Recruitment Rules

Supreme Court clarifies rights of candidates on additional lists in teacher recruitment: State of Karnataka vs. Smt. Bharathi S. (2023) INSC 472 (19 May 2023)

/ Additional List, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Candidates on Additional Lists in Teacher Recruitment Date of the Judgment: 19 May 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 472 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J Can a candidate on a waitlist demand appointment if a vacancy arises after the validity of the waitlist expires? The Supreme […]

Supreme Court clarifies rights of candidates on additional lists in teacher recruitment: State of Karnataka vs. Smt. Bharathi S. (2023) INSC 472 (19 May 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies rights of candidates in waitlists: State of Karnataka vs. Smt. Bharathi S. (2023)

/ Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 with Entry 66, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Recruitment Rules, Service Law, Waitlist

Supreme Court clarifies rights of candidates in waitlists: State of Karnataka vs. Smt. Bharathi S. (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether inclusion in a waitlist (Additional List) creates a right to appointment. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Smt. Bharathi S. Judgment Date: May 19, 2023 Date of the Judgment: May

Supreme Court clarifies rights of candidates in waitlists: State of Karnataka vs. Smt. Bharathi S. (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Requirement of Diploma in Civil Engineering for Promotion: Unnikrishnan vs. Union of India (2023)

/ Aravind Kumar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Equivalence of Qualifications, Judges, Manoj Misra, Promotion, Recruitment Rules, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Requirement of Diploma in Civil Engineering for Promotion: Unnikrishnan vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED) is equivalent to a Diploma in Civil Engineering for promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Unnikrishnan CV and Others

Supreme Court Upholds Requirement of Diploma in Civil Engineering for Promotion: Unnikrishnan vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles appointment rules for Gram Panchayat Adhikari posts: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar & Ors. (2022) INSC 1412 (12 December 2022)

/ Estoppel, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Recruitment Rules, Service Law, Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group ‘C’ Posts (Mode and Procedure) Rules, 2015, Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group ‘C’ Posts (Mode and Procedure) Rules, 2015 with Rule 2, Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service Rules, 1978, Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service Rules, 1978 with Rule 15, Waiting List

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Gram Panchayat Adhikari Appointments in Uttar Pradesh Date of the Judgment: 12 December 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 1412 Judges: M.R. Shah, J., and M.M. Sundresh, J. Can a candidate who participated in a selection process, based on specific rules, later claim appointment based on a different set of rules? The

Supreme Court settles appointment rules for Gram Panchayat Adhikari posts: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar & Ors. (2022) INSC 1412 (12 December 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Candidature for Using Different Languages in Application and OMR Sheet: Union of India vs. Mahendra Singh (2022)

/ Application Process, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Recruitment Law, Recruitment Rules, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Candidature for Using Different Languages in Application and OMR Sheet: Union of India vs. Mahendra Singh (2022) Date of the Judgment: July 25, 2022 Citation: Not Available in the source Judges: Hemant Gupta, J. and Vikram Nath, J. Can a candidate’s application be rejected for using different languages in the

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Candidature for Using Different Languages in Application and OMR Sheet: Union of India vs. Mahendra Singh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overrules Rangaiah: Appointments to Public Posts Governed by Existing Rules (20 May 2022)

/ Conditions of Service, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Constitutional Law with Article 310, Constitutional Law with Article 311, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Promotion, Recruitment Rules, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Overrules Rangaiah: Appointments to Public Posts Governed by Existing Rules (20 May 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether appointments to public posts that fell vacant before the amendment of service rules are governed by the old rules or the new rules. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Raj

Supreme Court Overrules Rangaiah: Appointments to Public Posts Governed by Existing Rules (20 May 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Forest Guard Training Rights: Omkar Sinha vs. Sahadat Khan (2022)

/ Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 166(1), Government Orders, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Madhya Pradesh Class III (Non-Minstl.) Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967, Madhya Pradesh Class III (Non-Minstl.) Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967 with Rule 14(1), Madhya Pradesh Class III (Non-Minstl.) Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967 with Rule 6(4), Promotion, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Forest Guard Training Rights: Omkar Sinha vs. Sahadat Khan (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Forest Guard who stood first in training is entitled to be selected for further training as Forester based on a 1977 circular, and whether a subsequent government communication effectively withdrew that circular. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds Forest Guard Training Rights: Omkar Sinha vs. Sahadat Khan (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Merit-Based Selection: Goa PSC vs. Pankaj Rane (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Constitutional Law with Article 320, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Merit-Based Selection: Goa PSC vs. Pankaj Rane (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Public Service Commission can introduce a minimum qualifying mark for the interview stage of a selection process when the relevant rules only specify minimum marks for the written examination. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Goa Public Service Commission vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Merit-Based Selection: Goa PSC vs. Pankaj Rane (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes Jharkhand High Court’s 50% aggregate marks criteria for District Judge Selection

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001, Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 with Rule 14, Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 with Rule 21, Judicial Appointments, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court quashes Jharkhand High Court’s 50% aggregate marks criteria for District Judge Selection LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can alter the selection criteria for District Judge appointments after the selection process has commenced and the marks have been disclosed. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Recruitment Case Name: Sushil Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs. The High

Supreme Court quashes Jharkhand High Court’s 50% aggregate marks criteria for District Judge Selection Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority Rules for Central Excise Inspectors: B.S. Murthy vs. A. Ravinder Singh (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Recruitment Rules, S. Ravindra Bhat, Seniority, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority Rules for Central Excise Inspectors: B.S. Murthy vs. A. Ravinder Singh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotee inspectors in the Central Excise Department. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: B.S. Murthy & Ors. vs. A. Ravinder Singh & Ors. [Judgment Date]: March 15, 2022

Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority Rules for Central Excise Inspectors: B.S. Murthy vs. A. Ravinder Singh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Inter-Commissionerate Transfers: SK Nausad Rahaman vs. Union of India (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Recruitment Rules, Service Conditions, Service Law, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Inter-Commissionerate Transfers: SK Nausad Rahaman vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Inter-Commissionerate Transfers (ICTs) are permissible under the Central Excise and Customs Commissionerates Inspector (Central Excise, Preventive Officer and Examiner) Group ‘B’ Posts Recruitment Rules 2016, and whether the ban on ICTs violates fundamental rights. CASE TYPE: Service

Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Inter-Commissionerate Transfers: SK Nausad Rahaman vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Qualification Deadlines in LDC Recruitment: State of Rajasthan vs. Anju Rini Saini (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Qualification Deadlines in LDC Recruitment: State of Rajasthan vs. Anju Rini Saini (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate who did not possess the required qualification by the last date of application, or the extended date, can be considered for appointment based on acquiring the qualification later, especially when the recruitment process

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Qualification Deadlines in LDC Recruitment: State of Rajasthan vs. Anju Rini Saini (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top