Service Law – Recruitment – Hindi Teacher (Contractual) – Educational Qualification – Equivalence of “Rastrabhasa Sastri” with Bachelor’s Degree – Eligibility under Resolution dated 27.10.2014 – Respondent applied for the post of Contractual Hindi Teacher under the 2014-15 Advertisement – Collector, Angul rejected candidature citing less than 45% marks in Graduation and lack of training qualification – Single Judge quashed rejection holding “Rastrabhasa Sastri” equivalent to +3/B.A. and directed appointment – Division Bench examined whether Sastri qualification could be treated as equivalent to Graduation [Paras 3.1, 6–7.8].

Equivalence of Degree – Recognition by Competent Authorities – “Rastrabhasa Sastri” from Odisha Rastrabhasa Parisad, Puri – Utkal University Notification dated 28.10.2011 and Government of India letter dated 26.07.1979 recognized “Sastri” as equivalent to B.A. – Supported by previous judgments including Smruti Rekha Mishra v. State of Odisha (2022 (I) ILR-CUT 219), Aparna Sinha v. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.10616/2020), and Nihar Ranjan Sarangi v. State of Odisha (WPC (OAC) No.1976/2015) – Held: Marks in Sastri examination must be considered for determining eligibility [Paras 6.1–6.5, 8.1–9.1].

Interpretation – “And” / “Or” in Statutory Clauses – Disjunctive vs. Conjunctive Reading – Clause 3(f) of Resolution dated 27.10.2014 prescribing alternative qualifications for Hindi Teachers – Court held that “Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi” or “Sastri” are alternative conditions – Both need not co-exist – Applying established principles of statutory construction (CIT v. Puthu Thotam Estates, (1981) 127 ITR 481 (Mad); Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, (2023) 11 SCR 731) [Paras 7–7.5].

Untrained Candidates – Eligibility and Appointment – Clause 3(f) of 2014 Resolution – Candidates without training qualification could apply, subject to completing training within the prescribed timeline – Supported by decisions in Satyabrata Nayak v. State of Odisha (WPC (OAC) No.902/2016) and Nihar Ranjan Sarangi (supra) – Respondent eligible for consideration under untrained category [Paras 5.2–5.3, 7.8(iii)].

Precedent – Binding Effect – Consistency in Judicial View – Division Bench relied on the settled judicial interpretation that “Sastri” qualification is equivalent to B.A. – State failed to demonstrate any perversity or distinction in facts warranting interference – Appeal devoid of merit [Paras 9–9.2].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge upheld – Direction for appointment of respondent as Contractual Hindi Teacher sustained – No order as to costs [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Dishonour of Cheque – Maintainability – Applicant filed for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against acquittal in complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act – Held: In view of the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, complainant in a cheque dishonour case is a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC – Such victim has an unconditional right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without needing leave of the High Court – Application to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC and transferred to Sessions Court for disposal on merits [Paras 1–5].

Victim’s Right to Appeal – Section 372 CrPC – Supreme Court clarified that a complainant in a Section 138 N.I. Act case qualifies as a "victim" and thus can file appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Requirement of special leave under Section 378(4) does not apply – Reiterated by High Court in Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishore, Ajmer Kundu (deceased) through LRs v. Pardeep Sharma, and Raj Kumar v. Rajender [Paras 2–4].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction – Appeal Transferred – Application treated as appeal under Section 372 CrPC and directed to be placed before Sessions Judge, Ambala – Registry directed to transmit record and paper-book – Applicant directed to appear before Sessions Court on specified date – No opinion expressed on merits [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Application disposed of – Treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC – Ordered to be transferred to Sessions Judge, Ambala for adjudication in accordance with law – Applicant directed to appear on 14.11.2025 – Registry to transmit complete record.

Criminal Law - POCSO Act – Age Determination – Mandatory Compliance – Conviction set aside – Appellant convicted under Sections 448, 323 IPC and Sections 8, 12 of POCSO Act for alleged trespass and sexual assault on a minor girl – No school certificate, birth certificate or ossification test produced as required under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act – Held: Age of victim not proved as per statutory requirements – Conviction under POCSO Act unsustainable [Paras 17-20, 26].

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Contradictory Statements – Sole Testimony Unreliable – Mother of victim (PW2) and neighbours (PWs 3, 4, 6) turned hostile – Victim (PW1) gave court testimony contradicting original complaint, stating the injury occurred during a public quarrel regarding money – Held: Sole testimony of victim insufficient and unreliable when contradicted by medical and witness evidence [Paras 21-24].

False Implication – Suppression of Counter-Complaint – Misuse of POCSO Act – Accused sustained head injuries during quarrel and lodged complaint against victim’s family – FIR (Ex.D1) against complainant’s family closed after POCSO case was registered – Held: Likely misuse of POCSO Act to neutralize genuine complaint by accused – Courts must remain vigilant to prevent misuse of special legislation [Paras 29-31].

Injury – Section 323 IPC – No Clear Evidence – Acquittal Warranted – Injury to victim found to be simple – No consistent or credible evidence linking it to accused – Held: Conviction under Section 323 IPC not safe – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25, 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under IPC and POCSO Act set aside – Accused acquitted – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Bail bond cancelled [Para 32].

Arbitration – Section 34 – Government ICT project – Last-mile connectivity & liquidated damages – Arbitral award in favour of service provider upheld – Tribunal’s view that lack of statewide broadband in Nashik/Nandurbar impeded rollout was plausible – State could not foist last-mile telecom obligation on a non-licensee – Liquidated damages impermissible absent proof of loss as per Section 74/Kailash Nath – Discretion to deny pre-award/pendente lite interest not perverse – Held: Section 34 court will not substitute plausible arbitral view; petitions dismissed; deposits to be released within four weeks of upload [Paras 13–20, 24–33, 36–43].

Arbitration – Scope of Section 34 Review – Deference to plausible arbitral view – The Court reiterates that interference lies only where perversity goes to the root; alternative interpretations are insufficient—Dyna Technologies principle applied [Paras 36–37].

Public Contracts – Business Efficacy & Implied Terms – Reading the RFP/Agreement with commercial sense: obligation on service provider was to equip CSCs to use available networks; not to “magically” create telecom coverage—Nabha Power business-efficacy/officious bystander tests invoked; State’s contrary reading rejected as unreasonable [Paras 16–17, 29–31].

Telecom Connectivity – Factual Findings – Evidence (including RTI data) showed extensive non-availability of broadband/Wi-Fi/dial-up in rural Nashik/Nandurbar at relevant times; SWAN/BSNL coverage incomplete; thus delay attributable to systemic constraints; State’s witness unaware of licensing requirement—findings upheld as non-perverse [Paras 15, 17–20].

Liquidated Damages – Section 74, Indian Contract Act – Loss is sine qua non—Kailash Nath applied—State failed to prove genuine pre-estimate or actual loss; inconsistencies in LD computation noted; delayed VGF payments aggravated rollout; LD deductions made only post invocation of arbitration—disallowed [Paras 27–28, 32–33].

Government Policy – GOI Advisory (28/12/2011) – States advised not to penalise CSC implementers for delays due to power/broadband/entrepreneur availability; Tribunal’s reliance endorsed [Paras 7–8, 28].

Interest – Discretion – Non-grant of pre-award and pendente lite interest sustained—Tribunal balanced equities, noted pleading deficiencies as to dates, parties’ diligence, and awarded only post-award interest; no perversity warranting interference [Paras 38–42].

Distinguished – Energy Watchdog – Frustration due to price increase of inputs contrasted with present case of objective non-availability of telecom connectivity; State’s reliance held misplaced [Para 34].

Decision: Petitions (and IAs) dismissed—Impugned Award upheld in toto—Any deposits to be released within four weeks from the date of upload; actions may proceed on downloaded copy [Paras 43–44].

Mines and Minerals – Lease Lapse – Revival Application – Subordinate Legislation – Retrospective Operation – Rule 20(7) of 2016 Rules Held Valid – No Vested Right in Revival – Petitioners sought revival of lapsed iron and manganese mining lease granted in 1990 and lapsed due to inactivity – Revival sought under third proviso to Section 4A(4) of MMDR Act (prior to amendment) – Amendment by Act 16 of 2021 removed revival provision and substituted Rule 20(7) retrospectively from 28.03.2021 – Petitioner’s application pending on amendment date rejected based on new Rule 20(7) – Held: No vested right accrues in mere filing of revival application – Subordinate legislation (Rule 20(7)) amended to align with parent Act’s policy change – Not ultra vires MMDR Act – Application rightly decided under law as it stood on decision date [Paras 27–33].

Statutory Interpretation – Retrospective Effect – Subordinate Legislation – General Clauses Act Inapplicable – Rule Consistent with Parent Act – Court held Rule 20(7) not ultra vires merely for applying to pending applications – Amended Rule brought to prevent conflict between principal Act and delegated legislation – Rule-making authority acted within scope under Section 13 MMDR Act – Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897, does not protect non-vested expectations or future benefits – Revival is not a vested or accrued right – Hence, amended Rule 20(7) applies [Paras 29–31].

Right to Revival of Mining Lease – No Vested Right – Legal Principle Reaffirmed – Relying on Hind Stone v. State of Tamil Nadu and Monnet Ispat, Court reiterated that no one has a vested right to grant, renewal, or revival of mining leases – Mere filing of application does not create enforceable right – Such applications are to be considered under rules in force at the time of disposal, not filing – Hence, revival claim cannot survive [Paras 29(c), 30–32].

Judicial Review – Rule 20(7) – Constitutionality Upheld – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners failed to establish any grounds of invalidity under tests for subordinate legislation – Rule 20(7) neither manifestly arbitrary nor beyond statutory authority – Challenge dismissed – Application for revival rightly decided under prevailing law [Paras 31–33].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Rule 20(7) of the 2016 Rules upheld as valid – No vested right accrued to petitioner under repealed revival provision – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Foreigners Act – Sentence Modification – Section 14 – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced – Appellant convicted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 for rendering assistance to a Pakistani national accused of illegal stay – Trial Court sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine – Appellant did not challenge conviction on merits – Considering age (around 70 years), health condition, no previous criminal record, and long delay in proceedings (27 years since incident, 22 years since conviction), Court held continued incarceration would cause undue hardship – Sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 2, 4, 7–10].

Sentencing – Mitigating Circumstances – Reformative Approach – Rehabilitation Emphasized – Appellant cited Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. to urge a reformative approach in sentencing – Held: Modern penology emphasizes rehabilitation over harsh punishment – Sentence must reflect factors like age, delay, prior record, health, and reintegration potential – Court accepted this view and applied it to reduce sentence [Paras 8–10].

Appeal – Partial Allowance – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Modified – Appeal not pressed on merits – Conviction sustained – Sentence of 2 years reduced to time already served (approx. 1 year 22 days) – Bail and surety bonds discharged – Trial Court and Jail Superintendent directed to be informed [Paras 7, 10–12].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act maintained – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Bail and surety bonds discharged – Pending applications disposed.

Income Tax – Bogus Purchases – Reopening of Assessment – Information from Sales Tax Department – AO reopened assessment based solely on list of alleged hawala dealers and added entire ₹2,05,74,750 as bogus purchases – Assessee produced purchase bills, VAT auditor’s certificate, ledger, and bank payment proof – CIT(A) restricted addition to 15% of reduced purchase value based on Simit P. Sheth principle – ITAT confirmed – Held: Reopening based only on unverified external information without giving assessee opportunity to cross-examine alleged dealers violates natural justice – Addition of 100% unjustified; estimation at 15% reasonable [Paras 4–10, 13–16].

Section 147 – Reassessment – Mere information from investigation wing or Sales Tax Department cannot be sole basis for belief of escapement without independent inquiry – AO’s reliance on third-party list without supplying material to assessee renders assessment unsustainable [Paras 13–15].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Once assessee produces purchase invoices, bank payment details, and VAT audit certificate, onus shifts to Revenue to disprove genuineness; failure to do so vitiates addition [Paras 15–16].

Natural Justice – Violation – Failure to furnish underlying material or allow cross-examination of alleged bogus suppliers renders order contrary to fairness and due process [Paras 13–14].

Factual Finding – Concurrent Findings of CIT(A) & ITAT – Both authorities found partial genuineness and applied 15% gross profit estimation following CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451, Guj.) – No perversity shown – No substantial question of law arises under Section 260A [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Revenue’s appeal dismissed – Order of ITAT and CIT(A) upheld – Addition restricted to 15% of alleged hawala purchases – No substantial question of law arises [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted under Section 306 IPC as mother-in-law of deceased who allegedly committed suicide nine years after marriage – Trial Court convicted appellant based on vague allegations of harassment – Held: No proximate or direct act of instigation or abetment proved against appellant – Essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC not fulfilled – Mere allegations of harassment not sufficient to constitute abetment – Mens rea absent – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13–20]

Evidence – Inconsistencies and Omissions – Witnesses Contradicted Their Earlier Statements – PW-4 contradicted prior statement where he had stated that deceased was under depression due to childlessness and that relations with in-laws were cordial – Medical evidence incomplete as doctor who conducted post-mortem not examined – Held: Prosecution failed to prove active role of appellant in causing suicide – No cogent or corroborative evidence led – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 17–19]

Judicial Precedents – Standard of Proof Under Section 306 IPC – Court relies on Supreme Court rulings including Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan – Held: Proximity and direct link between accused’s conduct and suicide necessary – Conviction under Section 306 requires proof of instigation or intentional aid, mere harassment insufficient [Paras 15–16]

Abuse of Process – No Prima Facie Case – Harassment Not Proved to Be of Such Nature As to Drive Deceased to Suicide – Held: Criminal proceedings against appellant in absence of proximate cause and intent would amount to abuse of process – Acquittal warranted [Paras 20–21]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC quashed – Appellant acquitted – Fine, if deposited, to be refunded – Bail bonds discharged – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case

Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Co-sharer plea – Adverse inference – Concurrent findings – Suit land 32 marlas marked ABCD – Trial Court decreed injunction on possession; First Appellate Court affirmed – Defendant’s belated co-sharer argument inapplicable as he never pleaded joint status and instead set up exclusive claims (7 marlas with himself, 25 marlas with sister) – Non-appearance of defendant warranted adverse inference – No substantial question of law – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 7–13].

Pleadings and Burden – Co-sharer principle not attracted – Legal proposition that one co-sharer cannot injunct another is undisputed, but inapplicable where the defendant’s own pleadings deny jointness and assert exclusive titles in defined portions – Court declines to permit a case beyond pleadings [Paras 8–9].

Evidence – Family partition and possession – First Appellate Court recorded that partition stood admitted even by defence witnesses – Sister (alleged owner of 25 marlas) residing in another village since 1947; no possession proved – Defendant did not enter the witness box; son (DW2) lacked personal knowledge of partition or identification of the alleged 7 marlas – Defence testimony inconsistent and unreliable [Para 10].

Adverse Inference – Non-appearance of a party – Adverse inference against the defendant for not stepping into the witness box, consistent with Prem Sagar v. Darbari Lal and Sardari Lal v. Kartar Singh – Defendant failed to substantiate title or possession; plaintiff’s possession proved – Decrees sustained [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent injunction in favour of the plaintiff maintained [Para 13].