LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Union of India vs. K. Rajashekhara Reddy and Another

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 645Decided 14 Jun 2022
Civil Appeal No. 4569 of 2022
Ajay Rastogi · Vikram Nath

Background

The respondent appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 2014 (his fifth and final attempt) and cleared the preliminary exam, main exam, and interview. His medical report, uploaded on 17 June 2015, showed a Body Mass Index of 32 (against the permitted 30), so he was declared "temporarily unfit." His name did not figure in the main merit list but later appeared at Sl. No. 16 in the reserve list published on 19 January 2016; after allotments were made on 9 March 2016, he applied on 10 March 2016 for a re-medical examination, which the authorities refused as being beyond the six-month window prescribed by the recruitment rules.

Decision Breakdown

The Central Administrative Tribunal had dismissed his case for missing the six-month deadline (counted from the 17 June 2015 upload), but the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh read the word "ordinarily" in Rule 7(a)(vii) of Appendix-III of the CSE Rules as allowing discretionary relaxation and ordered a re-medical examination. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reading was legally unsustainable: "ordinarily" must be read together with "maximum," so six months is a firm outer limit save for genuinely exceptional situations (e.g., a pregnant candidate unable to complete examination in time), and the respondent's facts did not qualify. However, since the Court itself had earlier directed a re-medical examination during the appeal, and the respondent was found "medically fit for all services" in a May 2022 report, the Court invoked its special power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice: it set aside the High Court's judgment on the legal point but still directed the Union to consider the respondent for appointment per his original 2016 reserve-list ranking, with notional seniority and benefits but without back pay for the period not worked.

Lesson Learnt

Statutory deadlines described as running "ordinarily" up to a "maximum" period are treated as firm limits, not open-ended discretion, but the Supreme Court can still use its Article 142 power to grant relief on the specific facts even after ruling against a party's legal argument.

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