In a recent ruling dated June 16, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that a person employed in a society considered a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution cannot automatically be considered a government employee.

Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Plea Seeking NEET UG 2025 Final Answer Key Before Results

A bench of Justices Ujjwal Bhuyan and Manmohan passed the order while dismissing a petition against the Tripura High Court order which was filed by a person whose appointment as a junior weaver at the Weavers Service Centre in Agartala under the Ministry of Textiles was terminated and held that the petition was justified.

"Mere functioning of a society under Article 12 does not mean that the person working there is a government servant," Justice Bhuyan said.

The petitioner had earlier worked as a craft teacher in the Tripura Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (TTWREIS), an autonomous society funded by the government. He falsely declared that his previous post was equivalent to government service and hence he was eligible for the new post.

Read also: Supreme Court AoR Exam 2025 Scheduled for June 16–21: Check Venue, Entry Gates, and Sitting Plan

However, an inquiry conducted by the Ministry of Handloom and Textiles revealed that TTWREIS is not a government department. This has also been confirmed by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India.

A single judge bench of the Tripura High Court dismissed his writ petition, holding that employment in a society like TTWREIS cannot be treated as government service. This decision was upheld by the division bench, which cited Rule 2(h) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. According to the rule, a government servant is a person holding a civil post under the Union or a State.

"It is quite clear that a government servant must hold a civil post under the Union or a State of India," the High Court said.

Read also: Supreme Court: Res judicata applies to impleadment of legal heir under CPC

"The post of Craft Teacher under TTWREIS cannot be treated as a civil post."

The Court also rejected the application of the doctrine of estoppel and exemption, noting that the petitioner's appointment was subject to the condition of producing proof of being a government servant - a claim which he could not substantiate.

"Appointment obtained by misrepresentation of facts is voidable," the Court observed.

"No equity or estoppel can be claimed if the appointment is secured by means of fraud or false declarations."

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in upholding the dismissal, as the petitioner was never a government servant and had no legal right to the post obtained by means of misrepresentation.

Case Details: PINTU CHOWDHURY vs. UNION OF INDIA| SLP(C) No. 016733 / 2025