LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Durgapur Steel Plant & Ors. v. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 459Decided 7 May 2026
C.A. No.-007073-007073 - 2026 (arising from SLP (Civil) No. 41 of 2020)
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Alok Aradhe

Background

Durgapur Steel Plant (a unit of Steel Authority of India) advertised 200 posts of Plant Attendant in 2007-08; over 29,000 candidates sat the written exam, of whom 1,530 qualified, and 194 were eventually appointed. The respondents, who were not among those appointed, filed a case seeking disclosure of exam results and marks and sought to stop further appointments, without themselves asking to be appointed. The Central Administrative Tribunal and later the Calcutta High Court ruled in the respondents' favour, directing the company to appoint them, reasoning that the company had failed to produce or preserve the examination records and could not prove the respondents had failed. The company appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court set aside the directions to appoint the respondents. It held that neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement required publishing every candidate's marks, that there was no rule mandating indefinite preservation of exam records, and that the company's explanation for non-availability of old records was bona fide. Critically, the Court noted the respondents had never actually claimed to have passed the exam or sought their own appointment in the original petitions: merely showing they hadn't been proven to have "failed" was not enough to establish they had "passed." The Court also noted that a place on a select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, and that the qualification criteria had since been revised, making retrospective appointment impractical after nearly two decades. However, recognising that one respondent had pursued the litigation in good faith since 2008, the Court directed the company to pay him Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation instead of ordering appointment.

Lesson Learnt

In recruitment litigation, a candidate must affirmatively show they cleared the selection process to claim appointment: the mere absence of proof that they failed, or the employer's inability to produce decades-old records, is not sufficient; courts may still award monetary compensation for a flawed process even while declining to order appointment.

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