Consumer Protection – Agricultural Seeds – Alleged Deficiency in Service – Farmers purchased groundnut seeds (TAG 37A) from appellant – Complaint of sub-standard seeds and crop failure – Investigation/Inspection Report dated 09.10.2013 revealed 8–10% mixed species and semi-development of pods – 50% pods fully developed and remaining semi-developed – Excess rainfall also noted as contributing factor – Held: No complete deficiency in service attributable solely to appellants – Findings of District Forum and NCDRC on total deficiency unsustainable – Liability modified [Paras 9–12, 15, 17; see Inspection Report extracted at pp. 4–9 ].

Evidence – Expert Committee Report – Committee comprising agricultural scientists and officials conducted physical inspection – Found normal germination, satisfactory arboreal growth, but semi-developed pods and possibility of 40–50% shortfall in yield partly due to excess rains – Conclusion of defective seeds not absolute – Natural factors contributed to loss – Courts below erred in fastening full liability ignoring contributory factors [Paras 9–12, 15; Inspection findings at pp. 7–9 ].

Compensation – Apportionment – District Forum awarded compensation per bigha; State Commission set aside; NCDRC restored District Forum’s order – Supreme Court held that interest of justice requires equitable distribution – Directed release of 50% of compensation (with accrued interest) to farmers and refund of remaining 50% to appellants – Findings on complete deficiency set aside – Appeals partly allowed [Paras 16–17 ].

Vis Major – Excess Rainfall – Report recorded frequent rains affecting yield (20–25% shortfall generally; 40–50% in TAG37A) – Loss not entirely attributable to seed quality – Natural causes relevant in determining extent of liability [Paras 12, 15 ].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – Findings of deficiency in service set aside – 50% of deposited compensation (with accrued interest) directed to be released to respondent-farmers – Remaining 50% to be refunded to appellants – Parties to bear their own costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Co-operative Societies – Membership – Belated Claim by Legal Heirs of Tenant – Resolution of Society – Validity – Dispute concerning Flat No.7 in a co-operative housing society formed by erstwhile tenants of a company in liquidation – Original tenant did not deposit contribution amount at inception but continued in undisputed occupation – Society had issued offer letter in 1995 and passed AGM resolution in 2005 resolving to admit him as member subject to payment – Resolution never withdrawn or challenged – Legal heirs later deposited amount with interest and sought membership – Held: Membership could not be denied merely on ground of delay when occupation was never disputed and Society itself had resolved to admit the tenant [Paras 39–42].

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Powers of Registrar – Sections 23(2), 152 and 154 – Scope – Authorised Officer declined to decide membership application citing lack of power – Deputy Registrar directed convening of Special General Body Meeting – Revisional Authority granted membership relying on prior AGM resolution – High Court held Revisional Authority exceeded jurisdiction – Supreme Court held that statutory remedies were properly invoked and Revisional Authority acted within jurisdiction, particularly when General Body itself had earlier resolved to admit the member [Paras 44–45].

Co-operative Society – Autonomy – Role of General Body – Subsequent Ratification – During pendency of proceedings, Society’s AGM ratified 2005 resolution and approved membership of appellants and subsequent transferee – Such ratification not challenged before any forum – Held: Once General Body has consciously accepted membership and transfer in accordance with bye-laws and statute, High Court erred in ignoring such subsequent developments [Paras 43–45].

Transfer of Flat – Subsequent Purchaser – Effect of Membership Dispute – Appellants transferred flat to third-party purchaser after obtaining No Objection Certificate from Society through Administrator – High Court’s order had effect of nullifying registered sale deed – Held: Once original members’ entitlement is recognised, subsequent transfer and admission of purchaser as member, already ratified by General Body, must stand protected in law [Paras 28, 45].

Equitable Relief – Delay in Payment – Enhanced Interest – Appellants deposited original contribution amount with 9% interest after long delay – Objecting members contended delay caused prejudice due to escalation of property value – Held: Equity demands recognition of membership but Society or aggrieved members may seek determination of additional amount or enhanced interest before appropriate forum [Paras 47–48].

Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed Questions of Fact – Membership and Tenancy Rights – High Court entertained writ petition despite pendency of eviction suit and existence of disputed factual issues – Supreme Court observed that such issues ought not to defeat statutory and equitable rights arising from undisputed resolutions and long-standing possession [Paras 29–30, 44].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Impugned judgment of Bombay High Court set aside to extent quashing revisional order and consequential directions – Membership of appellants and subsequent transferee recognised – Liberty reserved to Society or members to claim enhanced interest or challenge AGM resolution in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 46–49].

Hindu Law – Joint Hindu Family Property – Presumption – Burden of Proof – Suit for partition filed by coparcener claiming share in 79 items of agricultural lands – Admitted existence of joint family and ancestral properties – Item Nos. 14 and 15 proved to be ancestral income-yielding lands – Acquisitions made during subsistence of joint family – Held: Once existence of ancestral nucleus capable of yielding income is shown, burden shifts to person asserting self-acquisition to establish independent source – Mere proof of some independent income of Karta insufficient to rebut presumption [Paras 29–31].

Joint Family – Karta – Properties Standing in Name of Karta – Character – Properties purchased in name of Karta during continuance of joint family – Hindu law does not require coparceners to establish exact source of funds for each acquisition – Held: Properties acquired in name of Karta during subsistence of joint family ordinarily bear joint family character unless contrary is proved by clear evidence [Paras 29–30].

Self-acquisition – Independent Income – Proof – Appellant claimed several suit properties as self-acquired based on alleged independent income from contracting and business activities – Evidence showed appellant was a student till mid-1960s – Courts below found claim of substantial independent income during relevant period improbable – Held: Findings based on realistic appraisal of evidence cannot be interfered with in appeal [Paras 31–32].

Partition – Prior Partition or Severance of Status – Proof – Plea of prior partition based on separate enjoyment, borrowings and irrigation facilities – Held: Separate possession or enjoyment does not constitute partition – Clear intention to sever joint status must be established – Absence of mutation, division of liabilities or declaration negates plea of prior partition [Para 32].

Alienation by Karta – Legal Necessity – Sale in Favour of Coparcener – Multiple sale deeds executed by Karta in favour of one son – Courts undertook item-wise scrutiny – Alienations upheld only where legal necessity such as medical expenses or debt discharge was proved – Held: Alienations by Karta in favour of one coparcener must be strictly proved to be for legal necessity – General or vague recitals insufficient to bind interests of other coparceners [Para 33].

Guardian Sale – Minor’s Property – Court Permission – Effect – Properties belonging to branch of deceased coparcener sold by Karta as guardian of minors – Though court permission obtained, surrounding circumstances and use of sale proceeds scrutinised – Held: Sale does not automatically lose joint family character – Courts justified in setting aside such alienations where necessity and benefit to minors not proved [Para 34].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Proof – Unregistered Will allegedly executed three days prior to death of Karta – Testator habitually signed documents but used thumb impression – Will scribed by close relative – Attesting circumstances doubtful – Held: Presence of suspicious circumstances justified rejection of Will – Rejection having attained finality cannot be reopened at later stage [Para 35].

Admissions – Estoppel – Partition Suits – Admissions relied upon by appellant regarding payments and transactions – Held: Such admissions did not conclusively establish self-acquisition nor operate as estoppel against asserting joint family character [Paras 23, 35].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Scope of Interference – High Court granted limited relief by excluding certain items proved to be purchased from third parties – Otherwise affirmed concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court – Held: Supreme Court will not interfere with well-reasoned concurrent findings unless perversity shown [Paras 37–38].

Decision – Civil Appeals dismissed – Judgment of High Court affirmed with limited exclusions already granted – No order as to costs [Paras 38–39].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Legally Enforceable Right – Outcome: Affirmed – Dearness Allowance (DA) is a compensatory measure against inflation, not a bounty, designed to protect the real value of wages and maintain a minimum standard of living – The High Court's finding in the first round of litigation that DA is a legally enforceable right, having attained finality due to no appeal, is binding on the parties – Once a legal right to DA is established, the State's financial inability or paucity of funds cannot be a ground to deny its payment, as constitutional duties cannot be evaded on such grounds – DA is an integral part of salary and its denial impacts the right to life and livelihood under Article 21 – The State, as a model employer, must honor its statutory obligations – The argument of financial difficulty is rejected [Paras 2, 22, 23, 48, 50, 52, 59.2].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Legislation by Incorporation (AICPI) – Outcome: Affirmed – The West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 2009 (RoPA Rules), promulgated under Article 309, incorporated the definition of 'existing emoluments' from Central Government Rules, thereby adopting the All-India Consumer Price Index (AICPI) as the standard for DA calculation – This constitutes 'legislation by incorporation', meaning the AICPI, a statistically rigorous measure compiled by the Labour Bureau, becomes the determinative standard – Once the State incorporated AICPI into its rules, it cannot deviate from this mechanism without a proper study or formal amendment to the rules – The incorporation of AICPI is not a one-time measure but a dynamic standard for DA determination [Paras 10, 28, 29, 32, 33, 37, 59.3].

Constitutional Law – Executive Instructions vs. Statutory Rules – Article 309, Article 162 – Outcome: Memoranda held ultra vires – Rules made under Article 309 have statutory force and cannot be overridden or contradicted by executive instructions issued under Article 162 – Executive instructions can only fill gaps in statutory rules, not deviate from or amend them – The First Memorandum and subsequent memoranda issued by the State, which prescribed DA rates without reference to the AICPI standard stipulated in the RoPA Rules, were an improper exercise of power and are ultra vires the substantive rules – The doctrine of severance applies, ensuring the RoPA Rules remain unaffected despite the invalidity of these memoranda [Paras 27, 35, 36, 37, 39, 62, 75, 76, 77, 87, 88].

Constitutional Law – Arbitrariness – Article 14 – Outcome: State action held arbitrary – State action must be reasonable, rational, and not arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious – The doctrine of 'manifest arbitrariness' applies to both subordinate and plenary legislation – The State's deviation from the AICPI standard, explicitly incorporated into its RoPA Rules, without any reasoned basis or independent study, constitutes 'manifest arbitrariness' and violates Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 38, 39, 79, 80, 81, 82, 86, 87].

Service Law – Legitimate Expectation – Outcome: Affirmed – A legitimate expectation arises from a public authority's representation or established practice, founded on law or custom – The enactment of the RoPA Rules and the explicit recognition of AICPI as the determinative factor for DA computation created a legitimate expectation among employees for DA to be calculated and paid accordingly [Paras 40, 88, 89, 93].

Constitutional Law – Federalism – Financial Autonomy – Outcome: State's defence rejected – India's federal structure ensures constitutional division of powers and financial autonomy for States, meaning State Governments are not obligated to automatically adopt Central Government DA rates – However, when a State, in its independent wisdom, incorporates Central Government definitions (like AICPI) into its own statutory rules, it cannot then invoke the defence of separation of powers or financial autonomy to justify arbitrary deviation from its own adopted standard – The argument of pan-India implications for other States is not relevant to this lis as the appellant-State's actions were based on its own legislative choice [Paras 25, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 59, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Frequency of Payment – Outcome: Not a right – The RoPA Rules do not explicitly mandate that DA be paid twice a year – This omission is a matter within the State's discretion and fiscal policy, and judicial direction cannot introduce such a provision where the statutory text is silent – The Tribunal's direction for DA to be paid twice a year was without authority of law [Paras 49, 106, 107].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Fundamental Right – Outcome: Question left open – While the High Court held DA to be a facet of Article 21, the parties before the Supreme Court jointly agreed not to press this question, leaving it open for determination in an appropriate future case [Para 56, 118].

Service Law – Delay and Laches – Outcome: Rejected – The State's contention regarding delay and laches is rejected because the non-payment of appropriate DA rates constituted a continuing wrong and recurring cause of action – Legal redressal was pursued while the cause of action subsisted, and employees were relentlessly pursuing their remedies [Paras 57, 58, 118, 119, 120].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Contempt petitions disposed of – Dearness Allowance is a legally enforceable right – AICPI is the standard for determining 'existing emoluments' – Employees are entitled to arrears for the period 2008-2019 – Amounts disbursed in compliance with this judgment shall not be recoverable – A Committee comprising Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra (Retd. SC Judge), Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Goutam Bhaduri (Former CJ/Judge HC), and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (or his nominee) is constituted to determine the total amount and payment schedule by March 6, 2026, with the first installment to be paid by March 31, 2026 – Retired employees are also entitled to these benefits – The State is directed to file a status report by April 15, 2026 – No order as to cost [Paras 59.1-59.9, 60].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Prolonged Incarceration – Parity – Appellant charged for offences under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 135 of the Customs Act – Contraband allegedly seized was above commercial quantity – High Court denied regular bail – Appellant in custody for more than four years – Co-accused travelling on same flight already granted bail by Supreme Court – Held: Length of incarceration coupled with parity justified grant of bail notwithstanding commercial quantity bar – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1–3].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Jurisprudence – Article 21 – Speedy Trial – Continued detention for over four years without conclusion of trial weighed with the Court – Trial court directed to endeavour to conclude trial at the earliest – Held: Prolonged pre-trial custody offends personal liberty and must be balanced even in stringent statutes like NDPS Act [Paras 2–3].

Conditions of Bail – Passport – Cooperation in Trial – Appellant directed to surrender passport before trial court – Appellant to cooperate with trial proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments – Trial court to impose stringent conditions while releasing appellant on bail [Para 3].

Criminal Trial – Right to Legal Representation – Duty of Trial Courts – Appellant initially did not cross-examine witnesses – Cross-examination permitted only after engaging counsel and allowing re-examination – Supreme Court emphasised obligation of trial courts to inform accused of right to legal representation and availability of legal aid – Trial courts directed to record offer of legal aid, response of accused and action taken before commencing examination of witnesses – Directions issued to be followed scrupulously [Paras 4–5].

Judicial Directions – Communication to High Courts – Supreme Court directed that copy of order be communicated to Chief Justices of all High Courts – Purpose to ensure issuance of suitable instructions to trial courts within respective States regarding compliance with right to legal representation [Para 5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Order of Madras High Court dated 24.07.2025 set aside – Appellant directed to be released on bail on conditions to be fixed by trial court – No observations on merits of case [Paras 3–6].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 (Pre-2015 Regime) – Scope of Judicial Determination – Arbitrator appointed by High Court under Section 11 prior to insertion of Section 11(6A) – Supreme Court reiterated that under SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd., Section 11 Court was required to decide not only existence but also validity of arbitration agreement – Such determination is judicial in nature and attains finality between parties [Paras 19–22].

Arbitration – Arbitration Clause – Reopening of Validity at Section 34 Stage – Clause 23 of contract providing for reference to Standing Committee challenged as not being arbitration clause – Commercial Court and High Court set aside award holding Clause 23 was not arbitration agreement – Supreme Court held that once arbitrator was appointed under Section 11 and order attained finality, existence and validity of arbitration agreement could not be reopened at Section 34 stage – Orders below held unsustainable [Paras 21–22, 29–31].

Arbitration Law – Res Judicata vs. Precedent – Conceptual Distinction – Supreme Court explained distinction between precedent (operating in rem) and res judicata (operating in personam) – Section 11 order appointing arbitrator operates as res judicata between parties regarding existence and validity of arbitration agreement – Commercial Court erred in treating Section 11 order as lacking binding effect on parties [Paras 24–25, 30–31].

Arbitration – Kompetenz-Kompetenz – Limits – While Arbitral Tribunal has power under Section 16 to rule on its jurisdiction, it cannot override or reopen findings on existence and validity of arbitration agreement already conclusively determined by Section 11 Court under pre-2015 regime – Section 11(7) gives finality to such determination [Paras 20–22].

Arbitration – Effect of 2015 Amendment – Prospective Application – Supreme Court clarified that post-2015 amendment, scope of Section 11 is confined only to examination of existence of arbitration agreement – However, amendment not applicable to arbitral proceedings commenced prior to 23.10.2015 – Present disputes governed by SBP & Co. regime [Paras 19, 23].

Arbitration – Section 34 Proceedings – Scope – Commercial Court wrongly set aside awards solely on ground that Clause 23 was not arbitration clause – Supreme Court set aside orders and remitted matters to Commercial Court for consideration of remaining objections under Section 34 – Validity of arbitration clause cannot be revisited [Paras 32, 36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments of High Court and Commercial Court set aside – Arbitral awards restored to extent of validity of arbitration agreement – Matters remanded to Commercial Court for adjudication of other objections under Section 34 – Directions issued to decide proceedings expeditiously – Parties to bear their own costs.

Family Law - Child Custody – Paramount Welfare Principle – Scope and Application – Custody dispute between divorced parents concerning two minor children removed from Qatar to India by the mother without consent of the father and without permission of Qatar Courts – High Court held welfare of children as sole consideration and restored custody to mother – Supreme Court held that while welfare of the child is paramount, other relevant factors such as conduct of parties, education, comfort, standard of living, foreign court orders, and contempt findings cannot be ignored – Held: High Court erred in excluding relevant considerations while deciding custody [Paras 22–24, 31].

Child Custody – Removal of Children from Foreign Jurisdiction – Effect – Respondent-mother removed minors from Qatar mid-academic session without consent of father who was guardian and without original passports – Custody granted earlier by Qatar Court revoked due to such misconduct – Supreme Court held that impact of such unilateral removal and revocation of custody by foreign court was a material factor mandatorily required to be considered – Failure of High Court to do so vitiated its judgment [Paras 23–25].

Child Custody – Foreign Court Orders – Relevance – Qatar Court revoked custody granted to mother and ordered custody to father on account of mother’s misconduct – Supreme Court held that there was no subsisting custody order in favour of the mother at the time High Court passed impugned judgment – Such foreign custody orders were highly relevant and could not be ignored while determining custody in India [Paras 25–26].

Contempt of Court – Breach of Undertaking – Effect on Custody Proceedings – Respondent-mother gave undertaking before High Court to return to Qatar with children for continuation of education but violated the same – Held guilty of contempt – Supreme Court held that contempt finding had attained finality and conclusively established misconduct of the respondent – Such conduct was a relevant factor in custody determination and was wrongly ignored by the High Court [Paras 26–27].

Child Custody – Preference of Children – Evidentiary Value – Minor children expressed inclination to accompany father to Qatar before Family Court and during mediation – Mediation report indicated children were comfortable with father, distressed otherwise, and faced linguistic and cultural difficulty in India – Supreme Court held that while children’s preference is not determinative, it is a relevant factor and must be cumulatively assessed – High Court erred in ignoring such material [Paras 29–31].

Child Custody – Education and Welfare – Mid-Session Disruption – Children removed from school in Qatar mid-session and admitted to school in India after considerable delay – Allegation of educational disruption and irregular attendance – Supreme Court held that education and continuity are integral to child welfare and such disruption is a relevant consideration in custody matters [Paras 14–16, 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 32–34].

Education Law – Part-Time Contractual Instructors – Status – Instructors appointed under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan on contractual basis for 11 months on fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month – Continued uninterruptedly for over 10 years – Supreme Court held that once original and renewed contracts expired and no fresh written contract executed, instructors ceased to be contractual – Held: Continuous engagement against recurring work creates deemed substantive posts and instructors cannot be treated as purely contractual or temporary [Paras 39–45, 70].

Service Law – “Part-Time” Teachers – Misnomer – Though described as part-time, instructors were contractually prohibited from taking any other employment and were discharging duties equivalent to regular teachers – Held: Such instructors are de facto full-time teachers – Nomenclature of “part-time contractual” held deceptive and unsustainable [Paras 41–43, 46].

Service Jurisprudence – Ad hoc / Contractual Employment – Replacement – Court reiterated that an ad hoc, temporary or contractual employee cannot be replaced by another similarly situated employee – Long continuation creates preference and legitimacy – Practice of perpetual contractual employment deprecated [Paras 44–47].

Honorarium – Revision – Stagnation – Initial honorarium of Rs.7,000/- fixed in 2013 held incapable of remaining stagnant indefinitely – Periodic revision mandatory keeping in view inflation, cost of living and nature of duties – Once revised and enhanced, honorarium cannot be unilaterally reduced in absence of contract or due process [Paras 48–53, 57].

Education Law – Project Approval Board (PAB) – Exclusive Financial Authority – PAB held to be sole authority under the Scheme to sanction budget and fix honorarium – Decisions of PAB binding on State authorities – Executive Committee or State Government cannot override or dilute PAB’s financial approvals [Paras 61–66, 70(iv)–(v)].

Honorarium – PAB Approval of Rs.17,000/- – Enforceability – PAB approved honorarium of Rs.17,000/- per month for 2017–18 and State accepted the same – Failure to implement held illegal – Held: Instructors entitled to Rs.17,000/- per month from 2017–18 onwards till next revision by PAB [Paras 51–52, 66–67, 71–72].

Constitution of India – Article 23 – Begar / Forced Labour – Payment of honorarium below minimum wages and artificial stagnation or reduction held to amount to economic coercion – Supreme Court held that compelling instructors to work on meagre honorarium, coupled with prohibition on alternative employment, constitutes “Begar” and violates Article 23 [Paras 54–56, 70(viii)].

Right to Education Act – Financial Responsibility – State vs Centre – Though funding is shared between Centre and State, Section 7(5) places primary responsibility on State to implement Act – Held: State must pay honorarium first and may recover Central share later on principle of “pay and recover” – Instructors cannot be denied payment due to inter-governmental funding disputes [Paras 68–69, 70(vi)].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Remedy – Objection regarding non-exhaustion of remedies under Section 24(3) rejected – Provision relates to disciplinary grievances and not pay/honorarium – Availability of alternative remedy not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction [Paras 27–30].

Decision: Appeals by instructors and Welfare Association allowed – Appeals by State of Uttar Pradesh dismissed – Instructors entitled to honorarium of Rs.17,000/- per month w.e.f. 2017–18 – State directed to commence payment at revised rate from 01.04.2026 – Arrears to be paid within six months – State permitted to recover Central Government’s share – Directions issued for periodic revision of honorarium by PAB at least once every three years.

Service Law – All India Services – IPS Cadre Allocation – Insider Vacancy – Appellant selected to IPS in 2004 Civil Services Examination and allocated Tamil Nadu cadre – Claim raised for re-allocation to Rajasthan cadre against an ‘insider’ vacancy on ground that two candidates senior in merit did not accept the vacancy – Tribunal and High Court rejected the claim – Supreme Court upheld rejection – Held: Once cadre allocation is made in accordance with merit and applicable rules, it attains finality and cannot be reopened after several years [Paras 6, 9–11].

Service Law – Cadre Allocation – Non-Joining by Senior Candidate – Effect – Senior candidate Rishikesh Meena did not accept ‘insider’ vacancy for Rajasthan cadre in 2004 batch – Next senior Rajesh Kumar obtained favourable order from Tribunal but subsequently joined IAS and did not claim IPS vacancy – Appellant, being third in merit, sought allocation after six years – Held: Junior candidate does not acquire an automatic or vested right to claim such vacancy when senior candidates decline to join – Process cannot be stretched indefinitely [Paras 7–9, 11–12].

Service Jurisprudence – Delay and Laches – Vacancy pertained to 2004 batch – Appellant raised claim only in 2010 after six years – Supreme Court held that cadre allocation cannot be kept fluid for years together – Long delay disentitles the appellant to relief – Finality of selection and cadre allocation is essential for stability in services [Paras 9–12].

Service Law – Cadre Allocation – Doctrine of Finality – Acceptance of appellant’s claim would lead to chain reaction resulting in reshuffling of cadres and vacancies of subsequent years – Supreme Court held that such an approach would open a “Pandora’s box” and make cadre allocation perpetually unsettled – Held: Finality must attach to cadre allocation once made [Paras 4, 10–12].

Service Law – Insider Vacancy – Consumption of Vacancy – Union of India contended that once an ‘insider’ vacancy is offered and allocation is made, the vacancy stands consumed irrespective of acceptance – Supreme Court accepted the stand – Held: Appellant failed to show that the insider vacancy of 2004 batch continued to remain vacant even after more than two decades [Paras 4.1, 12].

Decision: Civil Appeals dismissed – No merit found in claim for re-allocation of cadre – Orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 13–14].