LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

V. Venkata Prasad & Ors. v. High Court of A.P. & Ors.

Civil Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Civil Appeal No. 6105 of 2013)Decided 29 Jun 2016
Civil Appeal No. 6105 of 2013
Justice Dipak Misra · Justice Shiva Kirti Singh

Background

The appellants were Sub-Judges in the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service who were given ad hoc, temporary promotions as District and Sessions Judges, Grade II, to staff newly sanctioned "Fast Track Courts" under a 2001 scheme. They later claimed seniority over direct recruits who were appointed to substantive (permanent) vacancies in the regular cadre around the same time, arguing their earlier date of promotion/posting should count. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejected their seniority claim, and they appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that an ad hoc appointment made as a stopgap arrangement outside the regular recruitment rules, as the appellants' Fast Track Court postings were, cannot be counted for seniority purposes against those who were validly appointed to substantive posts under the applicable rules. Relying on constitutional bench precedent (Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association) and related authorities, the Court distinguished cases where ad hoc officiation could count toward seniority (where the appointment was still "according to rules") from cases like this one, where the appointment was purely a stopgap scheme-based arrangement. Since the respondents were appointed as direct recruits to substantive posts in their own quota before the appellants' posts were regularised, the appellants could not claim the earlier seniority they sought. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Lesson Learnt

Time spent in a temporary, scheme-based or stopgap post generally does not count toward seniority against those regularly and validly appointed to substantive posts: seniority normally runs from the date of a rule-compliant, substantive appointment, not from an earlier informal or ad hoc posting.

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