Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Equivalency of Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering for Junior Engineer Post: Sajid Khan vs. L Rahmath Ullah (20 February 2025)

/ Equivalence of Qualifications, Judges, Manoj Misra, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 20, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 251 Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Manoj Misra, J. When can an employer’s decision regarding qualification equivalency be challenged? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case concerning recruitment for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the Union […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Equivalency of Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering for Junior Engineer Post: Sajid Khan vs. L Rahmath Ullah (20 February 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles seniority rights of temporarily appointed engineers: P. Rammohan Rao vs. K. Srinivas (2025) INSC 212 (13 February 2025)

/ Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 320, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sandeep Mehta, Seniority, Service Law

Date of the Judgment: 13 February 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 212 Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Sandeep Mehta, J. When does the service of a temporarily appointed engineer count towards seniority? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving engineers in Andhra Pradesh. The court clarified the rules for determining

Supreme Court settles seniority rights of temporarily appointed engineers: P. Rammohan Rao vs. K. Srinivas (2025) INSC 212 (13 February 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies compassionate appointment criteria: Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025) INSC 184

/ Compassionate Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Dipankar Datta, Judges, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, Service Law

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 11th February 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 184 Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. When a family loses its primary breadwinner, can the surviving members expect immediate financial assistance from the deceased’s employer? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Canara Bank

Supreme Court clarifies compassionate appointment criteria: Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025) INSC 184 Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes appointments made under flawed 2010 advertisement: Amrit Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (2025) INSC 176 (February 10, 2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Pankaj Mithal, Public Employment, Sandeep Mehta, Service Law

Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 10, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 176 Judges: Pankaj Mithal, J., Sandeep Mehta, J. Was the recruitment process for Class IV employees in Palamu, Jharkhand, fair and transparent? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case involving appointments made based on an advertisement from 2010. The

Supreme Court quashes appointments made under flawed 2010 advertisement: Amrit Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (2025) INSC 176 (February 10, 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Regular Pay Scale for Part-Time Sweepers Appointed Under Special Drive: Rakesh Kumar Charmakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Contingency Paid Employees, Judges, Pay Scale, Prasanna B. Varale, Regularization of Employees, Service Law, Vikram Nath

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether part-time sweepers appointed under a special recruitment drive are entitled to a regular pay scale after completing three years of service. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [Judgment Date]: January 31, 2025 Date of the Judgment: January 31, 2025

Supreme Court Orders Regular Pay Scale for Part-Time Sweepers Appointed Under Special Drive: Rakesh Kumar Charmakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds JTET Requirement for Jharkhand Teachers: Parimal Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand (2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Education Law, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, National Council for Teacher Education Guidelines, Rajesh Bindal, Recruitment Rules, Right to Education Act, 2009, Service Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State Government can relax the mandatory requirement of the Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test (JTET) for primary school teacher recruitment and allow candidates with Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) or other State Teacher Eligibility Tests (STET) to participate. CASE TYPE: Education Law, Service Law Case Name: Parimal Kumar & Ors. vs. The

Supreme Court Upholds JTET Requirement for Jharkhand Teachers: Parimal Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Retrospective Promotion with Benefits: K. Samba Moorthy vs. Sanjiv Chadha (2025) INSC 110

/ B.R. Gavai, Consequential Benefits, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, K.V. Viswanathan, Promotion, Service Law

Date of the Judgment: 27th January 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 110 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J. Can an employee be denied promotion and its benefits due to a flawed disciplinary process? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case. The Court ruled in favor of an employee who was

Supreme Court Orders Retrospective Promotion with Benefits: K. Samba Moorthy vs. Sanjiv Chadha (2025) INSC 110 Read Post »

Supreme Court modifies dismissal of Syndicate Bank manager for irregularities: B S N Prasad vs. The General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank & Ors (2025) INSC 89 (21 January 2025)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Augustine George Masih, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, Proportionality of Punishment, Service Law, Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 with Regulation 4, Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1976, Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1976 with Regulation 24, Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1976 with Regulation 3(1)

Supreme Court Modifies Dismissal of Bank Manager in Syndicate Bank Case Date of the Judgment: 21 January 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 89 Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Augustine George Masih, J. Can a bank employee’s dismissal be justified even if the financial losses caused by their actions are recovered? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court modifies dismissal of Syndicate Bank manager for irregularities: B S N Prasad vs. The General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank & Ors (2025) INSC 89 (21 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes penalty for Senior Medical Officer: Bhupinderpal Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab (20 January 2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 311(2), Dipankar Datta, Disciplinary Proceedings, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Manmohan, Pension, Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1970), Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1970) with Rule 8, Retirement Benefits, Service Law

Supreme Court quashes penalty for Senior Medical Officer: Bhupinderpal Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated against a public servant just before retirement and the subsequent penalty imposed were justified. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Bhupinderpal Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab and Others [Judgment Date]: 20 January

Supreme Court quashes penalty for Senior Medical Officer: Bhupinderpal Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab (20 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles eligibility for promotion to Tracer post: Jyostnamayee Mishra vs. State of Odisha (2025) INSC 87 (20 January 2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Direct Recruitment, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979, Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 with Rule 5(1)(e), Promotion, Rajesh Bindal, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court settles eligibility for promotion to Tracer post: Jyostnamayee Mishra vs. State of Odisha (2025) INSC 87 (20 January 2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee is entitled to claim promotion to a post for which they do not fall in the feeder cadre and which is meant to be filled by direct recruitment. CASE

Supreme Court settles eligibility for promotion to Tracer post: Jyostnamayee Mishra vs. State of Odisha (2025) INSC 87 (20 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Promotion Criteria for District Judges in Jharkhand: Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 233, Judges, Promotion, Satish Chandra Sharma, Seniority, Service Law, Suitability Test

Supreme Court Clarifies Promotion Criteria for District Judges in Jharkhand: Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether promotions to the post of District Judge can be solely based on a merit list after candidates have qualified the suitability test. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Dharmendra

Supreme Court Clarifies Promotion Criteria for District Judges in Jharkhand: Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Experience Requirements for Medical Faculty Promotions in Kerala: Dr. Sharmad vs. State of Kerala (2025) INSC 70

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Promotion, Service Law, Service Law with Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958

Supreme Court Clarifies Experience Requirements for Medical Faculty Promotions in Kerala Date of the Judgment: January 10, 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 70 Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Can prior teaching experience before obtaining a super-speciality degree be counted towards promotion eligibility for medical faculty? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this

Supreme Court Clarifies Experience Requirements for Medical Faculty Promotions in Kerala: Dr. Sharmad vs. State of Kerala (2025) INSC 70 Read Post »

Scroll to Top