977 and 1986 and were later promoted to Superintendent BR Grade-II after completing a government-sponsored Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) from the College of Military Engineering, Pune. They sought further promotion to the higher post of Superintendent BR Grade-I, which under the applicable recruitment rules required a "Diploma in Civil Engineering," not the DED diploma they held. The High Court rejected their claim, and they appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the recruitment rules clearly and specifically required a Diploma in Civil Engineering for promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I, and the appellants admittedly held a different diploma (DED) instead. It rejected the appellants' argument that their diploma should be treated as equivalent, holding that equivalence of qualifications is a technical academic and administrative matter that only the concerned rule-making or expert body can declare. Courts cannot assume or impose such equivalence on their own. Since no notification or rule recognized DED as equivalent to a Civil Engineering diploma, the appeal was dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will not create or assume equivalence between different educational qualifications for promotion purposes. If a recruitment rule specifies a particular qualification, only the employer or the relevant academic/administrative authority (not the judiciary) can determine whether a different qualification counts as equivalent.

Unnikrishnan CV and Others vs. Union of India and Others – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware