LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Harkirat Singh Ghuman vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 881Decided 29 Aug 2022
Civil Appeal No. 5874 of 2022
Ajay Rastogi · C.T. Ravikumar · B.V. Nagarathna as the second judge

Background

The appellant, a candidate in the 2019 Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination, was not selected after the written test. He challenged the selection process before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging that the minimum-qualifying-marks condition was not authorized by the governing rules, that marks obtained were wrongly withheld from him, and, most significantly, that the Criminal Law question paper (Paper V) was found to be missing one question when distributed, with a supplementary question sheet handed out only an hour into the exam. The High Court dismissed his writ petition at the preliminary stage itself, without even calling for a response from the authorities.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court agreed that the missing-question defect in Paper V was a serious and undisputed lapse, not a mere technicality, and that it could not simply be ignored. Rather than cancelling the entire exam (which would unfairly penalize hundreds of candidates and further delay a recruitment already running years behind), the Court directed that the four undisputed questions of Paper V (160 of the original 200 marks) be revalued on their own, excluding the belatedly-supplied question, and that a fresh result of the written exam be declared on that basis. Candidates who now qualify are to be called for a fresh, uniformly-conducted interview by one common board, rejecting the plea that previously-interviewed candidates be spared re-interview. The High Court's dismissal was set aside and the appeal allowed with these directions, to be completed within two months.

Lesson Learnt

A demonstrable, undisputed defect in the conduct of a competitive examination, such as a missing question, cannot simply be brushed aside by declaring "no prejudice," but courts will look for a proportionate fix (like excluding the flawed portion) rather than voiding an entire selection process when that better serves fairness to all candidates.

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