LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2020 INSC 332Decided 8 Apr 2020
Civil Appeal No. 2103 of 2020
Justice Ashok Bhushan · Justice Navin Sinha

Background

The Haryana Staff Selection Commission advertised nearly 2,000 posts of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) in 2006, with a clearly published selection process involving a written test and viva voce. Before the scheduled written test could be held, the Commission's Chairman unilaterally altered the mode and criteria of selection multiple times: ultimately relying on a one-page document, kept outside the official file, that was only produced after a court directed the Commission to show its selection criteria. Candidates selected under this altered process (including the appellants) were challenged by other aspirants, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court (both the Single Judge and the Division Bench on appeal) quashed the 2010 select list, finding the changes to be the Chairman's unauthorised, arbitrary handiwork rather than a genuine decision of the full multi-member Commission.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court agreed that a multi-member statutory body like the Commission cannot have its selection criteria altered by the Chairman acting alone, especially when the change was designed to lower (not improve) selection standards and was never properly recorded in the Commission's own files. It upheld the High Court's quashing of the 2010 selection but modified the relief: since there was nothing wrong with the original 2006 advertisement and notified criteria, the Commission was directed to complete the selection process from the stage of the written test using that original criteria, allowing all original applicants (including those already selected) to participate afresh, without requiring any fresh advertisement. The Court also protected the already-selected candidates from having to refund any salary already received, recognising their long service under an interim court order, even while confirming they would have to go through the selection again.

Lesson Learnt

The head of a multi-member government selection body cannot unilaterally change recruitment criteria mid-process, doing so to dilute standards makes the selection invalid, though courts can tailor the remedy (like restarting from a fair stage) rather than wiping out years of a flawed process entirely from scratch.

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