LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Kum C. Yamini v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (and connected appeals)

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 905Decided 14 Aug 2019
Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019
Justice S.A. Bobde · Justice R. Subhash Reddy · Justice B.R. Gavai

Background

The appellants were appointed in 2003 as ad hoc District Judges to preside over specially-created Fast Track Courts in Andhra Pradesh. When the High Court later advertised regular District Judge posts, these ad hoc judges first sought automatic absorption into the regular cadre: a claim the Supreme Court had already rejected in an earlier case (Brij Mohan Lal). Following directions in that earlier judgment, the High Court held a fresh selection process in 2013, which the appellants cleared and were appointed as regular District Judges. Years later, after completing probation, they filed fresh litigation claiming their seniority in the regular cadre should be counted from their original 2003 ad hoc appointment, not from 2013.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court rejected the seniority claim, holding that the Fast Track Court appointments were explicitly ad hoc under separate special rules, conferred no right to any permanent cadre post, and were entirely distinct from the regular cadre of the Higher Judicial Service. Since the appellants were never part of the regular cadre before 2013, they could not claim seniority counted from an earlier date, and the Court reaffirmed that Article 14 does not permit claiming parity based on another municipality's possibly irregular appointment. However, relying on an earlier precedent (Mahesh Chandra Verma), the Court directed that the appellants' years of service as Fast Track Court Judges should still be counted for pension and other retirement benefits, even though it would not count for seniority in the regular cadre.

Lesson Learnt

Time spent in a temporary or "ad hoc" government role under a special scheme does not automatically carry over as seniority if you are later separately selected into a permanent cadre, but courts may still recognise that service for other purposes, like pension, even while denying it for seniority.

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