LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Manoj Kumar vs Union of India

Not available · 2024 INSC 126Decided 20 Feb 2024
Not available
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

The appellant, Manoj Kumar, applied for a primary school teacher post at an institute for the physically handicapped in 2016. The institute changed its selection procedure midway, replacing an interview with a marks-based system that awarded points for additional qualifications. The appellant, who held a postgraduate (PG) degree, was denied the 6 marks allotted for a "PG Degree" on the newly invented ground that his degree was not "in the relevant subject": a restriction not stated anywhere in the original scheme. Denied those marks, he narrowly lost the post to another candidate. His writ petition and writ appeal in the Delhi High Court were both dismissed on the ground that courts should not interfere in academic/selection matters.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the institute's reliance on its general "discretion" clauses could not be stretched to justify inventing a new, unstated qualification criterion after the fact: this was "a classic case of arbitrary action." It rejected the High Court's reasoning that judicial restraint in academic matters barred any scrutiny, holding that courts must still intervene in the face of manifest arbitrariness even while respecting institutional flexibility. However, because the school for which recruitment was originally advertised had since been closed down (over seven years after the illegal denial), the Court could not order actual appointment. Instead, invoking its duty to provide meaningful restitution even when the primary remedy has become impossible due to the passage of time, the Court directed the institute to pay the appellant Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation plus Rs. 25,000 in costs.

Lesson Learnt

Public authorities cannot manufacture new eligibility criteria after a selection process has begun to disqualify a candidate who otherwise qualifies: such action is arbitrary and can be struck down; and even where years of delay make the original remedy (like a job appointment) impossible, courts can still order monetary compensation so that a citizen wronged by illegal executive action is not left without any relief.

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