LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

M. Kendra Devi vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 288Decided 10 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 1918-1919 of 2022
Ajay Rastogi · Abhay S. Oka

Background

The appellants were Assistant Engineers in the Tamil Nadu Highways Department who were selected as direct recruits through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. They challenged a 2004 seniority list that placed certain co-workers, appointed on compassionate grounds after losing a family breadwinner, senior to them, arguing this violated equality principles and the applicable service rules, especially because such compassionate appointments in this "Group B" post category had continued even after an earlier Supreme Court ruling (Nagpal's case, 1994) had effectively barred compassionate appointments to such posts. The Madras High Court had ruled against the direct recruits, upholding the seniority list.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the State government had indeed continued making Group B compassionate appointments in defiance of binding precedent, and it strongly criticized this "unpardonable" disregard for the law by the Tamil Nadu government. However, the Court also noted that the compassionate appointees themselves had done nothing wrong. They had been appointed under government orders that were never separately challenged, were later formally regularized by executive orders, and had by now served for two to three decades, with some nearing retirement. Balancing the illegality of the government's conduct against the hardship of unsettling long-serving employees' careers at this late stage, the Court declined to disturb the existing seniority list, holding that the seniority already assigned to the compassionate appointees under the applicable service rule (Rule 35(aa)) would stand. The appeals by the direct recruits were accordingly dismissed, though the Court left on record its formal disapproval of the government's practice.

Lesson Learnt

Even when a government's action (like continuing appointments in violation of a Supreme Court ruling) is found improper, courts may decline to reverse its long-term consequences on innocent third parties, like employees who benefited in good faith and built decades of career and reliance on that decision, showing that delay in bringing a legal challenge can itself defeat an otherwise valid claim.

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