Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Public employment

JOMON K.K. versus SHAJIMON P. & ORS. ETC.

Possession of a current Lascar's licence, as prescribed by the Special Rules and the advertisement, was an essential qualification for appointment as Boat Lascar; a holder of a Syrang's licence who did not possess a current Lascar's licence on the last date for receipt of applications was not eligible, and inclusion/appointment of such candidates was contrary to the statutory prescription and void; the appellant, having failed to pursue available remedies promptly and not being able to show a legally protected right, is not entitled to relief, and Article 142 relief is not warranted.

Source excerpt

  • Eligibility criteria
  • Overqualification
  • Non-joinder of necessary parties
  • Article 142
  • Equality of opportunity in public employment
  • Recruitment process
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus DAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for purposes of affirmative action (including reservation) is constitutionally permissible: States may sub-classify only where the class is not homogenous for the object, the classification is based on an intelligible differentia with a reasonable nexus to remedying inadequate representation, is supported by quantifiable empirical data, and does not result in exclusion or variation of entries in the Presidential List under Article 341(2); the creamy-layer principle applies to SC/ST and the State should identify and exclude socially advanced individuals.

Source excerpt

  • Sub-classification of scheduled castes
  • Article 341
  • Article 16(4)
  • Creamy layer
  • Affirmative action
  • Presidential list
Read case analysis
Service law

NUTAN KUMARI versus B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

The Court concurred with the Single Judge that the Selection Committee’s process was arbitrary and vitiated the selection because the Committee fixed a 100‑mark scheme and split marks (including 30 for interview) on the day of interview without disclosure in the advertisement, conducted multiple interviews for the same candidates on the same day with erratic variations in interview marks, and thereby the selections were invalid; respondent No.6 was ineligible by age under the applicable cut‑off and his appointment was void; the Division Bench judgment was quashed and the Single Judge’s order…

Source excerpt

  • Selection process and criteria
  • Relaxation of advertised norms
  • Vested rights in recruitment
  • Natural justice/notice before termination
  • Age eligibility
Read case analysis
Service law

HARKIRAT SINGH GHUMAN versus PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT & ORS.

The High Court judgment dismissing the writ petition was set aside. The Court found a substantial lapse in Paper V (missing question no.4 supplied during the exam) and directed that question no.4 (40 marks) be excluded and the marks for question nos. 1,2,3 and 5 (out of total 160 marks) be valuated to declare a fresh written result; candidates within three times the vacancies to be called for viva-voce and final selection to follow Rules, 2007. The Court also laid down procedural safeguards for multiple-choice papers: use of OMR, publication of provisional answer keys with opportunity to obje…

Source excerpt

  • Selection process
  • Written examination
  • Multiple-choice/omr procedures
  • Answer keys and objections
  • Viva-voce impartiality
Read case analysis
Service law

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus DEVENDRA SHARMA

Appointments to Class III and IV posts in Health Department of Bihar made without sanctioned posts, advertisement, or proper recruitment method are illegal and confer no entitlement to salary, pension, or service benefits; humanitarian considerations cannot override statutory requirement of valid appointment.

Source excerpt

  • Appointments
  • Illegal appointments
  • Entitlement to salary
  • Pension
  • Service benefits
  • Backdoor entry
Read case analysis
Administrative law

STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. versus CHANDRA NANDI

The lack of reasons in the High Court's order renders it unsustainable; every order deciding a lis must be reasoned. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Source excerpt

  • Requirement of reasoned orders
  • Writ of mandamus
  • Post-retiral benefits
  • Pensionary benefits
Read case analysis
Service law

BHAJAN SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

The selection of respondent No.4 as Managing Director was faulty and set aside because the pending charge-sheets against him were not disclosed to, or considered by, the Selection Committee. This non-disclosure was a breach of Rule 5 of the 2011 Rules, and failure to follow the law laid down in Jankiraman's case. Integrity and merit could not be accurately assessed. The consequence is that the selection/appointment is set aside and respondent No.4 is reverted to his earlier substantive position.

Source excerpt

  • Selection and promotion in public corporations
  • Suppression of material facts
  • Departmental proceedings and sealed cover procedure
  • Integrity and eligibility for promotion
Read case analysis
Service law

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus PANKAJ KUMAR VISHNOI

Appointment on compassionate grounds does not grant a right to a specific post, particularly in higher positions; minimum standard of efficiency, including physical tests for posts like Sub-Inspector, must be maintained. The appointing authority may require such standards. High Court was incorrect to grant a second opportunity for physical test solely due to passage of time; once failed, claimant has no right to further opportunity or particular post.

Source excerpt

  • Compassionate appointment
  • Minimum standard of efficiency
  • Recruitment rules
Read case analysis
Administrative law

ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR. versus TAGE HABUNG & ORS

Commission is legally empowered to fix minimum qualifying marks in written examinations at its discretion during recruitment under Rule 11. Such fixation and notification, even after selection commencement, is not illegal or arbitrary if conducted in accordance with recruitment rules. However, Commission is not empowered to fix qualifying marks for viva voce post facto.

Source excerpt

  • Recruitment rules
  • Cut-off/qualifying marks fixation
  • Judicial review of recruitment procedure
Read case analysis
Administrative law

BHANU PRATAP versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Statutory minimum qualifying marks in recruitment rules cannot be relaxed or rounded off unless expressly provided; selection committee and appointing authority are bound by rules; appellant's failure to secure minimum aggregate meant he was not entitled to appointment.

Source excerpt

  • Judicial service examination
  • Appointment procedure
  • Qualifying marks
  • Rounding off marks
  • Statutory rules
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.