LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

C. Yamini & Others vs The High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi & Anr.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2023 INSC 155Decided 23 Feb 2023
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 49 of 2022
Ajay Rastogi · Bela M. Trivedi

Background

The petitioners are District and Sessions Judges in Andhra Pradesh. They were first appointed in October 2003 on an ad-hoc basis to preside over Fast Track Courts, and were later selected and appointed to the regular cadre in July 2013. When the High Court considered judicial officers for elevation to the Bench in 2022, it counted only regular service towards the ten-year minimum that Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution requires; the petitioners were treated as short of ten years and were passed over, while officers junior to them in the seniority list were elevated. They approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, asking that their Fast Track Court years be counted as "judicial office" for elevation.

Decision Breakdown

The Court dismissed the petition. It pointed out that a three-judge bench had already decided these very petitioners' claim in 2019 (Kum. C. Yamini vs State of Andhra Pradesh), holding that ad-hoc Fast Track Court appointments were not appointments to cadre posts, so they could not claim seniority from 2003; the only benefit the 2019 judgment allowed was counting that service for pension and retiral benefits. Since the Court had already refused to recognise the Fast Track years as regular judicial service for seniority, the same service could not now be counted as "judicial office" for the purposes of Article 217(2)(a). The plea was therefore held to be legally unsustainable in light of the binding earlier decision.

Lesson Learnt

Ad-hoc or temporary service does not automatically ripen into regular service for seniority or promotion purposes: what counts is the nature of the appointment and the rules under which it was made. Once the Supreme Court has decided a party's claim, the same party cannot reopen it by dressing the same point up as a fresh petition.

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