LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Vinod Prasad Raturi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2021 INSC 157Decided 5 Mar 2021
Civil Appeal No. 495 of 2021
Justice L. Nageswara Rao · Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

Background

After Uttarakhand was carved out of Uttar Pradesh, State Civil Service officers were allocated between the two states; Respondent No. 4 objected to his allocation to Uttarakhand and, through prolonged litigation and interim stay orders, continued serving in Uttar Pradesh for years while his litigation was pending. Meanwhile, his juniors who had already moved to Uttarakhand were promoted to the IAS cadre in earlier select lists. Respondent No. 4 was finally allocated to Uttarakhand only in 2016 after his challenges failed, and was promoted to IAS in 2018 with a later year-of-allotment than his juniors. He then sought a "review" Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to backdate his seniority to match or beat his juniors, and the Allahabad High Court directed the authorities to hold one, without hearing the already-promoted officers (the appellants), who were not even made parties to that writ petition.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in directing a review DPC without hearing the appellants, whose seniority and promotions stood to be directly affected: a basic violation of natural justice, since anyone likely to be adversely affected by an order must be heard before it is passed. On the merits, the Court held that Respondent No. 4 could not now disturb the settled seniority and promotions of officers who had been properly promoted while he, of his own choice/litigation strategy, continued serving in Uttar Pradesh and raised no objection or protest when his juniors were being promoted from Uttarakhand. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal.

Lesson Learnt

An order that will adversely affect a third party's settled rights (such as seniority or promotion) cannot be passed without hearing that party, and a person who had the opportunity to protest or seek relief earlier but chose not to cannot later use a late-filed review request to unsettle the legitimate expectations of others.

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