LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) · 2025 INSC 289Decided 28 Feb 2025
W.P.(C) No.-000142-2024 (with Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 2 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 233 of 2024)
Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna · Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Background

Six women Civil Judges (Junior Division) in Madhya Pradesh were terminated from service during their probation in May 2023 on the recommendation of the High Court's Administrative Committee. Four of the six were later reinstated after the High Court's Full Court revisited the matter, but two officers, Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma, were not, and their terminations remained under challenge before the Supreme Court through their own writ petitions as well as a linked suo motu petition the Court had registered on the issue. The petitioners argued their terminations did not properly account for difficult personal circumstances, including allegations of an insensitive work environment and, in one case, health issues including a severe bout of COVID-19 and a miscarriage.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court set aside the termination orders for both petitioners, along with the underlying High Court resolution and the State's consequential termination order, and directed their reinstatement with all consequential benefits, though without back salary for the intervening period (which would count only notionally for pension purposes). It held the High Court had acted in a manner "agnostic" to relevant facts, glossing over the acute medical and emotional difficulties faced by one petitioner and mischaracterising conduct by the other as insubordination without adequate consideration, and stressed that while gender cannot excuse genuinely poor performance, it is a factor that must be weighed sensitively in evaluating women judicial officers, especially during difficult life events. The Court also directed that any officer complaints kept on hold because of the terminations now be dealt with in accordance with law, and reinstated the officers within fifteen days based on their original seniority.

Lesson Learnt

Probation and performance assessments of employees, particularly women facing serious health or personal circumstances, cannot be conducted mechanically without accounting for the human context, and courts will step in to correct terminations where the decision-making process failed to weigh such circumstances fairly.

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