LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

High Court of Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh v. P. Murali Mohana Reddy and Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 94Decided 25 Jan 2019
Civil Appeal Nos. 73-74 of 2019
Justice A.K. Sikri · Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

Background

Four Ad-hoc Fast Track Court District Judges in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, appointed directly from the Bar, sat for a written exam and interview to be absorbed permanently into the regular cadre of Additional District Judges, as mandated by the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India. All four cleared the written exam but fell short of the 40%/35% combined qualifying percentage after the viva voce, and were denied absorption. The High Court ruled in their favour, holding that no rule required a separate minimum score in the interview itself, and directed their appointment; the High Court (as an institution, through its Registrar General) appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court agreed that neither the Brij Mohan Lal judgment nor the applicable Rules required a separate minimum qualifying mark in the viva voce, only an aggregate qualifying percentage across both written and interview. On this legal point the High Court was right. However, two of the four candidates (Sunitha Busireddy and S. Sarada Devi) had scored 99.7 and 99.3 out of a required 100 marks; the Court held these marks should be rounded up to the qualifying 100, so these two were deemed to have qualified. The remaining two candidates, who fell further short, were not treated as having qualified, but using its special equitable powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court gave them one more chance to re-sit the written exam and interview within six months, allowing them to continue in service meanwhile.

Lesson Learnt

In selection processes, marginal shortfalls very close to a cut-off (a fraction of a mark) can be treated flexibly by courts using equitable powers, but this is an exceptional remedy, not a general right: ordinarily, qualifying criteria stated in rules and advertisements must be met as published and cannot be unilaterally altered after the fact by the selecting authority.

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