LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 723Decided 4 Jul 2019
Civil Appeal No. 5185 of 2019
Justice S. Abdul Nazeer · Justice Indira Banerjee

Background

The Gujarat Public Service Commission advertised posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests and Range Forest Officer with reserved quotas for SEBC/SC/ST categories. The appellant, who applied under the SEBC (reserved) category and had availed an age relaxation available to that category, was selected and placed in the merit list, but argued, relying on an earlier Supreme Court decision (Jitendra Kumar Singh), that since he scored well enough, he should be moved into the general/open category instead of being counted against the reserved quota. A Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court initially agreed with him, but the Division Bench reversed this and held that candidates who avail an age relaxation reserved for their category cannot later be shifted to the general category.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Jitendra Kumar Singh was decided on the specific statutory scheme of Uttar Pradesh and did not apply to Gujarat's own reservation policy framework, which treated age relaxation as a form of relaxed standard tied to reserved-category status. The Court reasoned that a candidate who avails of age relaxation at any stage of the selection process (not just the final stage) has taken the benefit of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution, and cannot then claim to compete as an unreserved/general candidate. Finding no merit in the appellant's arguments, including his attempt to distinguish the preliminary and final examination stages, the Court dismissed the appeal, directing each side to bear its own costs.

Lesson Learnt

A candidate who takes advantage of a reservation-linked concession such as age relaxation during a selection process will be treated as a reserved-category candidate for that selection, and cannot later seek to be counted against general/open category vacancies, even if their marks would otherwise qualify them.

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