LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Pancham Lal Pandey vs Neeraj Kumar Mishra & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 128Decided 15 Feb 2023
Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 2023
V. Ramasubramanian · Pankaj Mithal

Background

Tripathi Ramroop Sanskrit Vidyalaya in Kaushambi, Uttar Pradesh, was brought onto the government grant-in-aid list in 2015 with five salaried posts (one Headmaster and four Assistant Teachers). The Director of Secondary Education then split the teacher posts subject-wise and directed that Neeraj Kumar Mishra, about five years junior to Pancham Lal Pandey, be paid instead of Pandey, ignoring an earlier assurance given to the High Court that salaries would be paid strictly by seniority. Pandey won a writ petition in 2019; Mishra's and the State's appeals were dismissed, and the Supreme Court also refused their special leave petitions. Mishra then filed a review petition in the High Court against the dismissal of his own appeal, and in February 2021 the Division Bench allowed that review: effectively reversing the result. Pandey appealed.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court set aside the review order. It explained that review is a narrow remedy: it exists only to correct an error that is obvious on the face of the record, not to re-argue the case or reach a different conclusion simply because another view is possible. Here, the Single Judge had rightly ordered payment by seniority because of the State's own statement to the Court; subject-wise bifurcation of posts is an internal matter of the institution, and no new post was being created beyond the sanctioned five, so the Full Bench ruling on unsanctioned posts did not apply. By allowing the review, the Division Bench had in substance re-heard the appeal and rewritten its judgment on a completely new ground (subject-wise payment), something a review court cannot do. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Lesson Learnt

A review petition is not a second appeal in disguise; a court can use it only to fix a clear mistake visible on the record, not to change its mind. A litigant who has lost at every level, including the Supreme Court, cannot re-open the case through the back door of review.

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