Supreme Court Upholds Railway’s Discretion in Filling Vacancies from Extra Panel: Dinesh Kumar Kashyap vs. South East Central Railway (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate from the extra panel (20% over and above the vacancies) has a right to appointment if vacancies remain unfilled. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. […]
Supreme Court Clarifies Reserved Vacancy Filling After Resignation in Punjab: Gagandeep Singh Case (27 November 2018) Date of the Judgment: 27 November 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 1034 Judges: Kurian Joseph J., S. Abdul Nazeer J. Can a reserved category vacancy, vacated due to resignation, be filled from the existing merit list or does it require
Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement Despite Qualification Issue: Mamta Rohit vs. Dr. Prafulla Ranjan (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an appointment can be cancelled due to a lack of required qualifications after the appointee has joined, served, and been confirmed, especially when the appointing authority relaxed the qualification criteria. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Mamta Rohit
Supreme Court Allows Appeal for Marks Based on Marksheet: Dr. Ritesh Kumar Tarun vs. State of Bihar (2018) Date of the Judgment: September 24, 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 845 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. Can a candidate be denied marks for a qualification if they provide a marksheet proving they passed, even
Supreme Court Directs Appointment of Candidate After Re-evaluation of Marks in State Service Exam: Roma Sonkar vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate is entitled to appointment after re-evaluation of marks in a state service examination. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Roma Sonkar vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public
Supreme Court Upholds Appointment Based on Initial Check-list: Thahira vs. Administrator, Lakshadweep (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court should interfere with the selection process when the candidate did not raise objections within the stipulated time. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Thahira P. vs. The Administrator, UT of Lakshadweep & Ors. [Judgment Date]: April
Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Illegal Appointment: Union of India vs. Raghuwar Pal Singh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an appointment made without the approval of the competent authority is a nullity or a mere irregularity. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India and Anr. vs. Raghuwar Pal Singh Judgment Date: March 13, 2018
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether re-evaluation of answer sheets is permissible in the absence of explicit provisions in the governing statute. CASE TYPE: Education/Service Law Case Name: Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Judgment Date: 11 December 2017 Date of the Judgment: 11 December 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 1035 Judges: Madan B.
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be held liable for costs and contempt proceedings for delaying the appointment of a candidate to the Kashmir Administrative Service. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Mohammad Mehraj-ud-Din Khan & Ors. Judgment Date: 21 November 2017 Can a State
Date of the Judgment: November 7, 2017 Citation: Not Available Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi Can an appointment be valid if it was offered under a wrong category? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning appointments to the post of Krishi Sevak in Maharashtra. The court
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the appointments offered to candidates were valid despite their ineligibility based on merit. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Shankar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Judgment Date: 07 November 2017 Date of the Judgment: 07 November 2017 Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 7940/2010 Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi
Date of the Judgment: July 9, 2013 Citation: 2013 INSC 487 Judges: H.L. Dattu, J., Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Can a selection board re-evaluate answer sheets after a merit list is published? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case regarding the recruitment of Subedars, Platoon Commanders, and Sub-Inspectors in Chhattisgarh. The
