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

Vijay Pratap Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Special Leave Petition (Civil)Decided 23 Feb 2022
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11323 of 2021
Uday Umesh Lalit · Ajay Rastogi

Background

This dispute traces back to a teacher recruitment selection process in Uttar Pradesh, where a fresh selection was ordered after the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in State of U.P. v. Shiv Kumar Pathak directed the State to fill remaining vacancies through a new advertisement. A group of candidates who were unhappy with how an earlier 2012 notification's selection was handled, and who also raised a fee-refund issue, had already lost their Special Leave Petition, then lost an application for review, and then lost a second review petition as well, each time on the merits. Undeterred, an entirely new set of petitioners, who had not been parties to any of the earlier rounds, now sought permission to file yet another review petition on essentially the same controversy.

Decision Breakdown

The Court noted that the substance of this dispute had already been examined and rejected by the Court on three separate occasions. Since the petitioners seeking to file this fresh review were not parties to the earlier litigation and the underlying controversy had already been thoroughly considered, the Court saw no reason to grant permission to file the review petition, and closed the matter.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will not allow the same settled controversy to be relitigated indefinitely by different, newly-surfacing petitioners. Once an issue has been examined and rejected multiple times on its merits, repeated attempts to reopen it through review petitions will be turned away.

Vijay Pratap Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware