LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Common Cause & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2019 INSC 228Decided 19 Feb 2019
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 54 of 2019
Justice Arun Mishra · Justice Navin Sinha

Background

After the Supreme Court had earlier quashed the government's divesting of CBI Director Alok Verma and the ad-hoc appointment of M. Nageshwar Rao as interim Director (for bypassing the statutory High-Powered Selection Committee), the government again appointed Mr. Nageshwar Rao as interim Director on 10.1.2019, citing the "earlier arrangement" that had itself just been struck down. An NGO, Common Cause, and an RTI activist filed this writ petition seeking a direction to appoint a regular Director of CBI following the proper procedure under Section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, to quash the fresh interim appointment, and to ensure transparency in the selection process by disclosing shortlisting records under the RTI Act.

Decision Breakdown

By the time the matter came up for hearing, the government had already appointed a regular Director of CBI, so the Court held that the petitioners' central prayer stood satisfied and there was no justification to continue the writ petition. On the RTI/transparency grievance, the Court noted the petitioner had been told to pursue a statutory appeal before the RTI Appellate Authority and had not done so, so there was no ground to intervene on that count either. The Court nonetheless preserved the petitioners' rights, clarifying that if the regular Director's appointment process had not followed due procedure, any aggrieved party remained free to challenge it separately through proper legal channels: just not in the hasty, piecemeal manner attempted here. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with parties left to bear their own costs.

Lesson Learnt

A court will decline to rule on a grievance that has already become moot (here, because a permanent appointment had since been made), and separately, before approaching a constitutional court over an information-access complaint, a citizen must first exhaust the statutory appeal process available under the RTI Act.

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