LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ayurved Vikas Mandal v. State of Gujarat

Civil Appeal · 2017 INSC 898Decided 12 Sept 2017
Civil Appeal No. 12683 of 2017
Justice Kurian Joseph · Justice R. Banumathi

Background

A trust running an aided ayurvedic college in Gujarat had been permitted to convert to a self-financing institution, on condition that its existing staff would be retained. When 23 staff members were allegedly not continued or absorbed into government service as the Gujarat High Court had earlier directed, the trust (and the State) approached the Supreme Court in cross-appeals. During the hearing, the Court had earlier directed the State Government to examine whether it could absorb these 23 employees without treating it as a precedent for other cases.

Decision Breakdown

The State filed an affidavit agreeing to accommodate 16 of the 23 employees in vacant posts at other Grant-in-Aid Ayurveda Colleges (at Surat and Jamnagar), with the trust required to pay their salary arrears until absorption, while the remaining 7 (already retired) would have their arrears paid by the trust and their pension papers processed by the Government. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals in terms of this affidavit, directing the State to act on it within four weeks and the trust to clear all arrears within three months, with no further extensions. It expressly clarified that the judgment was passed on the peculiar facts of this case alone and was not to be treated as a precedent.

Lesson Learnt

When an institution converts from government-aided to self-financing status, any conditions attached to that conversion (such as protecting existing staff) are enforceable, and courts can craft practical, time-bound settlements between the State and private trusts to protect employees' livelihoods even outside a strict legal precedent.

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