LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ajay Kumar Singh & Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2018 INSC 685Decided 9 Aug 2018
Civil Appeal No. 10829 of 2014
Justice Kurian Joseph · Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Background

This was a long-running seniority dispute between "direct recruit" Assistant Engineers (the appellants, originally appointed on an ad hoc basis in 1987 and regularised only in 2001) and "promotee" Assistant Engineers in Uttar Pradesh's Development Authorities service. A 2007 seniority list placed the promotees above the direct appointees, and the direct appointees challenged it, arguing the promotees' appointments were invalid because the mandatory requirement of consulting the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) before confirming their promotions had never been followed. The State had tried to justify skipping consultation by relying on a rule amendment that, on closer reading, did not actually cover the post of Assistant Engineer.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that consultation with the UPPSC was indeed mandatory for promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer, and the High Court had wrongly relied on a rule amendment that did not apply to this post to excuse the lack of consultation. However, the Court held that this lapse amounted only to a curable "irregularity," not an "illegality" that would void the promotees' appointments outright, especially since the appellants' own appointments had likewise bypassed the normal Commission-based process. The Court directed the State Government to refer the matter to the UPPSC for consultation within two months; the existing seniority list would continue to stand in the promotees' favour unless the UPPSC gave a negative opinion on a particular promotee, in which case that person alone would lose their place in the seniority list. The appeals were disposed of on these terms, with parties bearing their own costs.

Lesson Learnt

Skipping a mandatory procedural safeguard, like consultation with a Public Service Commission before confirming promotions, does not automatically invalidate years of service: courts can order the missing step to be completed after the fact ("ex post facto") rather than unwinding settled appointments, especially when the party raising the objection has an equally irregular service history of its own.

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

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case