LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Abdul Hamid and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2017 INSC 961Decided 20 Sept 2017
Civil Appeal Nos. 5027-5029 of 2012
Justice Madan B. Lokur · Justice Deepak Gupta

Background

In Bikaner Division of the Railways, a 2004 memo restricted appointment to "fresh face substitute" posts only to candidates who had done their apprenticeship training with the Railways itself, excluding other qualified "course completed act apprentices." The Central Administrative Tribunal struck down this restriction as discriminatory, and while litigation continued the excluded candidates (the present appellants) were selected and worked for years under court-ordered stays, even though their appointments were expressly made subject to the outcome of the case. The High Court ultimately dismissed the Railways' challenge, after which the Railways terminated the appellants' services, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court along with related contempt petitions.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal and High Court that limiting the field of choice only to Railways-trained apprentices violated Articles 14 and 16 by denying equally qualified candidates an equal opportunity, and held that a prior precedent only supported giving such trainees a "preference," not an exclusive right. On the appellants' plea to be allowed to continue after years of service, the Court held it had sympathy but no power to grant that relief, since their appointments had always been expressly conditional on the outcome of the litigation they ultimately lost. As a practical accommodation, since fresh regular recruitment was underway, the Court directed that the appellants be given age relaxation (deducting their years of service) to compete in the new selection on merit, and dismissed both the appeals and the connected contempt petitions.

Lesson Learnt

Taking up a government job while litigation over the recruitment process is still pending, under an order stating your appointment is "subject to the final decision," carries real risk: if the challenge ultimately succeeds against you, courts cannot retroactively protect your job merely because you have since worked there for years.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Maharashtra v. Sudhir S/o Motiramji Hiwarkar & Ors.

The Supreme Court noted that by the time of this appeal, more than a decade had passed, the college itself no longer existed, and ordering Sudhir's reinstatement or recovery of full back wages would be impractical and could render him destitute in his old age, while the State itself had not raised a timely objection on the point it now argued. Rather than deciding the matter either way on technical grounds, the Court invoked its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to "mould the relief," setting aside the specific direction under appeal and ordering the State to pay Sudhir a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,00,000 within eight weeks in full and final settlement of all his claims, expressly stating this was not to be treated as a precedent.

Decided 13 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Hardev Construction Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that where payment of Bid Security is made through the authority's own e-payment gateway, demanding a physical "original" receipt is an impossible condition to satisfy, since the money had already reached the respondents' account and was fully within their control. Rigid, literal enforcement of a tender clause cannot be allowed where compliance in the literal sense is genuinely impossible. The Court set aside the rejection and the High Court's order, and directed that the contract be awarded to the appellant, with limited further steps for completing the Bid Security formality.

Decided 12 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Union of India thr. its Secretary & Ors. v. SGT Girish Kumar & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that observations made in a judgment must be read in the context of the facts before the court at the time, and cannot be mechanically applied as if they were a statute. It clarified that its earlier common judgment does not mean every disability-pension claim with arrears must automatically succeed; each such claim must still be decided on its own facts and merits. With that clarification on record, the Miscellaneous Application was disposed of.

Decided 12 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Monoher Singh Bakshi vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court noted the claim related to events from 1989-1993, but the petitioner had first approached the court only in 2021, nearly three decades later. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it held that mere repeated representations to the government do not revive a stale claim or create a fresh cause of action justifying such an enormous delay. The respondents had also stated no amount remained outstanding and that the petitioner failed to produce supporting bills. The Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Union of India & Ors. vs. All India Naval Draughtsmen Association & Ors.

The Court noted that the very same legal question about whether these OMs applied had already been decided in two earlier cases involving similarly situated employees, and the government's own challenges to both of those rulings (via Special Leave Petitions) had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Finding no basis to take a different view now, the Court held this was not a case deserving interference and dismissed the Union's writ petition in limine (at the threshold, without detailed hearing).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Delhi Nurses Union vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court found that the relied-upon norms were expressly framed for only seven specifically named central government hospitals, and VPCI was not among them, so the norms simply did not apply to VPCI in the first place. Even on its own terms, the norm requiring 250+ beds for such a post did not prohibit creating one in a smaller hospital: that was a matter of administrative/policy discretion. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held writ courts cannot direct the creation, sanctioning, or staffing of government posts, as that is purely the government's own prerogative. The petition was dismissed.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case