LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2021 INSC 100Decided 18 Feb 2021
Civil Appeal No. 325 of 2021
Justice L. Nageswara Rao · Justice Indira Banerjee

Background

The appellants were UP Police Constables who, after clearing a selection test, were appointed as Constable Drivers. The state government later framed the UP Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015, which required Constable Drivers and Head Constable Drivers to clear a fresh selection process before being appointed as Head Constable, Motor Transport (a higher, more technical post with only 283 sanctioned positions, leading further to Sub-Inspector and Inspector Motor Transport). The appellants challenged these rules before the Allahabad High Court, arguing it was arbitrary to make them undergo a second selection after they had already been selected once as Constable Drivers; the High Court dismissed their writ petition, and they appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment, holding that the 2015 Rules were neither discriminatory nor arbitrary. It reasoned that Head Constable Motor Transport is a distinct, highly technical post with very limited vacancies (283, against over 9,000 Constable Drivers and nearly 1,100 Head Constable Drivers), so requiring a fresh selection for it is a reasonable classification. The Court noted the state had already addressed stagnation concerns by creating 1,098 Head Constable Driver posts (filled by seniority) and proposing 1,000 new Sub-Inspector Driver posts, giving ordinary drivers a seniority-based promotion path without needing to clear the technical post's selection.

Lesson Learnt

A government is free to insist on a fresh, merit-based selection process for promotion to a genuinely more specialised or technical post, even for employees who already cleared an earlier selection in the same service line: that alone does not make the rule arbitrary or discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16.

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