LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors. v. Ajit Singh Patel & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2018 INSC 1061Decided 15 Nov 2018
Civil Appeal Nos. 11017-11018 of 2018
Justice Kurian Joseph · Justice A.M. Khanwilkar

Background

U.P. Jal Nigam's Chief Engineer had declared the appointments of 122 candidates (Assistant Engineers, selected via a 2016 notification) void ab initio, following a Board decision that the selection process was tainted. The Allahabad High Court quashed that order, holding that it violated natural justice because no individual notice or hearing was given, and because the authority had not shown it was impossible to separate tainted from untainted candidates before cancelling all 122 appointments en masse. The Nigam's first Supreme Court challenge to this had already been disposed of in 2018 on a narrower point (reworking the merit list), without disturbing the High Court's core conclusion; it now challenged that core conclusion itself, along with the dismissal of its review application, relying on fresh expert opinions obtained later.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the Nigam's earlier, narrower Special Leave Petition had neither disturbed the High Court's conclusion nor given it liberty to reopen that conclusion later via review or a fresh petition. On the merits, it found that the Chief Engineer's 2017 order had not actually undertaken the exercise of showing it was impossible to distinguish tainted from untainted candidates: a prerequisite, per the Court's own precedents, before an entire selection can be cancelled without individual notice. The fresh expert opinions the Nigam now relied on were not available to the original decision-maker and could not retroactively cure that defect. The challenge to the High Court's judgment accordingly failed, but the Court clarified that the Nigam remains free to pass a fresh, reasoned order (considering the available material) after following due process, and expressed no opinion on the merits of any future action. The appeals were disposed of on these terms, with no costs.

Lesson Learnt

Before an employer can cancel an entire batch of appointments over an allegedly tainted selection process without giving individual notice to each affected person, it must first demonstrate, at the time of its original decision, that distinguishing tainted from untainted candidates was genuinely impossible; this cannot be patched up later with fresh expert evidence gathered after the fact.

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