Recruitment Rules

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 »

Supreme Court settles promotion norms: DACP Scheme vs. ESIC Regulations in service matters (20 January 2022)

/ A S Bopanna, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 with Section 17, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 with Section 97, Judges, Promotion, Recruitment Rules, Service Conditions, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of DACP Scheme vs. ESIC Regulations in Promotions LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme or the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Recruitment Regulations should govern promotions for teaching faculty at ESIC. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India &

Supreme Court settles promotion norms: DACP Scheme vs. ESIC Regulations in service matters (20 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Preference-Based Selection in Public Service Exams: Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manish Bakawale (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Madhya Pradesh State Civil Services Rules, 2015, Madhya Pradesh State Civil Services Rules, 2015 with Rule 4(3)(c)(2), Public Service Commission, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Preference-Based Selection in Public Service Exams: Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manish Bakawale (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of rules regarding preference-based selection in public service examinations when a candidate is found ineligible for a higher preferred post. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs.

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Preference-Based Selection in Public Service Exams: Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manish Bakawale (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Reporting of Vacancies to Public Service Commission: Director of Indian System of Medicine vs. Dr. Susmi C.T. (2021)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Judges, Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976, Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976 with Rule 13, Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976 with Rule 14, Recruitment Rules, Reporting of Vacancies, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Reporting of Vacancies to Public Service Commission: Director of Indian System of Medicine vs. Dr. Susmi C.T. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) can direct the Department of Indian System of Medicine to report additional vacancies to the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) based on anticipated vacancies due to

Supreme Court Clarifies Reporting of Vacancies to Public Service Commission: Director of Indian System of Medicine vs. Dr. Susmi C.T. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reinstates Promotions Based on 2002 Rules in BSNL Case: Medini C & Ors. vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. (21 September 2021)

/ B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Recruitment Rules, Recruitment Rules, 2002, Recruitment Rules, 2005, Service Law, Service Law with FR-35, Vested Rights

Supreme Court Reinstates Promotions Based on 2002 Rules in BSNL Case Date of the Judgment: 21 September 2021 Citation: Medini C & Ors. vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. (2021) INSC 612 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao J., B.R. Gavai J., B.V. Nagarathna J. Can an employer deny promotions based on rules that were in

Supreme Court Reinstates Promotions Based on 2002 Rules in BSNL Case: Medini C & Ors. vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. (21 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Marks Criteria for Sub-Inspector Promotions: Arvind Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (26 July 2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Promotion, Recruitment Rules, Service Law, Service Law with Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008

Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Marks Criteria for Sub-Inspector Promotions: Arvind Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether candidates must obtain minimum qualifying marks in each subject of a promotional exam to be eligible for further evaluation. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Arvind Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. The State of

Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Marks Criteria for Sub-Inspector Promotions: Arvind Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (26 July 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows IPS Officers to Intervene in CAPF Deputation Case: Sanjay Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (28 June 2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 312, Deputation, Judges, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court Allows IPS Officers to Intervene in CAPF Deputation Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Indian Police Service (IPS) officers should be allowed to intervene in cases concerning the filling of senior administrative posts in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Sanjay Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Supreme Court Allows IPS Officers to Intervene in CAPF Deputation Case: Sanjay Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (28 June 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Degree Holders to Compete for Junior Engineer Posts: Puneet Sharma vs. HPSEB (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, Recruitment Rules, Right to Equality, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Law, Service Law with Promotion, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Allows Degree Holders to Compete for Junior Engineer Posts: Puneet Sharma vs. HPSEB (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a degree in Electrical Engineering is a higher qualification than a diploma for the post of Junior Engineer. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Puneet Sharma & Ors. vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. &

Supreme Court Allows Degree Holders to Compete for Junior Engineer Posts: Puneet Sharma vs. HPSEB (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Military Service Benefit for Seniority in Punjab Civil Service: Jagmohan Singh Dhillon vs. Satwant Singh (26 March 2021)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Recruitment Rules, S. Abdul Nazeer, Seniority, Service Law, Service Law with Repealed Rules

Supreme Court Denies Military Service Benefit for Seniority in Punjab Civil Service: Jagmohan Singh Dhillon vs. Satwant Singh (2021) Date of the Judgment: 26 March 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 174 Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Hemant Gupta, J. Can prior military service be counted towards seniority in the Punjab Civil Service for

Supreme Court Denies Military Service Benefit for Seniority in Punjab Civil Service: Jagmohan Singh Dhillon vs. Satwant Singh (26 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Stays Additional Police Sub-Inspector Appointments: Gajanan Bansode vs. State of Maharashtra (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 320, Indu Malhotra, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Recruitment Rules, Service Law, Service Law with Rule 5 of the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Stays Additional Police Sub-Inspector Appointments: Gajanan Bansode vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State Government can appoint additional candidates beyond the notified vacancies for the post of Police Sub-Inspector without consulting the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) and violating the prescribed recruitment rules. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Gajanan

Supreme Court Stays Additional Police Sub-Inspector Appointments: Gajanan Bansode vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Appointments of Sub-Inspectors Despite Merit List Discrepancies: Pankjeshwar Sharma vs. State of J&K (2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Merit List, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Appointments of Sub-Inspectors Despite Merit List Discrepancies: Pankjeshwar Sharma vs. State of J&K (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether appointments made based on a concession by the Advocate General, deviating from the merit list, are valid. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Recruitment Case Name: Pankjeshwar Sharma and Others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others

Supreme Court Upholds Appointments of Sub-Inspectors Despite Merit List Discrepancies: Pankjeshwar Sharma vs. State of J&K (2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top