LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sudhanshu Kardam v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 232Decided 12 Mar 2026
C.A. No.-003348-003348 - 2026
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

The appellant, along with another candidate, had applied for the post of 'Auditor' in the Comptroller and Auditor General's (CAG) office through the Staff Selection Commission's 2018 Combined Graduate Level Examination, under the 'Persons with Disabilities' category (mental illness). Although initially recommended for appointment, the CAG returned their dossiers in 2021 on the ground that the post of Auditor had been identified as unsuitable for persons with benchmark disabilities suffering from mental illness. After representations to the authorities went unanswered, the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and eventually the Supreme Court by way of appeal against an adverse Delhi High Court judgment.

Decision Breakdown

During the pendency of the appeal, the Court had earlier directed the CAG to consider accommodating the appellant and the similarly-placed candidate in suitable posts. The CAG's additional affidavit confirmed that, following a 2021 notification, the Group 'C' posts of Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II had since been identified as suitable for persons with mental illness/specific learning disability, and that CAG was willing to appoint the candidates once the Staff Selection Commission forwarded their dossiers. The Court accepted this position and disposed of the appeal by directing the SSC to forward the candidates' dossiers to CAG within two weeks, directing that both candidates be considered for appointment to suitable Group 'C' posts, and ordering that supernumerary posts be created if the originally advertised posts were already filled, with appointment to take effect from the date of joining.

Lesson Learnt

When a government recruiting authority's own subsequent notification recognises a post as suitable for a category of disability, candidates earlier rejected under an outdated post-suitability list are entitled to reconsideration and accommodation, if necessary through supernumerary posts, rather than being left without redress.

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