LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. The State of Rajasthan

Civil Appeal · 2020 INSC 681Decided 7 Dec 2020
Civil Appeal Nos. 3652-3657 of 2020
Justice L. Nageswara Rao · Justice Hemant Gupta · Justice Ajay Rastogi

Background

Vikesh Kumar Gupta and another candidate had applied for the post of Senior Teacher (Grade II) in Social Science through a 2016 Rajasthan Public Service Commission advertisement. After an initial answer key and merit list, their names were dropped when a revised ("2nd") answer key was issued following reconsideration of some disputed exam questions by an expert committee. Multiple rounds of litigation followed in the Rajasthan High Court over which disputed questions should be referred for expert review and whether the High Court itself could re-assess the correctness of exam answers. Several connected appeals from different stages of this litigation were heard together by the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that courts should not themselves assess the correctness of examination answers: that is a matter for subject experts, and judicial review of such academic matters is very limited. It found the High Court Division Bench had erred by itself examining disputed questions and concluding that five answers were wrong, instead of leaving that determination to the Expert Committee. However, the Court declined to set aside the High Court's judgment or disturb appointments already made, since some candidates affected had already been appointed and the selection process had progressed significantly. The Court upheld the already-prepared Select List and Wait List based on the second answer key, directed that the stalled selection process be completed within 8 weeks, and left it open to the authorities to fill existing vacancies from the wait list on merit. All the appeals were accordingly dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

Courts generally will not substitute their own judgment for that of subject-matter experts on the correctness of exam questions/answers, and once a recruitment process has substantially progressed with appointments made, courts are reluctant to unsettle it even if some procedural irregularity is found.

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