{"id":362661,"date":"2025-10-06T11:00:09","date_gmt":"2025-10-06T05:30:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=362661"},"modified":"2025-10-06T10:45:32","modified_gmt":"2025-10-06T05:15:32","slug":"legal-roundup-service-law-september-2025-roundup-reservation-recruitment-appointment-pension-scc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/06\/legal-roundup-service-law-september-2025-roundup-reservation-recruitment-appointment-pension-scc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Service Law September 2025: A Look at the Month\u2019s Biggest Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This Service Law September 2025 Roundup provides an overview of important cases of service law that made headlines this month, such as the Supreme Court’s<\/span> direction to relax 3-year experience at Bar for Chhattisgarh Civil Judge Exam, Delhi HC’s<\/span> decision to appoint woman to vacant IAF post, Punjab & Haryana<\/span> HC’s order to nullify appointment based on forged documents, and more.<\/span> These decisions, among others, offer valuable insights into the evolving legal landscape concerning reservation, recruitment, appointment, pension, regularisation and other aspects of service law.<\/p>\n

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MONTH<\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Chhattisgarh Civil Judge Exam | Supreme Court directs State PSC to relax ‘3-Year Experience at the Bar’ rule for candidates<\/p>\n

While considering this special leave petition revolving around Chhattisgarh Civil Judge Examination, the 3-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI., K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., directed the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CPSC) to not insist upon the requirement of three years’ experience at the Bar for the candidates as the advertisement was issued and the selection process had commenced prior to the judgment of the Court in All Indian Judges Association<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2025 SCC Online SC 1184<\/span><\/a>. [Urwashi Kour v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2033<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘No longer in times when discrimination can be made between male and female’; Delhi High Court directs woman’s appointment to vacant IAF post<\/p>\n

In a petition seeking direction to the respondents to fill up the 20 unfilled “Air Force (i) Flying” vacancies for which the Examination Notification dated 17-5-2023 (‘Examination Notification’) was notified, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar<\/span>* and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., stated that the petitioner being in possession of a “fit to fly” certificate and having cleared all rounds of examinations, was eligible for appointment. The Court stated that it was not permissible for anyone to interpret or administer any stipulation, advertisement or notification in a manner which would be gender skewed. Thus, the Court stated that the respondents were not justified in keeping 20 vacancies unfilled and directed that the petitioner be appointed against one of the unfilled 20 Air Force (i) Flying vacancies relating to the Examination Notification. [Archana v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5745<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

QUALIFYING TET FOR TRANSFER TO AIDED ESTABLISHMENT<\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | An overview of Supreme Court decision mandating Aspiring and In-service Teachers to qualify the TET<\/p>\n

While considering this appeal raising questions as regards to applicability of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to minority educational institutions and whether qualifying in the TET is mandatory prerequisite for recruitment of teachers as well as promotion of teachers already in service, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta*<\/span> and Manmohan, JJ., held that teachers aspiring for appointment and those in-service teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion, must qualify the TET, “Or else, they would have no right of consideration of their candidature”. [Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Teachers who qualified TET\/ CTET exam between 31-3-2019 and 1-9-2025 can continue service and be entitled to promotion: Bombay HC<\/p>\n

A petition was filed against the rejection of petitioners’ transfer from an unaided establishment to an aided establishment, as they acquired the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) qualification in the year 2021 which was after the statutory cut-off date of 31-3-2019. The Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge*<\/span> and Gautam A. Ankhad, JJ., opined that the Supreme Court judgment in the case Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912<\/span><\/a> (Anjuman Trust case), did not reveal the fate of the candidates who either did not qualify the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET)\/ CTET exam or had qualified it only after it was made statutorily mandatory but before 1-9-2025. Therefore, the Court held that dictum of the Anjuman Trust case (Supra) must be followed. [Sagar Dattatray Chorghe v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3170<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

APPOINTMENT AND RECRUITMENT<\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Supreme Court issues notice over alleged irregularities and lapses in the conduct of SSC Exams<\/p>\n

While considering a writ petition highlighting widespread irregularities and lapses in conduct of SSC exams including SSC Selection Post\/Phase XIII Examination and the Stenographer Examination Grade ‘C’ and ‘D’ Examination 2025, the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., issued notice in the matter. [Nikhil Kumar v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1921<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Kerala HC clarifies Government sanction for teaching posts in private aided colleges following 2005 amendment in University Acts<\/p>\n

The present writ application addressed a reference by the Division Bench of the Court regarding whether Government sanction was required for the approval of appointments in private aided colleges affiliated to the Universities. A Three-Judge Bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque*<\/span>, Shoba Annamma Eapen & S. Manu, JJ., while distinguishing between ‘sanction of posts’ and ‘approval of appointments’, clarified that if the post was not expressly abolished, the question of obtaining prior sanction from the Government did not arise for approval of the writ petitioner’s appointment made in 2015, which the University granted on the basis of the workload assessment of the preceding year. [State of Kerala v. Anas N., 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 6642<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Criteria of securing minimum 50% marks in Punjab and Haryana Superior Judicial Service examination not arbitrary: Punjab and Haryana High Court<\/p>\n

A petition was filed by the petitioner challenging Clause 8.4 of the notifications issued for the States of Haryana and Punjab for direct recruitment of Additional District and Sessions Judge imposing ‘minimum marks qualification’ of 50 per cent marks in aggregate for being in contravention of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (‘Haryana Rules’) and Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (‘Punjab Rules’). The Division Bench of Sheel Nagu, CJ., and Sanjiv Berry*<\/span>, J., held that the said notifications were not at all arbitrary in nature but were in consonance with the respective Service Rules to choose the best available talent for performance of the duties as a Member of Superior Judicial Service. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition. [Rushil Jindal v. Punjab and Haryana High Court, CWP No. 18757 of 2025 (O&M)] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Recruitment process of public employment should remain free from laxity’: Punjab and Haryana HC nullifies appointment based on forged documents<\/p>\n

In a petition filed under Articles 226<\/a> and 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> by an appointed Assistant Lineman, seeking directions for the respondents to allow him to re-join duty after he was terminated, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar<\/span>, J., held that an appointment secured by employing fraudulent means renders the recruitment void ab initio and dismissed the petition. Further, the Court stated that public employment opportunities are both rare and highly coveted and it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the recruitment process remains sacrosanct, free from evils of arbitrariness and laxity. [Kuldeep v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 7001<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RESERVATION<\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Reserved candidates cannot be permitted to migrate to general category seats if relevant recruitment rules impose an embargo: SC<\/p>\n

While considering the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgments whereby the respondents who had applied as reserved candidates in OBC category after having availed age relaxation for the post of Constable (GD) were directed to be considered for recruitment under unreserved category; the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi*<\/span>, JJ., held that where there is no embargo in the recruitment rules\/employment notification, such reserved candidates who have scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be recruited against unreserved seats. However, if an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category seats. [Union of India v. Sajib Roy, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT<\/span> | Chhattisgarh HC seeks State response on alleged 100% domicile-based reservation in PG Medical Admissions<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by a doctor challenging Rule 11 (a) and part of Rule 11 (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2021 (‘the P.G. Admission Rules’), as unconstitutional for allegedly providing 100 per cent domicile-based reservation, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., sought State’s response within two weeks. [Dr. Samriddhi Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 9021<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Employers should not hinder ex-servicemen’s rehabilitation by denying them employment under quota: Punjab and Haryana High Court<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by an ex-serviceman under Articles 226<\/a> and 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> for issuance of directions to Respondents for his appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (J.E.) (Electrical), A Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar<\/span>, J., held that it was the duty of every employer to not create any unnecessary hindrances to the ex-servicemen’s rehabilitation by denying them employment opportunities under the ex-servicemen quota. Further, the Court stated that if the essential qualifications laid down for recruitment to civil employment were such that they nullify the benefit of reservation provided to ex-servicemen, then the whole exercise would go in vain. [Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 7995<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

REGULARIZATION<\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Calling daily wage workers’ service as ‘casual’ is morally unjust’: Punjab and Haryana High Court allows plea for regularization<\/p>\n

The present petition was filed by daily wage workers (‘petitioners’) under Articles 226<\/a> and 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> seeking to set aside order passed by the Bhakra Beas Management Board (‘respondent’) whereby their claim seeking regularization was rejected. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Moudgil<\/span>, J., held that fairness demanded that those who had given a lifetime to public service should not be left stranded in their twilight years with nothing but hope and equity should not be a casualty in the hands of executive convenience. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition. [Harbhajan Singh v. Bhakra Beas Management Board, CWP No. 6843 of 2020 (O&M)] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Punjab and Haryana HC flags non-regularisation of ad-hoc workers, administrative delays; Lays down parameters for timely implementation of court decisions<\/p>\n

In a petition filed under Articles 226<\/a> and 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> seeking quashing of the order passed by the respondent through which claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar<\/span>, J., ordered the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners within six weeks and laid down the parameters to ensure timely and effective implementation of the decisions of the Courts. [Hari Ram v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 7746<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

REIMBURSEMENT<\/span><\/p>\n

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Change in hospital’s name not a ground to deny medical reimbursement: Karnataka High Court<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by petitioner challenging the rejection of his medical reimbursement claim by the State authorities due to change of the hospital name, a Single-Judge Bench of Suraj Govindaraj<\/span>, J., set aside the rejection of reimbursement order holding that the denial of reimbursement merely on account of non-updated nomenclature, when the entity remains the same was arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The Court further observed that the authorities’ failure to update their records cannot prejudice the petitioner. [Shivanandappa Doddagoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 18939<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span> <\/p>\n

PENSION<\/span><\/p>\n

GAUHATI HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Arbitrary and discriminatory’; Gauhati HC upholds pensionary benefits to 2006-2009 retirees, previously denied over financial stringency<\/p>\n

The present appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 28-4-2016, passed by a Single Judge, whereby it was stated that persons retiring between 1-1-2006 and 31-3-2009 could not have been denied the benefit of the Assam Pay Commission recommendation of higher salary, only on the grounds of financial stringency. The Division Bench of Ashutosh Kumar, CJ., and Arun Dev Choudhury<\/span>, J.*, stated that the classification sought to be made by the petitioners had no nexus with the object and purpose of the grant of the benefit of revised pension, as such revision was due to increase in cost of living. The Court stated that when all the pensioners formed a single class, there could not be any separate classification amongst this homogenous group. [State of Assam v. All Assam Retired Officers, Teachers and Employees Committee, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 4051<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

GAUHATI HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Employees being paid salary from grants-in-aid not government servants’; Gauhati HC dismisses pension claim by Assam Minorities Development Board employees<\/p>\n

The present appeal challenged the judgment of the Single Judge, whereby petitioner’s claim for pension was rejected, a division bench of Ashutosh Kumar<\/span>, CJ*. and Manish Choudhary J., upheld the decision of Single Judge and stated that even though Assam Minorities Development Board (‘Board’) might come within the definition of “State” under Article 12<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> for other purposes, but the employees of the Board, who were being paid their salary from grants-in-aid, would not be called government servants and are not qualified for getting pension under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (‘1969 Rules’). [Ismail Ali v. State of Assam, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 4255<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Liberalized Family Pension cannot be granted in cases of private fighting amongst employees after being drunk: Punjab & Haryana HC<\/p>\n

While considering this petition wherein, wife (petitioner) of a dead soldier, challenged the order of Armed Forces Tribunal (the Tribunal) by which the benefit of Liberalized Family Pension was not granted to her, a Division Bench of Harsimran Singh Sethi<\/span>* and Vikas Suri, JJ., dismissed the petition holding that the death of the petitioner’s husband was due to a fight in drunken state with a colleague and not during any training exercise or live ammunition demonstration. [Mukeshvati v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 6826<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

POST-RETIREMENT BENEFITS<\/span><\/p>\n

GAUHATI HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘State Information Commissioner entitled to Chief Secretary-Level post-retirement benefits’; 10-year qualifying service not mandatory under S. 16(5) RTI Act: Gauhati HC<\/p>\n

In an appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment and order of the Single Judge, whereby the respondent was held to be entitled to additional pension, additional Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (‘DCRG’), Telephone and Security Assistant along with the benefits and allowances under Section 16 (5)<\/a> of the Right to Information Act, 2005<\/a> (‘RTI Act’) with effect from 1-1-2020, a division bench of Ashutosh Kumar CJ<\/span>*. and Arun Dev Choudhary J., stated that the respondent being a member of Union Civil Service would be governed by the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 which states that in the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules, he would be entitled to pension as provided under the said Rule. [State of Assam v. Pinuel Basumatary, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 4050<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

HOLDING OFFICE AFTER EXPIRY OF TENURE<\/span><\/p>\n

MANIPUR HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Creates confusion, absurdity and anomaly’; Manipur High Court quashes law allowing Panchayat members to continue in office beyond 5 years<\/p>\n

In the petitions challenging the legality of Section 22(3) of Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996 (‘Amendment Act’) which allowed the members of Panchayat to continue to hold office even after expiry of the 5-year tenure, the Division Bench of Kempaiah Somashekar, CJ and A. Guneshwar Sharma, J., while allowing the petitions, held that the amendment in the Section 22(3) of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (MPR Act) was ultra vires and violative of Article 243-E<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. The Court stated that amendment in Section 22(3) of the MPR Act, replacing the word ‘cease’ by ‘continue’ is illogical and is without any fruitful purpose, except for creating two bodies vying for the same power and function. [Mayanglambam Joykumar Singh v. State of Manipur, 2025 SCC OnLine Mani 439<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/span><\/p>\n