LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Hirandra Kumar v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2019 INSC 111Decided 29 Jan 2019
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1343 of 2018
Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice Hemant Gupta

Background

Candidates applying for direct recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (UPHJS) in 2018 challenged Rules 8(1) and 12 of the UP Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975, which fix an upper age limit of 45 years (48 for SC/ST candidates) and require recruitment at intervals of up to three years. The petitioners had been allowed to sit the preliminary and main examinations under interim Supreme Court orders, with their results kept in a sealed cover, but were otherwise barred for having crossed the prescribed age limit.

Decision Breakdown

The Court upheld the constitutional validity of both Rules 8 and 12, holding that fixing a cut-off age for recruitment is a matter of policy within the rule-making authority's discretion and can only be struck down if it is arbitrary or "wide off the reasonable mark", which was not shown here. It held that the time-schedule directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan for filling judicial vacancies do not create any individual right to age relaxation outside the applicable recruitment rules. It also declined to invoke Article 142 to grant the petitioners relief merely because they had been permitted to appear in the exams on an interim basis, distinguishing an earlier case where results had already been declared. The writ petitions and the connected civil appeal were all dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Lesson Learnt

Courts give wide latitude to age and recruitment cut-offs fixed under service rules, and permission to sit an examination under an interim court order does not by itself create a right to have the age bar relaxed or the result declared.

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