LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Anmol Kumar Tiwari & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2021 INSC 101Decided 18 Feb 2021
Civil Appeal Nos. 429-430 of 2021
Justice L. Nageswara Rao · Justice Indira Banerjee

Background

Jharkhand's Home Department advertised 384 posts of Police Sub-Inspectors and related ranks in 2008, but an inquiry later found the original selection list was prepared incorrectly by giving undue weight to candidates' post preferences rather than merit. The State cancelled 42 of the original appointments and appointed 43 more-meritorious candidates from a revised list instead. The affected (ousted) candidates challenged their termination in the High Court and won reinstatement, while other candidates who had scored even higher marks than the ousted group ("intervenors") separately sought appointment for themselves but were denied relief, mainly on the ground that no vacancies remained; both the State and the intervenors then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the reinstatement of the originally terminated candidates, relying on its earlier ruling in Vikas Pratap Singh, since these candidates were not personally responsible for the authorities' selection error, had completed training, and had already served for a considerable period. On the intervenors' claim, the Court held that although they had scored higher marks, they were not similarly situated to the reinstated candidates (who had already been appointed and served), and crucially, the original advertisement covered only 384 posts, all of which were already filled by candidates with even higher merit from the revised list, so the intervenors had no legal right to be appointed beyond the advertised vacancies. Both sets of appeals were therefore dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment entirely.

Lesson Learnt

Employees who are appointed due to no fault of their own, even if a selection process is later found flawed, can retain protection from termination once they have served for a meaningful period, but this protection does not extend to creating a right to appointment beyond the number of posts originally advertised, however meritorious a rejected candidate may be.

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