LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission v. A.B. Natarajan & Ors. etc. (Review)

Civil Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014)Decided 15 Sept 2016
Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014
Justice Anil R. Dave · Justice Dipak Misra

Background

Candidates selected through a Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission exam had their appointments challenged over alleged irregularities in evaluating answer books; the Madras High Court's Division Bench eventually ordered termination of the selected candidates' services, and the Supreme Court had confirmed that order by its judgment of 30 June 2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the State, and the affected candidates then filed review petitions and connected interlocutory applications (including contempt petitions) across several linked civil appeals, arguing the candidates never got a fair opportunity to represent their case before the High Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the selected candidates indeed had not been given sufficient opportunity to represent their case before the High Court, and that the original petitioners who had challenged the selections would gain no personal benefit from the candidates' removal since they themselves had failed the exam. Exercising its special constitutional power under Article 142 to do complete justice, the Court directed that the candidates who had already been working for several years in Tamil Nadu state services should continue in service, notwithstanding the earlier order of the High Court and its own confirming judgment. The review applications were allowed only to this limited extent, and all connected interlocutory applications and contempt petitions across the linked appeals were disposed of accordingly.

Lesson Learnt

Even after a case is finally decided and confirmed by the Supreme Court, the Court can still use its special Article 142 power on review to prevent a harsh real-world outcome, here, keeping long-serving employees in their jobs, when fairness and practical consequences warrant it, even without disturbing the underlying legal findings.

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