LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sandeep Kaushik and Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 789Decided 3 Aug 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 4920-4921 of 2022
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

DTC had issued a 2007-08 recruitment advertisement for drivers, with the selection process conducted by a separate examining body (respondent no. 2). The Delhi High Court found the entire recruitment process illegal because candidates were selected solely on marks given in a viva-voce test, with no guidelines on how those marks were allotted, and directed DTC to appoint the respondent (Sandeep Kaushik) as a driver on his merit position, without back wages. DTC appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that 14 years had passed, driver posts were now filled only on contract, the respondent (then about 49) would need to pass a fresh driving test, and DTC itself had not committed any illegality since the selection process was run by respondent no. 2.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the recruitment process was bad in law because selection was based solely on viva marks without proper guidelines. However, it held that actually appointing the respondent as a driver now, 14 years later, was not practically possible given the changed circumstances (no regular driver posts, need to clear a fresh driving test, approaching retirement age). Balancing this, the Court modified the High Court's order and directed DTC to pay the respondent Rs. 7.5 lakh as lump-sum compensation in lieu of appointment, with 6% interest from September 2013 until payment, within eight weeks, with liberty to recover this amount from respondent no. 2 (the body that conducted the flawed selection).

Lesson Learnt

Even where a recruitment process is held illegal, courts may award monetary compensation instead of directing actual appointment when too much time has passed and ground realities have changed, ensuring the wronged candidate is still compensated without forcing an impractical remedy.

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