#Article 16

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that candidates from reserved categories who scored above the general cut-off and did not claim any reservation benefit must be considered for unreserved posts even if their reservation certificates are invalid. This extends merit-based appointment to all eligible aspirants, irrespective of certificate validity.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that reservations for persons with physical disabilities are a horizontal reservation under Article 16(4) and therefore cannot be further earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidates. This invalidates any sub-reservation scheme that tries to allocate a share of disability seats to SCs, affecting future recruitment drives that combine disability and caste criteria.

Allahabad HC quashed differential pay scales post-cadre merger, affirming the 'equal pay for equal work' principle under Articles 14 and 16. The ruling mandates uniform pay scales for employees performing identical roles, regardless of pre-merger designations.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down G.O.Ms.No.190/2012 mandating MSW degrees from State universities for promotion to Lecturer in Social Sciences, holding it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The ruling impacts MSW-qualified employees in government medical colleges seeking career advancement.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that if reserved category cut-off marks exceed those of the general category in a preliminary examination, it undermines constitutional equality under Articles 14 and 16. Candidates scoring above the general category cut-off but barred from proceeding due to an inflated reserved category threshold must be afforded relief after result declaration, ensuring merit and equity are not in conflict.

The Supreme Court ruled that denying promotion to a senior employee with 28 years of service, while granting it to similarly situated peers despite identical educational deficiencies, constitutes arbitrary classification under Articles 14 and 16. This sets a critical precedent for promotional fairness in public and cooperative service structures where rigid qualification norms cannot override substantive equality and seniority-based equity.

Supreme Court clarifies that Persons with Disabilities (Low Vision) from reserved categories can vie for unreserved PWD-LV posts based on merit, rejecting restrictive interpretations. The ruling ensures equitable competition while upholding constitutional principles of reservation and merit-based appointment.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that candidates must hold the precise degree title specified in recruitment advertisements, regardless of whether their university offers an equivalent specialization under a different name. This sets a rigid precedent for public service commissions nationwide, effectively barring applicants with substantively similar but nominally different degrees from eligibility, reinforcing textual over substantive interpretation in public employment.

Telangana High Court reinforces that unproven criminal allegations cannot disqualify a public servant from promotion, emphasizing merit and seniority over mere pendency of cases. The ruling mandates fair consideration for promotion unless allegations are substantiated, protecting constitutional rights in public employment.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, ruled that 25 years of uninterrupted casual service entitles an employee to regularization, as denying it while regularizing similarly situated workers constitutes arbitrary discrimination under Article 14. The judgment reinforces that constitutional equity demands uniform treatment for employees performing identical duties over decades, especially when they are barred by age from seeking other government employment.

Uttarakhand High Court holds that constitutional rulings declaring discrimination void apply retrospectively, entitling married daughters to compassionate appointment claims.

The High Court holds that candidates who voluntarily participate in selection processes without objection cannot later challenge criteria after failing to qualify.

Jharkhand High Court directs filling of 2034 unfilled vacancies on merit and mandates a one-man fact-finding commission to address systemic irregularities in recruitment.