LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr. v. Shikun Ram Firoda & Anr. (and connected appeals)

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 1197Decided 25 Oct 2019
Civil Appeal No. 8146 of 2019
Justice Hemant Gupta · Justice L. Nageswara Rao

Background

Rajasthan advertised recruitment to various state services in 2013, with 31 July 2013 as the last date for applications and a preliminary exam held in October 2013. After the exam was cancelled and re-notified, a November 2014 Press Note allowed candidates to correct mistakes or change category in applications already filed. Some applicants who were still serving in the Army as of the original cut-off date, and retired only afterward, tried to use this Press Note to change their category to "Ex-servicemen." When the Commission refused, the Rajasthan High Court sided with the candidates, holding the Press Note effectively shifted the eligibility date.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the Press Note was meant only to let candidates correct mistakes or change category in forms already submitted, not to create a fresh eligibility date or make previously ineligible candidates eligible. Since the candidates were still in active Army service (not yet "Ex-servicemen") on the original cut-off date, they could not claim the Ex-servicemen category. The Court noted that a 2019 rule amendment had, for the first time, made soon-to-retire Army personnel eligible, but that amendment was prospective only. The High Court's order was set aside and the Commission's appeals were allowed, though the Court used its special Article 142 powers to protect candidates who had already been appointed and had joined service under the earlier High Court order.

Lesson Learnt

An administrative "correction window" that lets applicants fix errors in an already-filed application is not the same as reopening the eligibility criteria itself: a candidate must meet the conditions as they stood on the original cut-off date, unless a later rule change is explicitly made retrospective.

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