LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences vs Bikartan Das

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 733Decided 16 Aug 2023
Civil Appeal No. 3339 of 2023
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · J.B. Pardiwala · M.M. Sundresh

Background

Dr. Bikartan Das was a Research Assistant with the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), an autonomous body under the Ministry of AYUSH. In 2017, the government raised the retirement age to 65 for AYUSH doctors working directly under the Ministry and in CGHS hospitals, but the Ministry clarified this enhancement did not extend to employees of autonomous bodies like CCRAS. Dr. Das, nearing the earlier retirement age of 60, claimed he should also get the benefit of retiring at 65 since he sometimes treated patients. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejected his claim after examining CCRAS's own bye-laws, but the Orissa High Court, on a writ petition, overturned the CAT's decision and ruled in his favour.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded the limited scope of its supervisory "certiorari" jurisdiction over tribunal decisions. Reviewing a long line of precedent, the Court explained that a writ court cannot act as an appellate court re-weighing facts or substituting its own view merely because it disagrees with a tribunal's reasonable interpretation of rules: interference is permitted only for genuine jurisdictional errors, violations of natural justice, or manifest errors on the face of the record. Since the CAT had carefully analysed CCRAS's bye-laws and government orders and reached a plausible conclusion that the retirement-age enhancement did not apply to CCRAS employees, the High Court was wrong to reverse it. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the CAT's order rejecting Dr. Das's claim.

Lesson Learnt

When a specialised tribunal has fairly considered the facts and rules and reached a reasonable conclusion, a High Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot simply substitute its own preferred outcome: judicial review of tribunal decisions is meant to check jurisdictional and procedural errors, not to re-decide the case on merits.

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