LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sudesh Kumar Goyal vs. The State of Haryana & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 842Decided 21 Sept 2023
Civil Appeal No. 10861 of 2013
Hrishikesh Roy · Pankaj Mithal

Background

In 2007 the Punjab & Haryana High Court advertised 22 posts in the Haryana Superior Judicial Service for direct recruitment from the Bar, 14 of them in the general category. The appellant cleared the written exam and interview and stood at rank 14 on the merit list, but was never appointed, only the top 13 candidates were. He challenged this before the High Court, arguing the 14th post was arbitrarily kept vacant, and separately that he should have been slotted in when one of the 13 appointees later resigned.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court explained that selection to a merit list does not by itself create an enforceable right to appointment (relying on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India), though the State cannot act arbitrarily in leaving posts unfilled. On the facts, the Court found the reduction from 14 to 13 general-category posts was not arbitrary: 5 of the originally advertised posts had to be set aside for absorbing serving Fast Track Court judges under directions in the Brij Mohan Lal cases, while 4 fresh vacancies were added back, netting out to exactly 13 posts genuinely available, leaving the appellant, at rank 14, just short. It also rejected his claim to the later resignation vacancy, holding a fresh vacancy from a resignation requires a fresh selection process, not an automatic slot-in for the next-ranked candidate. Given the matter was already 16 years old, the Court also declined to disturb the outcome at this late stage.

Lesson Learnt

Being placed on a merit list, even after clearing every stage of a competitive selection, does not guarantee a job; the government/employer retains discretion over how many posts to actually fill, so long as that discretion is exercised bona fide and not arbitrarily.

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