Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. v. B Ramesh

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 326Decided 17 Feb 2025
C.A. No. 3645 of 2025 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 16512 of 2023)
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia · Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Background

The respondent, a Contract Junior Lineman, suffered a fracture in an accident while on duty and could not clear the mandatory physical (pole-climbing) test required for regular appointment. He sought appointment instead to the post of Office Subordinate, relying on the case of another employee, A. Anjaneyalu, who had suffered a permanent disability (amputation) in a work accident and had been given such an alternate post. The High Court's Single Judge and Division Bench both directed the power distribution company to appoint the respondent as Office Subordinate on this basis.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the two cases were not comparable: Anjaneyalu had suffered a permanent disability from the accident, while the respondent had only a fracture with no permanent disability, and had earlier been given a chance to attempt the physical test (which he failed) before raising his disability claim as an afterthought. The Court held that directing an alternate appointment without a proper selection process would run contrary to Article 16's mandate of equal opportunity in public employment, and that mere long pendency of litigation (since 2007) could not itself justify an appointment lacking legal basis. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's orders were set aside.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will not direct a "backdoor" alternate government appointment out of sympathy or because litigation has dragged on for years: public employment must generally follow a proper, open selection process consistent with the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity, unless the facts are genuinely on par with an established precedent.

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