LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Commissioner Etc. v. Jayant S/O Sarvottamrao Kharwadkar Etc.

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 1272Decided 21 Nov 2019
Civil Appeal Nos. 8908-8910 of 2019
Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice Ajay Rastogi

Background

Jayant Kharwadkar, a Junior Engineer who moved into the Town Planning Department of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, was promoted to Assistant Town Planner and later to Town Planner, and was eventually confirmed in that post. After an unrelated High Court judgment on a separate promotion dispute in the Engineering Department, the Municipal Commissioner first issued an order clarifying Kharwadkar's name should be removed from the Engineering Department's seniority list (since he belonged to the separate Town Planning cadre), but the very next day reversed him from Town Planner back to Sectional Engineer without any notice or hearing. Kharwadkar challenged this reversion; after a complex procedural history including a dismissed Supreme Court SLP, a later review petition, and a High Court judgment on merits in his favour, the Municipal Corporation appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that it did not need to examine the various merits-based grounds the High Court had relied on, because the Municipal Commissioner's reversion order suffered from a basic and fatal defect: reverting an employee from a confirmed post is a matter of substantive prejudice, and no notice to show cause or opportunity of hearing had been given to Kharwadkar before that order was passed. This alone was a manifest violation of natural justice requiring the reversion order to be quashed. The Court also held that the review petition before the High Court had been maintainable despite the earlier dismissal of a Special Leave Petition, since that dismissal was a non-speaking order that did not affirm the High Court's reasoning. The appeals were allowed to the extent of quashing the Commissioner's reversion order, while clarifying that the Municipal Corporation remained free to take fresh action against the employee through a lawful process, with a timeline set for doing so.

Lesson Learnt

An employer cannot revert, demote, or otherwise take away a benefit already conferred on an employee without first giving that employee notice and a genuine opportunity to be heard, skipping this step alone is enough to invalidate the action, regardless of whatever substantive justification might exist.

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