LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Mandeep Kumar & Others vs. U.T. Chandigarh & Others

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 284Decided 9 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal No. 1908 of 2022
Indira Banerjee · J.K. Maheshwari

Background

The Punjab government advertised thousands of posts of Elementary Trained Teachers (ETT) in 2015-2016, with separate quotas for SC/ST, OBC and other categories. After the selection process, 595 posts reserved for the SC/ST category remained unfilled because not enough eligible SC/ST candidates were available. The appellants, who belonged to the Backward Classes category, wanted those unfilled SC/ST posts to be given to them instead, relying on an old 1954 government policy letter that allowed "interchangeability" of unfilled reserved posts between categories. The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected their plea, noting the government's decision to simply re-advertise the unfilled posts instead.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that under Section 7 of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Service) Act, 2006, only the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes, not the appointing department (Education), has the power to order de-reservation or interchangeability of an unfilled reserved post, and only after recording reasons that it is expedient in the public interest. Here the concerned welfare department had not agreed to interchange the posts, so the appointing authority could not do so on its own. The Court also found it would be unjust, six years after the original merit list was prepared, to now fill those vacancies from a stale 2016 list. The appeal was dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

Interchanging reserved vacancies between SC/ST and Backward Classes categories is not something an appointing department can decide unilaterally. It requires a reasoned order from the specific department entrusted with that power under the reservation statute, and courts are reluctant to disturb old, lapsed selection lists years after the fact.

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