LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel & Ors. vs State of Gujarat & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 145Decided 20 Feb 2023
Civil Appeal Nos. 1355-1356 of 2023
Sanjiv Khanna · M.M. Sundresh

Background

In September 2015 Gujarat advertised posts of Supervisor Instructor (Class III) in its ITIs. Both the Departmental Selection Committee's resolution and the advertisement fixed clear cut-off marks out of 300-60% for General, 57% for SEBC and 55% for SC/ST, and stated that anyone scoring below the cut-off would not be eligible. The advertisement also provided horizontal reservation (33% for women, 10% for ex-servicemen, 3% for persons with disabilities) but expressly said that if suitable candidates from those groups were not available, the posts would go to other eligible candidates. After the exam results were published, not enough women, ex-servicemen and disabled candidates met the cut-off, so on the State Government's advice the Selection Committee in December 2016 slashed the qualifying marks to 40% (General) and 35% (reserved), treating the horizontal reservation as if it were a vertical quota. Candidates like Sureshkumar Patel, who would otherwise have been selected, went to the Gujarat High Court; a Single Judge ruled for them and the State implemented that order, but private candidates who had benefited from the reduced cut-off appealed and a Division Bench reversed it.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the Division Bench's decision. It held that an advertisement issued under a notification binds the recruiting body and has "all the trappings of a statutory prescription"; it can only be changed by a formal amendment, made before or during the process, and even then the change must survive Article 14 scrutiny. Once results are published, the process is effectively complete and preparing the select list is merely a ministerial act, so the general "cancel or amend" clauses in the advertisement gave no power to lower the cut-off at that stage. Although no candidate has a vested right to a post, every eligible candidate has a vested right to be considered according to the rules as they stood on the date of the advertisement (N.T. Devin Katti; Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed. Graduate Teachers Welfare Society). The reduction here was not based on any assessment that lower marks were still adequate for the job; it was done purely to accommodate otherwise ineligible candidates, which is arbitrary. Balancing equities under Article 142, the Court nonetheless directed the State to consider accommodating the private respondents (women, ex-servicemen and disabled candidates who had already been serving for years) against still-vacant posts within their reserved percentage, without disturbing the appellants' appointments, and clarified that those respondents would rank as new entrants for seniority.

Lesson Learnt

A government recruiter cannot lower the pass mark after the results are out just to fit in more candidates from a favoured group: the rules published in the advertisement bind everyone, including the State. Candidates who meet the announced criteria have a legally enforceable right to be considered on those terms.

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