This Service Law January 2026 Roundup highlights key rulings including the Supreme Court’s decisions on the right to appointment of persons with benchmark disability and the limited enforceability of waiting lists, Allahabad High Court’s refusal to regularise appointments secured through inflated marks, Delhi High Court’s bar on IFS probationers appearing in UPSC examinations during training, and Madras High Court’s direction to grant maternity leave for a third pregnancy, among others. Together, these judgments offer guidance on recruitment and appointment, service conditions, compassionate appointment, pension, and other core service law issues.
APPOINTMENT & RECRUITMENT
SUPREME COURT | Expiry of selection panel can’t defeat substantive rights of a person with benchmark disability
In an appeal challenging the denial of appointment to the appellant, a visually impaired woman suffering from multiple disabilities to the post of Management Trainee in Coal India Limited, despite having qualified in the selection process, a Divion Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., held that the appellant was eligible and qualified for appointment as Management Trainee therefore, should have been selected. The Court issued direction for the creation of a supernumerary post for the appellant. [Sujata Bora v. Coal India Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 58] Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | Wait-listed candidate has no vested right to appointment beyond the statutory life of reserve list
The instant batch of civil appeals raised an important question concerning the nature, scope and legal enforceability of a waiting/reserve list prepared in public recruitment. In the appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service challenging the judgments of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court affirming the orders of the Single Judges directing the appointment or consideration of wait-listed candidates against vacancies arising on account of non-joining of selected candidates, a Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Augustine George Masih, JJ., allowed all three appeals and set aside the impugned judgments of the Division Bench and the Single Judges. [Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Yati Jain, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 80] Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Deliberate Entering of higher marks in recruitment forms cannot be regularised under guise of ‘human error’
While considering a petition challenging orders passed by Respondents 3 and 4 whereby services of the petitioners were terminated for mentioning increased marks in the application form while applying for Assistant teachers, a Single Judge Bench of Manju Rani Chauhan*, J., held that entering higher marks than actually obtained was not a mere clerical lapse but a deliberate act capable of altering the merit position and could not be regularised under the guise of ‘human error’. [Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 8077] Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | IFS probationers bound by amended Probation Rules; cannot sit in UPSC examination during training
In a batch of writ petitions challenging a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing petitioners’ claims that they asserted vested rights and legitimate expectation to be governed by the rules prevailing on the date of entry into service therefore, they have a right to appear in UPSC Civil Services Examination during training, a Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Amit Mahajan, JJ., upheld the Tribunal’s order barring Indian Forest Service (IFS) probationers appearing in UPSC Exam during training. [Abhimanyu Singh v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 179] Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Kerala HC strikes down S. 9 of Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act; upholds Guruvayoor Devaswom’s statutory autonomy over appointments
In an appeal revolving around whether Section 9 of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 (‘KDRB Act’), which empowered the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (‘Board’) to prepare select lists for appointments to posts in the Guruvayoor Devaswom, could override the statutory autonomy conferred under Section 19 of the + (‘GD Act’), the Division Bench of Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari* and Syam Kumar V.M., JJ., held that the KDRB Act, being a general enactment, could not supersede the special provisions of the GD Act. Consequently, Section 9 of the KDRB Act was declared unconstitutional and inoperative, with the Court directing that all future appointments must be undertaken strictly under the GD Act. [Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 230] Read more HERE
TRANSFER & POSTING
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Government servants’ transfer lies exclusively with State Government; Courts to interfere when malice involved
In a petition filed by the petitioner seeking direction for respondent authorities to transfer Respondent 6 to another district on the ground that since long, he was working in one block and thereby he had been vital in embezzlement of government fund meant for development of different villages, the Division Bench of Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla, JJ., held that the transfer and posting of government servant lies in exclusive administrative domain of the State Government and Courts cannot interfere with government servant transfers unless the orders are vitiated due to malice or are in violation of any statutory provision. [Ful Chandra v. State of UP, 2026 SCC OnLine All 18] Read more HERE
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS / SUSPENSION
SUPREME COURT | ‘Can’t label a judge dishonest on a hunch’; SC sets aside Judicial Officer’s removal over 4 bail orders missing statutory reference
While considering this appeal filed by a judicial officer challenging his removal after 27 years of unblemished service on account of 4 judicial orders that did not expressly refer to Section 59-A of the MP Excise Act and by which he enlarged certain parties on bail, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala** and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ., allowed the appeal reasoning that it will be a dangerous proposition to hold that judgments and orders which do not refer expressly to statutory provisions are per se dishonest judgments. [Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of MP, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 8] Read more HERE
HIMACHAL PRADESH HC | Suspension becomes invalid if not reviewed within 90 days as per Rule 10(6) of CCS(CCA) Rules; Subsequent review cannot revive it
In a case addressing whether an initial order of suspension which is mandatorily reviewable before the expiry of ninety days from the effective date as per Rule 10(6) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (‘Rules’), be revived by a subsequent review undertaken after the 90 day period lapses, a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Sharma, J., held that a suspension becomes invalid if it is not reviewed within the statutory period of 90 days as per Rule 10(6) of CCS(CCA) Rules, and subsequent review or extension orders cannot revive it. The Court set aside the suspension and directed reinstatement with retrospective effect from the date immediately following the ninety-day expiry. [Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P., 2026 SCC OnLine HP 518] Read more HERE
J&K and LADAKH HIGH COURT | Penal acts are non-transferable to legal heirs; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes employee’s suspension based solely on FIR against his father
In a case revolving around whether a government employee’s suspension, ordered six years after an unrelated FIR against his father, could stand, a Single Judge Bench of Rahul Bharti, J., observed that penal acts are non-transferable to legal heirs and held that the impugned suspension order was utterly misconceived and vitiated with malice in law and accordingly quashed it while directing that the employee to be restored to his service at the post. [Ishant Sharma v. State (UT of J&K), WP(C) No. 2422 of 2021] Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Mere reinstatement does not preclude conducting departmental enquiry over past misconduct: Rajasthan High Court dismisses Health Officer’s plea challenging penalty order
In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the penalty order of withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner, a Health Officer, pursuant to a departmental enquiry, a Single Judge Bench of Anand Sharma, J., held that petitioner’s mere reinstatement did not preclude the respondent from conducting any enquiry over past misconduct. [Hemlata Tetwal v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 330] Read more HERE
EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS / SERVICE RIGHTS
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Employee entitled to TDS credit despite non- deposit of deducted tax by the employer
In a writ petition seeking quashing of intimations sent by the Income Tax Authorities regarding mismatch of TDS, the Division Bench of *A.S. Supehia, J and Pranav Trivedi, J, held that the petitioner pilot was entitled to receive TDS credit despite the TDS not deposited by employer, Kingfisher Airlines, failing to remit the deducted tax to the Central Government. [Arpit Pravinbhai Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 5801] Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Madras High Court: Denial of maternity leave for third pregnancy unsustainable; State directed to extend benefits
While hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, a Division Bench comprising R. Suresh Kumar* and Shamim Ahmed, JJ., held that rejection of maternity leave for a third confinement was contrary to the settled legal position. The Court emphasised that the issue had already been covered by earlier Division Bench decisions following the dictum of the Supreme Court in K. Umadevi v. State of T.N., (2025) 8 SCC 263, and therefore the impugned order was liable to be set aside. [P. Mangaiyarkkarasi v. Registrar, W.P. No. 705 of 2026] Read more HERE
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT & FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Can Compassionate Appointment be claimed if a Family Member is Earning? Chhattisgarh HC answers
In a writ appeal filed by the son of a deceased SECL employee against the rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha*, CJ., Arvind Kumar Verma, J., rejected the appeal, holding that since the deceased employee’s wife was employed, the son was disentitled from consideration. Thus, the Court upheld the order denying compassionate appointment to the son and reaffirmed that a compassionate appointment, if a family member earns, is not automatically available. [Minketan Chandra v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 694] Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT |Denial of Head Constable post to dependent spouse of disabled combatant unjustified; humane approach mandated in compassionate appointments
While adjudicating an intra-court appeal arising out of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Division Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad* and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ., observed that the denial of compassionate appointment to the dependent spouse of a medically invalidated member of a combatant force was contrary to the object and intent of the governing scheme. The Court emphasised that disability suffered in combat duty may, in many cases, be equivalent to death in harness and that such cases warrant a liberal interpretation of compassionate appointment schemes. [Union of India v. Ajit Kumar Khuntia, W.A No. 1220 of 2025] Read more HERE
PENSION & POST-SERVICE BENEFITS
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Second marriage during subsistence of first remains void despite first wife’s death; Orissa HC denies Family pension to second wife
In a matter concerning entitlement to family pension under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (‘Rules’), the Division Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad* and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ., held that a second wife, whose marriage was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage, is not entitled to family pension, as such marriage is void in law. The Court noted that the Rules are payable to the widow on the death of an employee, subject to compliance with certain terms and conditions, and that to be a widow, a valid marriage between the woman and the deceased employee is a sine qua non; what is void ab initio does not become valid by the happening of a subsequent event. [Kankalata Dwibedi v. State of Orissa, 2026 SCC OnLine Ori 147] Read more HERE
REINSTATEMENT / CONTINUITY OF SERVICE
PATNA HIGH COURT | ‘Quasi-judicial authority has no power to review unless statutorily granted’: Patna HC reinstates Panchayat Teachers after 10 years
In a writ application filed by two panchayat teachers whose appointment was disputed for more than 10 years, the Single Judge Bench of Alok Kumar Sinha, J., allowed the application, holding that the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Buxar (“District Appellate Authority”), which allowed their claim and later overturned it, had no power to review, recall or reopen its own final order. [Kumari Bandana v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 3570] Read more HERE
SYSTEMIC / PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ISSUES
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Inadequate Teachers in MP Govt Schools: Madhya Pradesh HC seeks data on vacancies.
In a writ petition filed regarding the inadequate of teachers in MP Govt. schools, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ., and Vinay Saraf, J., directed the respondent authorities to file affidavits indicating the number of Government Schools in the State and the positions that had vacancies in the said Schools. [Lok Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, WP No. 38550 of 2025] Read more HERE