Partha Das vs State of Tripura 2025 INSC 1049 - Executive Instructions vs Statutory Provisions/Rules - Public Employment - Recruitment
You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register by clicking here:
Constitution of India - Article 166- Executive instructions issued under Article 166(1) cannot override the act done under the statute and the rules made thereunder. The executive instructions can only supplement the provisions of the act and the rules in case of any ambiguity or if gaps are to be filled but such executive instructions cannot supplant the specific provisions which already occupy the field. (Para 40)
Public Employment - Recruitment - Merely suggesting that a decision to keep an ongoing recruitment process in abeyance and its subsequent cancellation was in the larger public interest, is not sufficient. The burden is on the State to justify the decision on the anvil of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and show how its decision was in furtherance of larger public interest. (Para 45) Recruitment authority can devise a procedure for selection only in absence of rules to the contrary, however, the same should be done prior to commencement of the recruitment process- If benchmarks are to be laid down in different steps of the recruitment process, they cannot be laid down after the completion of that particular step, when the game has already been played. (Para 49) While candidates do not have any indefeasible right to be appointed merely by participating in the recruitment process, they do have a legitimate expectation of completion of recruitment process in a fair and non-arbitrary manner. (Para 57)
Case Info
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: Partha Das & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors.
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1049
Coram
- Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.
Judgment Date
- Date: August 28, 2025
Caselaws and Citations Referred
- Tej Prakash Pathak and Others vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others
- Citation: (2025) 2 SCC 1, 2024 INSC 847
- Sivanandan C.T. and Others vs. High Court of Kerala and Others
- Citation: (2024) 3 SCC 799, 2023 INSC 709
- Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India
- Citation: (1991) 3 SCC 47, 1991 INSC 120
- Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan
- Citation: 1967 SCC OnLine SC 16, 1967 INSC 167
- A.B. Krishna and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
- Citation: (1998) 3 SCC 495, 1998 INSC 22
- Jaiveer Singh and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
- Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1584, 2023 INSC 1024
- Bank of Baroda and Another vs. G. Palani and Others
- Citation: (2022) 5 SCC 612
- R. Ranjith Singh and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
- Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1009, 2025 INSC 612
- K. Manjusree vs. State of A.P. and Another
- Citation: (2008) 3 SCC 512, 2008 INSC 195
- State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others
- Citation: (1974) 3 SCC 220
- State of Haryana vs. Shamsher Jang Bahadur
- Citation: (1972) 2 SCC 188, 1972 INSC 116
- S.B. Patwardhan and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
- Citation: (1977) 3 SCC 399, 1977 INSC 141
- P.D. Aggarwal and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
- Citation: (1987) 3 SCC 622, 1987 INSC 163
- K. Kuppusamy and Anr. vs. State of T.N. and Ors.
- Citation: (1998) 8 SCC 469
- Ajaya Kumar Das vs. State of Orissa and Ors.
- Citation: (2011) 11 SCC 136, 2009 INSC 978
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983
- Tripura State Rifles (Recruitment) Rules, 1984
- Tripura Civil Service Rules, 1967
- Tripura Police Services Rules
- Boilers Act, 1923
- Chief Inspector, Deputy Chief Inspector and Inspector (Qualification and Experience) Rules, 2012
- Recruitment Rules, 2013 (Tripura)
- Rules of Executive Business of the Government of the State of Tripura, 1972
- Article 166(1), 166(2), 166(3), and 309 of the Constitution of India
Executive instructions issued under Article 166(1) of Constitution cannot override the act done under the statute and the rules made thereunder.#SupremeCourt https://t.co/BP4Fyb0d4k pic.twitter.com/mw8ifbDSep
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) August 29, 2025
#SupremeCourt observed that candidates who have taken part in a recruitment process conducted by a public authority have a legitimate expectation that the selection process will be conducted fairly and without arbitrariness. https://t.co/BP4Fyb0d4k pic.twitter.com/GXwSDRrodd
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) August 29, 2025



Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal