LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Nipun Tawari & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 1128Decided 20 Oct 2022
Civil Appeal No. 7778 of 2022
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · Hima Kohli

Background

NEET-PG 2022 registration closed on 25 March 2022 and results were declared on 1 June 2022. On 21 September 2022, the Maharashtra government issued an admissions brochure for postgraduate medical courses, which stated that in-service reservation would apply "as per any change made by government from time to time." On 26 September 2022, after the admissions schedule had begun, the state issued a Government Resolution reserving 20% of state-quota seats for in-service candidates. Aspiring (non-in-service) candidates challenged this before the Bombay High Court, arguing that introducing/expanding the in-service quota after the admission process began impermissibly changed the "rules of the game" midstream; the High Court rejected the challenge, and the candidates appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Court traced the background: a Constitution Bench in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association had settled that states have the constitutional competence to reserve seats for in-service doctors in postgraduate courses, and Maharashtra's in-service reservation for degree courses (previously in doubt due to an earlier three-judge ruling) was restored by that decision, leading the state to issue the 26 September 2022 resolution. Unlike the facts in Dr. Prerit Sharma (where the brochure expressly said there would be no reservation, later reversed by a government order), Maharashtra's brochure from the outset expressly warned candidates that in-service reservation policy could change per government resolutions issued "from time to time", so no settled rule was altered after the process began. Relying also on Neil Aurelio Nunes (OBC Reservation), the Court held that because candidates were on notice that the reservation details could be updated later, the 26 September resolution did not change the rules of the game mid-process. The Court also noted that any in-service seats left unfilled would flow back to general-category candidates per the brochure, mitigating prejudice. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment.

Lesson Learnt

A reservation or eligibility policy announced or modified after an admission process has begun does not violate the "no change in rules mid-game" principle if the governing brochure/rules had, from the very start, expressly put candidates on notice that such details were subject to later government orders.

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