Wednesday, 7 October 2026

The dispute. Goa advertised a plumbing instructor post requiring Class 10 passed under the formal 10+2 system. Although a rival outscored appellant Santosh Naik in the written test, the selection committee disqualified the rival for holding an open school certificate. The High Court quashed Naik's appointment by treating open schooling as equivalent, which Naik challenged before the Supreme Court.

The reasoning. Courts in judicial review cannot read equivalence into recruitment rules absent express statutory mandate. The formal 10+2 schooling requirement is integral, and higher test marks cannot cure an eligibility defect.

The marks secured in the written examination cannot cure the absence of an essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules.

For your practice. Candidates cannot rely on general recognition or higher test marks to claim equivalence when recruitment rules mandate formal conventional schooling.

The order. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and restored Naik's appointment, holding that the selection committee rightly disqualified the rival for lacking formal qualifications.

Goa Vocational Instructor Recruitment Rules, 2006

Case

SANTOSH B NAIK vs STATE OF GOA

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-013460-013460 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 1089 · 06.10.2026

Bench

Aravind Kumar, Vipul M. Pancholi

The dispute. A childless couple sought in vitro fertilisation after twenty-two years of unsuccessful medical efforts. The authority rejected permission because the husband was fifty-seven, despite his forty-seven-year-old wife being eligible and medically fit. The couple challenged the rejection before the Chhattisgarh High Court, asserting the wife's right to reproductive autonomy.

The reasoning. Statutory age limits apply to each spouse individually rather than creating a composite bar for couples. Reading a joint ceiling into the statute impermissibly restricts an eligible partner's reproductive autonomy under Article 21.

Where the body remains capable and the heart remains willing, the desire for parenthood cannot be dismissed merely as a desire whose time has passed.

For your practice. Counsel challenging fertility denials must assert individual partner eligibility under Article 21, preventing authorities from creating composite spousal age bars.

The order. The High Court quashed the rejection order and directed authorities to permit treatment. It held that the husband's age cannot disqualify the wife, nor can her turning fifty halt an ongoing cycle.

Section 21, Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021

Case

A.T. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation

Chhattisgarh High Court · WPC/4926/2026 · 2026:CGHC:43127 · 06.10.2026

Bench

Amitendra Kishore Prasad

The dispute. The wife and her minor child resided with her maternal aunt at Nainital for two months before applying for maintenance. The husband resisted the claim, arguing that the matrimonial home remained in Delhi and the local stay was a colourable device to harass him. The Family Court dismissed the application for lack of territorial jurisdiction, prompting the wife to prefer a criminal revision before the High Court.

The reasoning. The High Court held that Section 126(1) CrPC requires genuine residence rather than permanent domicile. Absent proof that the stay was sham or colourable, jurisdiction cannot be ousted merely because the applicant has a permanent home elsewhere.

The mere absence of permanent residence, by itself, is not sufficient to oust the jurisdiction otherwise conferred by the statute.

For your practice. Spouses disputing maintenance jurisdiction must lead positive evidence showing that the applicant's local residence is colourable or sham.

The order. Criminal revision allowed; the Family Court's dismissal order was set aside, and the application was remitted to Nainital for adjudication on the merits in accordance with law.

Section 126(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Case

S. v. Amir

Citation

Uttarakhand High Court · CRLR/835/2025 · 2026:UHC:9008 · 06.10.2026

Bench

Alok Mahra

The dispute. A municipal flat allottee pledged her original allotment papers to an occupant as security for an interest-free loan of one lakh rupees. The occupant paid nominal monthly rent until 2004, but subsequently stopped payments and claimed absolute ownership under the loan memorandum. The trial court dismissed the allottee's suit, but the appellate court decreed possession, prompting the occupant's regular second appeal.

The reasoning. Categorical denial of tenancy and assertion of independent title constitute an unequivocal renunciation triggering forfeiture under the Transfer of Property Act.

Such a plea amounts to clear and unequivocal renunciation of his character as a tenant.

For your practice. Asserting title under loan-security memoranda forfeits tenancy, enabling property owners to bypass statutory rent restrictions and recover possession through regular civil suits.

The order. The High Court dismissed the regular second appeal and affirmed the first appellate decree. The allottee was held entitled to possession and return of original documents upon paying one lakh rupees to the occupant.

Section 111(g), Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Case

RAMESH vs GEETA

Citation

Delhi High Court · RSA-69/2019 · 2026:DHC:8803 · 06.10.2026

Bench

Neena Bansal Krishna

The dispute. The petitioner applied for an Assistant Professor post reserved for the Economically Weaker Sections at an Uttarakhand university. Fixing no suitability cut-off, the selection committee recommended a higher-scoring general candidate for appointment against the reserved vacancy. After the university approved the recommendation, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the selection proceedings before the High Court.

The reasoning. The High Court held that Section 3(3) prohibits diverting reserved vacancies absent proof of an applicant's unsuitability. Absent prescribed qualifying benchmarks, higher comparative marks secured by a general candidate cannot override statutory reservation.

For your practice. Challenging de-reservation requires establishing that recruiting authorities failed to fix objective suitability criteria before invoking comparative merit.

The order. The High Court quashed the selection recommendation and Board approval. It directed the university to consider the petitioner under the EWS category and issue an appointment letter within three weeks.

Section 3(3), Uttarakhand Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2019

Case

Jagdish Chandra Purohit v. Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Uttarakhand University & ors.

Citation

Uttarakhand High Court · WPSB/83/2025 · 2026:UHC:9009-DB · 06.10.2026

Bench

Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay

The dispute. An assessee earning short-term capital gains under the statutory threshold claimed a tax rebate under the new regime. The Central Processing Centre's automated software denied the claim and raised a demand, which the assessing officer refused to rectify. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the rebate, prompting the revenue to appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The reasoning. The rebate applies to total computed tax without excluding special rate income under the new regime. Since Parliament barred rebates for long-term gains alone, automated processing systems cannot read an unwritten exclusion into short-term gains.

In contrast, the absence of any exclusion in section 111A or in section 87A must be construed in favour of the assessee.

For your practice. Tax litigators can defeat automated processing demands, as software algorithms cannot override statutory rebate rights on short-term gains.

The order. The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, confirming the twenty-five thousand rupee rebate. It directed the officer to recompute tax liability and delete the demand.

Section 87A, Income Tax Act, 1961

Case

Income Tax Officer, Jhunjhunu vs Shashi Kant Tulsian, Jhunjhunu

Citation

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · ITA No.620/JPR/2026 · 06.10.2026

Bench

Annapurna Gupta, T. R. Senthil Kumar

The dispute. A state e-governance joint venture faced three service tax demands exceeding forty-two crore rupees on portal charges, data digitisation, and fixed-deposit interest. The revenue classified the portal network as taxable online database retrieval and commercial business support. The adjudicating commissioners confirmed the entire tax liability across three periods, prompting the operator's statutory appeals before the tribunal.

The reasoning. Online database access services require the provider to own the underlying data, excluding portals that merely facilitate access to government records.

The well settled legal principle is that OIDAR services can be alleged to have been provided only if the data belongs to the service provider.

For your practice. Counsel defending digital platforms can defeat database retrieval demands by showing lack of proprietary data ownership and separating financial interest from service.

The order. The tribunal allowed all three appeals, quashing the three impugned orders. It annulled cumulative service tax demands exceeding forty-two crore rupees and ordered the refund of any taxes deposited.

Section 65(105) (zzze) of the Finance Act, 1994

Case

Mp Online Ltd vs Bhopal

Citation

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal · Service Tax Appeal No. 50418 of 2017 & 2 Ors. · 06.10.2026

Bench

Rachna Gupta, P.V. Subba Rao