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
Service law

THE WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD & ORS. versus DIPENDU BISWAS & ORS.

A horizontally reserved post for PWD-LV falling under the Unreserved category is open to all PWD-LV candidates irrespective of their vertical social category, and such posts are to be filled on merit; therefore a more meritorious PWD-LV candidate from a reserved social category (OBC-A) can be appointed to the UR(PWD-LV) post by virtue of merit even if a less meritorious UR(PWD-LV) candidate is available, and reserved-category relaxations, if any, cannot be used to qualify a candidate for the unreserved post.

Source excerpt

  • Horizontal reservation
  • Vertical reservation
  • Persons with disabilities (pwd)
  • Unreserved category
  • Merit
  • Migration/mobility in reservation
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

DR. TANVI BEHL versus SHREY GOEL & ORS.

Residence/domicile-based reservation in PG medical courses within the State quota is constitutionally invalid and impermissible under Article 14; institutional preference seats are permissible to a reasonable extent, and except for such reasonable institutional preference seats, State quota PG seats must be filled strictly on merit through the All-India examination; existing admissions granted under the residence category in the present cases will not be disturbed.

Source excerpt

  • Reservation in education
  • Domicile vs residence
  • State quota admissions
  • Institutional preference
  • Merit-based admissions
  • Pg medical admissions
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

C. SELVARANI versus THE SPECIAL SECRETARY-CUM-DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the field enquiry and documentary evidence that the appellant was baptized as an infant and actively practised Christianity, that her father had converted to Christianity, and that no positive acts or public record established reconversion to Hinduism or community acceptance; since the S.C. Order, 1964 deems Scheduled Caste status only for persons professing Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism, the appellant was not entitled to a Scheduled Caste community certificate and the appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Scheduled caste community certificate
  • Conversion to christianity
  • Reconversion to hinduism
  • Reservation eligibility
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

REKHA SHARMA versus THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR & ANR.

The reservation for Persons with benchmark disabilities in the advertisement was an Overall Horizontal Reservation under Article 16(1), not a compartmentalised reservation; therefore respondents were not required to declare separate cut-off marks for that category and PwD candidates had to secure the minimum cut-off marks fixed for the vertical category in which they applied; non-declaration of separate cut-off marks for Persons with benchmark disabilities was not arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14, 16 or 21 or of the RPwD Act/Rules or RJS Rules; accordingly the High Court judgments dismi…

Source excerpt

  • Horizontal reservation
  • Overall horizontal reservation
  • Compartmentalised horizontal reservation
  • Cut-off marks in recruitment
  • Rajasthan judicial services rules, 2010
  • Rights of persons with disabilities act, 2016
Read case analysis
Reservation law

RAMNARESH @ RINKU KUSHWAH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

The State’s methodology of compartmentalizing different categories within the horizontal GS reservation and preventing meritorious reserved-category candidates from migrating to Unreserved Government School (UR-GS) seats was unsustainable; meritorious SC/ST/OBC candidates who on their own merit were entitled to UR-GS seats must be admitted to those seats, and the appellants who were deprived of such entitlement are to be admitted in the next Academic Session 2024-25 against UR-GS seats.

Source excerpt

  • Horizontal reservation
  • Vertical reservation
  • Neet ug admissions
  • Government school quota
  • Merit-based selection
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR VICHAR MANCH BIHAR, PATNA versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

The State resolution dated 01.07.2015 merging "Tanti-Tantwa" into Entry-20 ('Pan/Sawasi, Panr') of the Scheduled Castes list was illegal and ultra vires Article 341 because only Parliament may include or exclude castes or parts/groups within castes from the Presidential list; the High Court erred in upholding the resolution. Deletion of "Tanti-Tantwa" from the State's Extremely Backward Classes list on the Commission's recommendation may be within the State's competence, but merging it into the Scheduled Castes list could not be done by a State notification; the resolution is quashed and appr…

Source excerpt

  • Article 341
  • Scheduled castes list
  • State backward commission
  • Extremely backward classes
  • Reservation of vacancies
Read case analysis
Reservation law

CHAITRA NAGAMMANAVAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Section 4(1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990 was enacted to extend the operation of the 2001 Rules to universities for filling backlog SC/ST vacancies; the university, having advertised that the mode of selection would be as per the 2001 Rules and having been repeatedly directed by the State to follow those Rules, was bound to follow them; consequently respondent No.7, who was within the preferential age bracket under Rule 6, was entitled to appointment and the High Court decision directing his appointment was correct.

Source excerpt

  • Backlog vacancies
  • Mode of selection
  • University appointments
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Reservation in public employment
Read case analysis
Administrative law

DEEPENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

The Division Bench judgment upholding the learned Single Judge was correct: the MPPSC's normalization and merging of marks from two main examinations, carried out under guidance of experts and applied uniformly by formula, was transparent and legally permissible; additionally, Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the 2015 Rules patently harmed reservation category candidates and restoring the unamended Rule 4 was legally justified. Accordingly, the High Court Division Bench's order directing a special main examination for newly eligible reservation candidates and directing normalization and merger of results…

Source excerpt

  • Normalization of marks
  • Reservation policy and vertical/open category selection
  • Amendment of service rules during ongoing recruitment
  • Judicial review of selection processes
  • Validity of rule 4(3)(d)(iii) of madhya pradesh state service examination rules, 2015
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD versus TARSEM LAL

Because there was no Presidential notification under Article 342 specifying any Scheduled Tribe for the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the Chandigarh Housing Board could not lawfully make reservation or confer rights to Scheduled Tribe applicants by advertisement; accordingly the respondent, though a Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan, could not claim ST status or allotment in Chandigarh on that basis, and the judgments below awarding allotment were set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Article 342
  • Presidential notification
  • Scheduled tribes recognition
  • Migration and entitlement to reservation
  • Allotment of houses
  • Estoppel
Read case analysis
Service law

PRIYANKA PRAKASH KULKARNI versus MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

The corrigendum altered the NCL validity requirement so that candidates could submit NCL certificates valid in the current financial year; the appellant acted bona fide by not marking 'yes' without the required certificate and later obtained a certificate under the corrigendum. A hyper-technical application of instructions that defeats the corrigendum was impermissible; therefore the High Court and MAT orders were set aside and the appellant must be treated as a Reserved Female candidate, with the Court invoking Article 142 to do complete justice.

Source excerpt

  • Female reservation
  • Non-creamy layer certificate
  • Change of category
  • Corrigendum
  • Interpretation of application instructions
  • Relaxation of eligibility requirements
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.