LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Union of India & Ors. vs Mahendra Singh

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 747Decided 25 Jul 2022
Civil Appeal No. 4807 of 2022
Hemant Gupta · Vikram Nath

Background

The Railway Protection Force (RPF) advertised over 11,000 constable posts, requiring candidates to fill their application form in either Hindi or English and to answer the written exam (OMR sheet) in the same language chosen in the application, so that handwriting could be compared to guard against impersonation. The respondent filled his application in English but wrote the required paragraph on his OMR answer sheet in Hindi; a handwriting expert found the signatures did not fully match across documents, and his candidature was rejected despite him having scored well above the cutoff. The Allahabad High Court (both Single Judge and Division Bench) had ruled in the candidate's favour, treating the language mismatch as an inadvertent slip due to the two-year gap between filling the form and sitting the exam, since there was no actual proof of impersonation.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that where a recruitment process prescribes a specific manner of doing something (here, using the same language in the application and the answer sheet), that procedure must be followed exactly, invoking the settled principle that "where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all." It held the High Court's "inadvertent mistake" reasoning was based on surmise and conjecture, since the candidate had consistently used English elsewhere but switched only for the OMR paragraph. The Court restored the RPF's decision to reject the candidature, holding that using a different language than required for the answer sheet itself disentitled the candidate to any relief, regardless of the absence of proven impersonation.

Lesson Learnt

When an examination or recruitment notice lays down a mandatory procedural requirement (such as using a consistent language across application and answer sheets to verify identity), strict compliance is expected, and courts will not excuse a violation as a mere technicality even where there is no proof of actual fraud.

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