Service Law – Reservation – 50% Ceiling – Backlog Vacancies – Advertisement by OPSC – Impugned advertisement (No. 9 of 2024-25) advertised 5248 posts of Medical Officers (Group-A, Junior Branch), with 411 posts for UR, 736 for SEBC, 1620 for SC and 2481 for ST – Petitioners contended that reserved category vacancies at 4837 far exceeded the 50% ceiling when measured against 411 UR posts, violating the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney and R.K. Sabharwal – Held: Advertisement could not have been issued in the manner so done; backlog vacancies ought to have been segregated from current vacancies in terms of Article 16(4-B) and the decision in Sangam Nath Pandey [Paras 2, 6.1, 6.2].

Constitutional Law – Article 16(4-B) – Backlog Vacancies – Segregation Mandatory – Backlog vacancies of reserved category candidates are to be treated as a separate class and cannot be clubbed with current year vacancies for the purpose of determining the 50% ceiling – Both the Government requisition dated 12.02.2025 and the consequential advertisement failed to segregate backlog vacancies from current vacancies – Held: Non-compliance with Article 16(4-B) and the mandate in Sangam Nath Pandey renders the advertisement defective [Paras 3.2, 6.1].

Service Law – De-reservation of Backlog Posts – Base Level Posts – Not Permissible – Petitioners sought de-reservation of SC/ST backlog vacancies not filled for more than three recruitment years under Section 7 of the ORV Act, 1975 – State relied on clarification dated 20.03.2008 issued by SC & ST Development Department, based on M. Nagraj, holding that base level posts cannot be de-reserved – Held: Since the posts in question are base level posts, this Court is not inclined to direct de-reservation of backlog vacancies meant for SC, ST and OBC candidates [Para 6.3].

Service Law – Recruitment – Moulding of Relief – State Crunch – Doctor Shortage – Considering the State's submission that there is a complete dearth of doctors and the selection process has already been completed, this Court, relying on Sangam Nath Pandey and Jarnail Singh (Para 35), permitted the Commission to recommend 411 UR category candidates as well as 411 reserved category candidates proportionately to the percentage of reservation – The Department is further permitted to fill up reserved category posts from backlog vacancies after receipt of recommendation from the Commission [Para 6.4].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions – Commission permitted to recommend 411 UR and 411 reserved category candidates proportionately – Department permitted to fill reserved category posts from backlog vacancies after receipt of recommendation – Interim order vacated.

Civil Law – Joint and Unpartitioned Property – Co-sharer – Passage – Declaration of Specific Portion Not Sustainable – Land measuring 4 Bigha in Khasra No. 141 jointly owned by Ram Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Nirmal Singh and their mother Smt. Basant Kaur – Mukhtiar Singh, Nirmal Singh and Basant Kaur sold portions of land to plaintiffs through sale deeds executed in 1984 leaving 4 Biswa 11 Biswansi as access passage – Subsequently, Mukhtiar Singh and Nirmal Singh executed sale deed dated 29.09.1988 in favour of co-sharer Ram Singh regarding the said passage – Courts below declared the passage and held the sale deed void – Held: So long as the property remains joint and unpartitioned, declaration of a specific portion as an exclusive passage binding on a non-consenting co-sharer is not legally sustainable; sale deed executed by one co-sharer transferring undivided share to another co-sharer cannot be declared void [Paras 14-19].

Co-sharer's Rights – Transfer of Undivided Share – A co-sharer in joint property is entitled to transfer his undivided share and the transferee steps into the shoes of the vendor as a co-sharer – However, no co-sharer can claim exclusive ownership of or earmark a specific portion of joint land unless and until partition is effected by metes and bounds – Disputes regarding specific portions of joint property are ordinarily required to be resolved through partition proceedings [Paras 16-17, 22].

Possession and Access – Protection Pending Partition – Although exclusive declaration of passage over joint land is set aside, plaintiffs' possession over land purchased through registered sale deeds deserves protection – Each co-sharer is deemed to be in possession of every inch of joint holding and is entitled to make reasonable use without excluding other co-sharers – Existing user of the disputed strip as means of access to the purchased plots shall continue pending partition – Rights including access to be finally determined in partition proceedings [Paras 20-21, 25-29].

Substantial Question of Law: Whether the courts below were justified in declaring a specific portion of joint and unpartitioned land as a passage and in holding the sale deed dated 29.09.1988 executed in favour of defendant Ram Singh to be null and void, despite the admitted position that the land comprised in Khasra No. 141 remained joint and unpartitioned and that Ram Singh was a co-sharer therein.

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Decree of courts below modified – Declaration of suit property as an exclusive passage set aside – Sale deed dated 29.09.1988 in favour of Ram Singh not treated as void – Possession of plaintiffs over purchased land protected – Parties at liberty to seek partition; rights including access to be determined at partition.

Gang Rape – Minor Prosecutrix – Sections 376(D), 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 5(g), 6 POCSO Act – Conviction Upheld – Both appellants convicted for gang-raping a 14-year-old girl from Scheduled Caste community – Trial court sentenced each appellant to 20 years rigorous imprisonment – High Court on appeal finds testimony of prosecutrix clear, consistent and inspiring confidence – FSL report showing human semen on victim's slide and accused's clothing corroborates the prosecution case – Held: Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; conviction and sentence affirmed; appeal dismissed [Paras 31-32].

Age Determination – Minor Victim – School Records vs. Ossification Test – Prosecutrix's age proved through school Scholar Register, admission form and transfer certificate showing date of birth as 15.08.2000, establishing her age as 14 years on the date of incident – Appellants argued X-ray/ossification test showed age between 17-18 years – Held: School records prevail over medical opinion; ossification test is relevant only in the absence of documents under Rule 12(3) of the 2007 Rules; victim was below 18 years on the date of incident; question of consent does not arise [Paras 11-13].

Test Identification Parade – Non-Conduct – Admissibility of Court Identification – Victim admitted she did not know the accused prior to the incident and learnt their names during the incident when they called each other by name – No TIP conducted during investigation – Held: Identification parade belongs to the stage of investigation and failure to hold TIP does not make court identification inadmissible; substantive evidence is identification in court; court identification is valid in given circumstances if witness is trustworthy and reliable [Paras 26-30].

Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Sufficiency for Conviction – Testimony of prosecutrix (PW-5) corroborated by her mother (PW-6), aunt (PW-4), sister (PW-8) and aunt (PW-9) to whom she narrated the incident immediately thereafter – Medical evidence confirming ruptured hymen and FSL report confirming human semen on victim's slide and accused's clothing – Held: Conviction can be based solely on the trustworthy statement of the prosecutrix even without independent corroboration; minor contradictions do not affect the core case [Para 31].

Defence of Alibi – Not Proved – Defence examined DW-1 (father of accused Amit Kol) and DW-2 (brother of accused Ajay) claiming accused were at Jamuna Tola for labour work on the date of incident – Held: Under Section 11 of the Evidence Act the distance must be so great as to make presence at the scene impossible; no such situation exists; defence of alibi not proved by cogent evidence; no material contradiction or motive for false implication established [Para 25].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(D) IPC affirmed – Appellants to serve 20 years rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the trial court.

Family Pension – Karewa Marriage – Discontinuation of Family Pension – Constitutional Validity – Petitioners' family pension discontinued citing remarriage to their deceased husbands' brothers through karewa marriage – Karewa marriage is a customary practice recognized under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, where a widow remarries within the family of her deceased husband – Court held that karewa marriage cannot be equated to remarriage for the limited purpose of grant of family pension as the widow continues to live a communal life with the family of the deceased and remains dependent on the same household – Legislative intent behind disqualifying remarried widows from family pension is redistributive, not punitive, based on the assumption that the new family bears financial responsibility – However, in karewa marriages, no such fragmentation of financial responsibilities occurs – Strict mechanical disqualification would overlook social reality and defeat the beneficial nature of family pension provisions – State of Punjab amended Rule 8.35(2)(b) PCSR vide notification dated 28.05.1975 recognizing that a widow who remarries her deceased husband's brother and continues to live a communal life shall not be disqualified for extraordinary pension – Family pension is a social security measure flowing from the vision of a Welfare State under Articles 14, 15(3), 39(a), and 41 of the Constitution – Beneficial legislation must receive liberal and purposive construction – Held: Karewa marriage does not disqualify widows from family pension as they remain members of the same family and continue supporting dependents of the deceased employee [Paras 3-4, 10, 13-16, 19-20].

Constitutional Law – Right to Life and Dignified Existence – Article 21 of the Constitution – Family pension as a retiral benefit is not a bounty but akin to wages and essential for survival and dignified life of dependents of deceased employees – Right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live a dignified meaningful life with bare necessities such as adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself – Any act offending human dignity constitutes a violation of Article 21 – Family pension serves as the only source of income for many families when the primary breadwinner passes away – Denial of family pension on technical grounds of karewa marriage would violate the right to dignified existence – Held: Family pension is a social security measure integral to the constitutional vision of a Welfare State and right to life under Article 21 [Paras 11-12].

Service Law – Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Purposive Construction – Family pension provisions must be interpreted liberally keeping in mind their beneficial nature – Literal construction of beneficial legislation must be avoided – Courts must discern the legislative intention and adopt a construction that suppresses the problem and advances the remedy – Words occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation should not be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Lilliputian dimensions – Semantic luxuries are misplaced in interpretation of bread and butter statutes – Welfare statutes must necessarily receive broad interpretation – Court must be concerned with the colour, content and context of beneficial statutes – Notification dated 17.04.2009 by Government of Haryana allows special considerations to prevent undue hardship in particular cases under residuary provisions and power to relax – Held: Beneficial policies and family pension provisions must be given liberal and purposive interpretation to achieve social justice [Paras 17-18].

Custom and Personal Law – Karewa Marriage – Social Purpose and Legal Recognition – Karewa marriages serve important social purposes including providing patronage to minor children, preserving dignity of widows, ensuring continuity of care for aged parents, and establishing paternity from within blood relatives who raise children with genuine care – This customary practice is recognized under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Upon karewa marriage, ties between the widow, her children and the matrimonial family are not severed by death of the first husband – The matrimonial family shoulders moral responsibility for their well-being – Custom assists in social and financial rehabilitation of widows and their children – Children remain under the same guardianship structure and aged parents reside in the same household – There is no fragmentation of financial responsibilities – Held: Karewa marriage has harmonizing effect on service rules rather than disqualifying widows from family pension [Paras 13-16].

Administrative Law – Model Employer – State's Duty to Stay Alive to Social Realities – The State, being a model employer, must stay alive to social realities and endeavor to balance equity with statutory mandate – Particularly when customs such as karewa marriage are in harmony with settled law, strict mechanical application of disqualification provisions would be inappropriate – Administrative authorities must apply beneficial provisions in a manner that serves their social purpose – Grant of family pension to daughter cannot be used as estoppel against the petitioner when the amount was used to take care of the family of the deceased employee – Held: State must adopt contextual and purposive approach rather than rigid formalistic interpretation [Paras 8, 16].

Pension Law – Family Pension – Nature and Purpose – Pension and retiral benefits are not bounty by nature but are akin to wages relied upon by pensioner and his family for assistance – Entitlement to dignified and secured life must be applied with greater force to family pension as it is granted only when an earning member of the family passes away leaving dependents at risk of destitution – Right to family pension is not vested in widow alone but flows to all immediate dependents of deceased employee – Dependents when possible must be allowed to be treated as a unit as their lives are not untethered from each other – Disqualifying the widow from family pension would jeopardize rights of any surviving dependents of deceased husband – Held: Family pension serves critical role in preventing destitution of dependents and must be interpreted liberally [Paras 11, 19].

Decision: All three writ petitions allowed – Concerned authorities directed to reinstate family pension of respective petitioners – Karewa marriage cannot be equated to remarriage for limited purpose of grant of family pension – Petitioners not disqualified by applicable rules – Authorities shall recalculate amount due and disburse arrears within 04 months – If not disbursed within 04 months, petitioners entitled to interest on arrears at rate of 7.5% p.a. till actual realization.

Probate Law – Revocation of Probate – Caveatable Interest – Challenge to Title of Testator – Application Not Maintainable – Testator Rajeshwari executed Will dated 23.08.2005 bequeathing properties at Satara inter alia in favour of the Applicant (son-in-law) – Probate granted on 13.12.2011 – Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (brother and nephew of testator) filed application under Section 383 of Indian Succession Act for revocation of probate contending that testator had no title in the bequeathed properties since the earlier Will of their mother Radhabai in favour of Rajeshwari was cancelled by a subsequent Will in favour of Chandrahas – Held: Respondents are questioning title of testator and not asserting any right of inheritance through the testator; such persons are strangers to probate proceedings and do not possess caveatable interest; revocation application is not maintainable [Paras 11-12, 24, 26, 29-30].

Caveatable Interest – Conflicting Supreme Court Judgments – Reconciliation – Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha lays down that a person questioning existence of title of testator or capacity to dispose of property on grounds outside law of succession is a stranger to probate proceedings and cannot maintain a caveat – G. Gopal v. C. Bhaskar, rendered subsequently without noticing Krishna Kumar Birla, held that a person having even a slight interest in estate of testator can file a caveat – Conflict noted and reference made in Jagjit Singh v. Pamela Manmohan Singh but reference remained unanswered as appeal was withdrawn – Saroj Agarwalla v. Yasheel Jain (2017) followed Krishna Kumar Birla – Held: Following A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar, High Court must reconcile conflicting judgments and follow the one whose facts are more in accord with the case at hand; on reconciliation, G. Gopal is distinguishable as it involved caveator likely to succeed through testator's own settlement deed; Krishna Kumar Birla applies where challenge is to title of testator [Paras 13-15, 18, 23-24].

Probate Court – Jurisdiction – Title Cannot Be Determined – Probate Court is only concerned with due execution, attestation and testamentary capacity of testator – It is not competent to determine whether testator had title or authority to bequeath the properties or whether properties were joint ancestral or self-acquired – Challenge to title falls outside the purview of probate proceedings and must be adjudicated in a substantive suit – Respondents had already instituted a civil suit for title adjudication [Paras 19, 26, 29].

Probate – Optional Where Will Executed Outside Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction – Section 57 of Indian Succession Act only specifies class of Wills for which probate is necessary (those made in or relating to immovable property within Presidency towns) – For Wills executed outside those limits or relating to properties outside such limits, probate is merely optional and not prohibited – Grant of probate in respect of Will executed at Pune relating to properties at Satara is not invalid [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Order dated 20.12.2022 rejecting Applicant's maintainability objection set aside – Miscellaneous Application No. 616 of 2013 for revocation of probate held not maintainable and dismissed – Pending Interim Application also disposed of – No order as to costs.

NDPS – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Foreign National – Illegal Custody – Article 21 Override – Applicant, a foreign national, was intercepted at IGI Airport on 02.07.2024 and 8 capsules containing cocaine recovered at the Airport itself from her undergarments – She was then taken to Safdarjung Hospital where 34 more capsules were eased out – Total recovery was 42 capsules containing 503 grams of cocaine (commercial quantity) – Formal arrest was shown only on 07.07.2024 after her discharge from hospital – Held: Once 8 capsules were recovered at the Airport and the offence stood revealed, the applicant should have been arrested immediately and produced before the Magistrate – Further recovery could have been effected pursuant to Court order – Remand could have been taken at the hospital if health hazard was a concern – Applicant remained in illegal custody from 02.07.2024 – Despite statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act, Article 21 must prevail – Bail granted [Paras 14-27].

Section 103, Customs Act – Production Before Magistrate – Where proper officer has reason to believe that goods liable to confiscation are secreted inside the body, the accused must be produced before the nearest Magistrate without unnecessary delay – Exception under Section 103(8) applies only where the person voluntarily admits to having goods secreted in his body – In the present case, no clear and specific admission of willingness was discernible from the bare contents of the notice – Service of notice through AI translation tool (Google Translator) was incomplete as the translated copy did not contain the applicant's replies or responses – Mere signatures on an incomplete translated notice do not amount to adequate communication of legal rights [Paras 16-22].

Section 50, NDPS Act – Notice – Mandatory Compliance – Section 50 provides that personal search can only be conducted before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Customs unlawfully informed the applicant that she could also be searched before any lady customs officer, which is contrary to the statutory mandate – Translation through AI tool was incomplete and did not contain the applicant's reply – Whether applicant was duly apprised of her rights was not discernible [Paras 19-21].

AI Translation Tool – Defective Compliance – Use of an AI tool (Google Translator) for serving notices upon a foreign national, without the translated copy containing the applicant's responses, renders the statutory compliance incomplete and inadequate – The identity of the person (Vikas Kumar) who allegedly explained the notice to the applicant in her vernacular language was not even included in the list of prosecution witnesses [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one local surety of like amount subject to conditions including reporting to IO on first Sunday of every month, not leaving NCR without prior permission, not contacting witnesses, and keeping mobile number active.

Service Law – Examination Cancellation – Paper Leak – Assistant Professor Recruitment – Validity of Cancellation of Written Examination Result – Petitioners challenged the cancellation of result of written examination held on 16th/17th April 2025 for 910 posts of Assistant Professors in aided non-Government Post Graduate Colleges – Two FIRs were lodged immediately after examination alleging that question papers were sold to candidates for money – STF investigation identified 21 suspicious mobile numbers linked to accused; 19 candidates found to have passed the examination were connected to these numbers – Result declared on 04.09.2025 was cancelled vide notice dated 20.01.2026 – Held: Cancellation of result is valid and justified; petitions disposed of [Paras 3-4, 6, 27-28].

Systematic Irregularities – Standard of Proof – Probability Test – State not required to prove paper leak beyond reasonable doubt to cancel examination result – Two charge sheets filed on 08.06.2025 against four accused under Sections 112, 308(5) and 318(4) BNS for petty organised crime, extortion and cheating – STF report established prima facie that at least 19 candidates were benefited and papers of at least five subjects were leaked – Possibility of wider leakage not ruled out – Held: Decision passes the probability test; systemic irregularity established on available material [Paras 19-23].

Segregation of Tainted Candidates – When Entire Result Can Be Cancelled – Question of whether individual candidates could be segregated from tainted ones considered – Examination was limited in scope: 910 posts, 33 subjects, 52 centres, six districts, 224 petitioners before Court – Unlike Pan-India examinations, even limited irregularities in a narrow-campus examination justify cancellation of entire result when segregation of beneficiaries is not fully possible – Petitioners have no indefeasible right to be selected or compel continuation of a tainted process – Fresh examination schedule already published; petitioners may participate [Paras 14, 18, 24-27].

Candidate's Right – No Vested Right in Tainted Process – Selection process was not concluded; interview stage had not commenced – Petitioners cannot claim to be finally selected as they had yet to face interview – A candidate has no indefeasible right to force the State to conclude an examination process whose integrity has been compromised – Fairness of examination is paramount and cannot be permitted to be compromised under any circumstance [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of – Impugned decision to cancel the result of written examination upheld – Petitioners at liberty to participate in fresh written examination for which schedule has been published.

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Allegations of manufacturing and selling goods by misusing established brand identity – FIR and charge-sheet disclose prima facie offences of cheating, forgery and deception – High Court declined to quash proceedings holding that disputed facts require trial and continuation of prosecution not an abuse of process [Paras 10, 24–25].

Section 482 CrPC – Scope and Limits – Inherent powers to be exercised sparingly and in rare cases – Court cannot undertake detailed examination of evidence or adjudicate disputed facts at threshold – Held: Only prima facie case to be seen [Paras 10–12].

Commercial Dispute vs Criminal Offence – Petitioners contended matter is civil in nature relating to trademark/copyright – Held: Allegations indicate fraudulent conduct and deception of consumers, thus not purely civil dispute [Paras 5–7, 21].

Cheating and Fraud – Use of Deceptive Branding – Allegations of rebranding inferior goods with names of reputed companies to mislead consumers – Held: Such conduct, if proved, constitutes dishonest intention attracting penal provisions [Paras 6–7].

Precedents – Application of Bhajan Lal Principles – Quashing permissible only where allegations do not disclose offence or proceedings are mala fide – Present case does not fall within such categories [Para 11].

Trial – Role of Court – Determination of issues like intention, deception, and misuse of brand requires appreciation of evidence – High Court cannot act as trial court under Section 482 CrPC [Para 23].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Prayer for quashing FIR and criminal proceedings rejected – Trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Religious Property – Disputed Idol – Sectarian Identity – Safe Custody – Idol recovered in District Etah, claimed by both Digambar and Shwetambar sects of the Jain community as belonging to their respective sects – ASI initially reported the idol as suggestive of belonging to the Shwetambar sect – On fresh examination, Superintending Archaeologist, ASI, Agra Circle, vide report dated 27.08.2025, concluded that the sectarian identity of the idol could not be conclusively established on existing iconographic and stylistic evidence and recommended constitution of an interdisciplinary expert committee – Held: Considering the historical importance and sensitivity of the sectarian interpretation, idol directed to be transferred from police custody to the Central Museum at Prayagraj for safe custody by 11.04.2026 [Paras 3, 4, 8].

Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878 – Custody of Recovered Property – Contention raised that under the Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878, the Collector is the appropriate custodian of property recovered during digging of earth and police custody of the same is impermissible — Court directed the District Magistrate, Etah to ensure transfer of the idol to the Central Museum at Prayagraj [Paras 6, 8].

Expert Committee – Constitution – Central Museum, Prayagraj directed to constitute a team of experts in Jain art and iconography, with representation from both Shwetambar and Digambar scholarly traditions, in coordination with ASI, to examine the character, nature, period and sectarian identity of the idol – Report of the expert team to be obtained within three months of placement of the idol in the Museum and placed before the Court in a sealed cover [Paras 9, 11].

Compliance – District Magistrate, Etah directed to submit compliance report along with possession memo on or before 13.04.2026 – Additional Chief Standing Counsel directed to intimate the order to the District Magistrate, Etah within 48 hours [Paras 10, 12, 13].

Decision: Interim order passed — Idol directed to be transferred to Central Museum at Prayagraj by 11.04.2026 — Expert committee to be constituted for examination of the idol — Matter posted for compliance on 13.04.2026.