LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

State of Orissa & Anr. v. Dhirendra Sundar Das & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 629Decided 6 May 2019
Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2019
Justice Uday Umesh Lalit · Justice Indu Malhotra

Background

In 2008, the Odisha (then Orissa) government invited recommendations to fill 150 vacant posts in the Orissa Administrative Service (OAS) Class-II cadre, and 559 candidates, including the respondents, were recommended by their departments. Before the selection process could be completed through the required steps (Selection Board scrutiny, Public Service Commission consultation, and a final approved list), the State restructured its administrative cadres in 2009, abolishing the OAS Class-II posts and replacing them with a new Orissa Revenue Service Group 'B' cadre. The respondents went to the Orissa Administrative Tribunal and later the Orissa High Court, seeking to be promoted/appointed against the original 2008 vacancies under the old rules; the High Court ruled in their favour and directed the State to hold a fresh review selection to fill those 150 posts under the repealed 1978 rules. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment. It held that merely being recommended by a department is only the first of several steps in the selection process (recommendation, Selection Board scrutiny, Public Service Commission consultation, and a final approved list), since the respondents' candidature never advanced past the first step, no vested or accrued right to promotion had arisen in their favour. The Court reaffirmed that a candidate's right is only to be considered for promotion under the rules in force when the actual selection exercise is carried out, not under rules in force when the vacancy first arose, relying on its earlier decisions in Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., Union of India v. Krishna Kumar, and Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Chanan Ram. Since the OAS Class-II cadre itself had been abolished and replaced before any final selection list was prepared, the respondents could not claim a lien over posts that no longer existed, and directing the State to fill those now-abolished posts under a repealed set of rules was contrary to law.

Lesson Learnt

Being recommended or shortlisted for a government promotion/appointment is not the same as acquiring a legal right to it: that right only crystallises once the selection process is actually completed through all its prescribed stages. If the government restructures or abolishes a cadre before that happens, candidates cannot insist on appointment to posts that no longer exist.

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