Supreme Court Upholds Age Limits for Higher Judicial Service: Hirandra Kumar vs. Allahabad High Court (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the age criteria and recruitment timelines set by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 are constitutionally valid. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Hirandra Kumar vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr. […]
Supreme Court clarifies absorption criteria for Ad-hoc Fast Track Court Judges: High Court of Hyderabad vs. P. Murali Mohana Reddy (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether minimum qualifying marks are required in the viva voce (interview) for absorption of ad-hoc Fast Track Court Judges into the regular cadre. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: High Court of
Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Projectionist: Gangaram vs. State of Rajasthan (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate must possess a license for operating a cinema projector on the last date of application, or if acquiring it within a stipulated time after appointment is sufficient. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Gangaram vs. The State of
Supreme Court clarifies daily wage conversion for part-time employees in Himachal Pradesh: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Pinju Ram (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether part-time employees, upon conversion to daily wage status, are entitled to back wages from the date of completing ten years of service. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The State of Himachal
Supreme Court Upholds Appointments Despite Late Result Declaration: Rakesh Bakshi vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether candidates who obtain their qualifying degree after the cut-off date for applications can be considered eligible for appointment. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Rakesh Bakshi & Anr. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir &
Supreme Court Clarifies Promotion Rules: Rajasthan State Sports Council vs. Uma Dadhich (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether promotion rules should be applied based on the date of vacancy or the date when the promotion decision is made. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Rajasthan State Sports Council & Anr. vs. Smt. Uma Dadhich & Anr. [Judgment
Supreme Court Orders Review of Financial Upgrade and Promotion for CSIR Employee: Anil Kumar vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether non-communication of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) to an employee affects their right to financial upgradation and promotion. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Anil Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors. Judgment Date:
Supreme Court Upholds State Policy on Compassionate Appointment: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Parkash Chand (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a dependent of a deceased government employee is entitled to compassionate appointment if another family member is already employed by the State, even if they live separately. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: State of Himachal
Supreme Court Denies Appointment Rights Based on Cancelled 1999 Lineman Selection: State of Manipur vs. Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei (2019) Date of the Judgment: January 17, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 34 Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J. Can a candidate claim a right to appointment based on a selection process
Supreme Court Clarifies Compassionate Appointment Policy: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether family pension and other terminal benefits can be included in the family income for denying compassionate appointment. CASE TYPE: Service Law – Compassionate Appointment Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar [Judgment Date]: 16
Supreme Court clarifies promotion rules in Assam Rifles: Union of India vs. Krishna Kumar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether promotions should be based on rules existing when vacancies arise or when the promotion is considered. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Krishna Kumar & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 14 January 2019
Supreme Court quashes reversion order after 25 years, grants pensionary benefits: Sukh Bilash Thakur vs. Bihar State Electricity Board (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee can be reverted to a lower post after 25 years of service based on allegations of fraudulent appointment, especially when the initial appointment was made after due verification and competitive
