Service Law - Recruitment – Fresh Written Test – WBMSC Notices dated 05.08.2024 & 09.08.2024 – Validity – Original 2011 exam covered 26,445 candidates; later, 73,978 found wrongly excluded due to answer key error – WBMSC held fresh written test in 2024 – Appellants (2011 candidates) argued second test barred by earlier Division Bench orders; Respondents contended correction necessary – Held: Commission empowered to rectify error; subsequent writ petitions cannot bar equitable relief to wrongly excluded candidates – Fresh written test upheld [Paras 90-100, 118-119].

Res Judicata vs. Precedent – Application – Earlier Division Bench orders (2020, 2023, 2024) dealt only with extension of time to complete process; no categorical prohibition on fresh test – Observations therein were not ratio decidendi but obiter; cannot operate as res judicata against Commission – Appellants’ plea rejected [Paras 37-40, 63-67].

Natural Justice – Inclusion of Left-Out Candidates – Screening error wrongly excluded 73,978 otherwise eligible candidates – Denial of opportunity after 14 years would cause grave prejudice – Allowing them a fresh written test ensured level playing field – Commission acted fairly; no mala fides established [Paras 71-79].

Recruitment Rules, 2010 – Compliance – Written exam and personality test structure under Rules 16-19 maintained; Commission excluded 24,577 already successful candidates from re-test to avoid prejudice – Process not arbitrary or discriminatory – Findings of Single Judge affirmed [Paras 43-44, 70].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – WBMSC notices of 05.08.2024 & 09.08.2024 and subsequent recruitment process including fresh written exam and merit list upheld – No interference warranted – Pending applications disposed [Paras 100-103, 119].

Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Upheld – Appellant charged with murder of deceased on pretext of repaying loan of ₹10,000 – Prosecution proved circumstances: last seen together, appellant returning alone in blood-stained clothes, extrajudicial confession, recovery of weapon at his instance, seizure of deceased’s articles, medical and forensic corroboration – Chain of evidence complete and consistent with guilt of accused – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC sustained [Paras 9-19].

Homicidal Death – Medical Evidence – Post-mortem established cut-throat injury by sharp weapon sufficient in ordinary course to cause death – Burns were post-offence attempt to destroy identity – Finding of homicidal death affirmed [Para 10].

Motive – Loan of ₹10,000 – Evidence of deceased’s sister and father proved loan taken by appellant for his sister’s marriage – Though absence of documentary proof, oral testimony found credible – Motive sufficiently established [Para 11].

Last Seen Theory – Section 106 Evidence Act – Deceased last seen with appellant around noon, appellant returned alone shortly after with blood-stained clothes – Burden on accused to explain circumstances – No explanation offered – Last seen theory accepted as strong incriminating circumstance [Paras 12-14].

Extrajudicial Confession – Admissibility – Appellant voluntarily confessed before neutral witnesses when confronted – Not made under inducement, threat, or coercion – Corroborated by recovery and medical evidence – Reliance justified [Para 15].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Knife recovered from ashes at instance of appellant – Chemical examination confirmed presence of human blood – Seizure of deceased’s mobile, voter ID, and purse from appellant further corroborated – Admissible discovery evidence strengthens prosecution case [Para 16-17].

Injuries on Accused – Medical report proved incised injuries on appellant’s hands consistent with struggle by deceased – Accused failed to explain injuries – Circumstance adds to chain of guilt [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC affirmed – Life imprisonment and fine upheld – Chain of circumstances formed complete and unbroken proof of guilt [Para 19].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Material Alteration – Sections 87, 138, 118(a), 139, NI Act – Cheque issued for ₹7 lakhs returned unpaid for “insufficient funds” – Accused admitted issuing cheque but alleged alteration in account number and limited liability of ₹1.92 lakhs – Evidence (CW1 testimony) confirmed alteration from CD-5956 to CD-6033 without drawer’s authentication – Held: Alteration in name/account of payee constitutes material alteration under Section 87; cheque rendered void; no liability arises on its dishonour. Acquittal [Paras 18-27].

Presumption under NI Act – Rebuttal – Sections 118(a), 139, NI Act – Presumption of consideration and liability arises on issuance of cheque – Presumption is rebuttable; once evidence of alteration and lesser liability is shown, presumption stands displaced – Complainant failed to prove subsisting legally enforceable debt of ₹7 lakhs – Cheque unenforceable [Paras 28-29].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Sections 397 & 401 CrPC – High Court ordinarily does not reappreciate evidence in revision – However, where concurrent findings of courts below ignore material alteration rendering cheque void, interference is justified – Conviction and sentence set aside; complaint dismissed; accused acquitted [Paras 13-17, 30-32].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act set aside – Complaint dismissed – Accused acquitted – Petitioner to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A CrPC (Section 481 BNSS, 2023) for ₹25,000/- with one surety, effective for six months [Paras 32-33].

Criminal Law - Human Trafficking – Sections 366, 366B, 370, 370A(2) IPC – Conviction Upheld – Victim alleged that she was brought from Bangladesh by Sumi, handed over to Subir Jana, and later to Surya Pradhan in Bhubaneswar where she was forced into prostitution – Victim identified both appellants in Test Identification Parade and in court – Medical report corroborated repeated sexual assault – Held: Victim’s testimony consistent, reliable, and trustworthy – Conviction sustained [Paras 14, 17, 19, 27-28].

Victim’s Sole Testimony – Corroboration Not Mandatory – Courts observed that the testimony of a prosecutrix in sexual offences can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires confidence – Minor discrepancies in statements under Section 164 CrPC do not undermine substantive evidence – Reliance placed on Gurmeet Singh (1996), Rajinder @ Raju (2009), Manga Singh (2019), Vinod Kumar Garg (2020) – Held: Victim’s account trustworthy; corroboration not required [Paras 20, 22, 24-26].

Test Identification Parade – Validity – Defence argued that presence of police vitiated TIP and identification doubtful – Held: TIP conducted by Magistrate following due procedure; 30 under-trials of similar height, build and complexion included – No evidence that police influenced victim – Report reliable; identification corroborates victim’s testimony – Delay in holding TIP not fatal [Paras 15, 26-27].

Contradictions and Omissions – Not Material – Defence highlighted inconsistencies between FIR, Section 164 statement, and trial testimony – Court held that contradictions not material and did not affect core allegations – Statement before Magistrate corroborated gist of victim’s testimony – Cross-examination failed to discredit victim – Held: Minor contradictions natural due to lapse of time, do not weaken prosecution case [Paras 14, 17-18, 22].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 366, 366B, 370, 370A(2), and 120B IPC affirmed – Both appellants to continue serving sentence [Paras 27-28].

Employment Dispute – Maintainability of Civil Suit – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Specific Relief Act – Single Judge rejected plaint holding specific performance of employment contract barred under Section 14 SRA – Division Bench held rejection unsustainable since plaint also sought damages of ₹2 crores for arbitrary and mala fide termination and reputational harm – Cause of action disclosed, and rejection of part of plaint not permissible – Suit restored [Paras 2, 5-10].

Civil Procedure – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Not Permissible – Court reiterated that plaint must be read as a whole; partial rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC impermissible – Relief for damages independent and maintainable even if reinstatement barred – Hence, plaint could not be rejected in entirety [Paras 6, 10].

Employment Law – Termination – Allegations of Mala Fides and Procedural Impropriety – Plaintiff pleaded arbitrary suspension, sham enquiry, collusion of senior officials, and reputational harm by public removal from workstation – Such allegations constituted triable issues requiring adjudication – Rejection of plaint at threshold erroneous [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of Single Judge set aside – Suit restored to file for trial – Parties directed to appear before Single Judge (Roster Bench) on 16.09.2025 [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Section 256 CrPC – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act – Acquittal Set Aside – The Magistrate had dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused for absence of complainant and counsel on two dates – The High Court held that such dismissal was harsh and in violation of principles of natural justice – Explained that complainant had been diligent for most hearings and absences were due to mistaken dates and Court officer's error – Held: Order of dismissal and acquittal is quashed – Complaint restored for decision on merits [Paras 4-11].

Natural Justice – Opportunity to be Heard – Compliance Mandated – The High Court reiterated that an opportunity must be given to both complainant and accused to contest the case on merits – Emphasized procedural fairness and the complainant’s right to present evidence – Held: Court below failed to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice by dismissing the complaint without considering bona fide reasons for absence [Paras 6, 9, 10, 11].

Restoration of Complaint – Costs Imposed – Appellant Directed to Proceed Without Adjournments – The Court restored the Summary Criminal Case No.1989/2019 to its original stage and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court – The appellant directed to deposit Rs.2,000/- as cost payable to the respondent and cooperate in speedy trial – Next hearing scheduled on 22/09/2025 [Para 12].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Ss. 118(a), 139 – Rebuttal – Complainant alleged advancing ₹2,50,000/- loan, cheque dishonoured for “insufficient funds” – Accused admitted issuing cheque but claimed it was blank and misused; pleaded he borrowed only ₹50,000/- and repaid – Complainant’s income shown as ₹20,000/month; no documents or ITRs produced to establish financial capacity – Held: Presumption under Ss.118(a), 139 is rebuttable; complainant’s financial incapacity raised a probable defence; presumption stood displaced – Trial court’s acquittal upheld [Paras 14-21].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Section 378 CrPC – High Court can interfere with acquittal only if judgment suffers from patent perversity, ignores material evidence, or is wholly unreasonable – Trial court took a possible view on evidence, doubting complainant’s financial capacity – No perversity found – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-13, 22].

Financial Capacity – Burden on Complainant – Principles from Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant (2022) 6 SCC 735, Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, Dattatraya v. Sharanappa (2024) 8 SCC 573, John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham (2014) 2 SCC 236 – Where complainant fails to prove capacity to lend, accused entitled to acquittal – Applied to present case [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal confirmed – No interference warranted [Para 23].

Service Law – Absorption on Takeover – Special Officer (CAPE) vs. Senior Superintendent (DME) – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Petitioner appointed as Special Officer under CAPE, probation declared post-takeover; later downgraded to UDC by Govt. order – Tribunal dismissed challenge citing lack of proof of equivalence – High Court noted crucial documents (Exts.P9 & P10) recommending creation of Senior Superintendent post to accommodate petitioner were withheld – Held: Tribunal erred in ignoring these – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 10–18].

Qualification Dispute – MBA as Postgraduate Degree – To Be Examined by Tribunal – Notification required Post Graduation + MBA – Govt. disputed MBA as PG – Court held issue of qualification and equivalence must be considered afresh along with absorption claim [Paras 7–13].

Parity Claim – Vanishing Category Posts – Engineers Retained, Officer Downgraded – Petitioner argued Engineers allowed to continue as vanishing category; same principle should apply – Court held Tribunal must examine parity argument in light of policy documents and Govt. practice [Paras 8–13].

Final Order – Tribunal’s judgment dated 04.03.2025 in O.A. No.79/2020 set aside – Case remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration with Exts.P9 & P10 and observations of Court – OP allowed [Para 18].

Specific Relief Act  - Agreement to Sell – Claim of Earnest Money by Stranger – Concurrent Findings Against Plaintiff – Dismissal Upheld – Appellant claimed to have paid ₹46,85,625/- as earnest money and to have inserted respondent no.1’s name in agreement dated 14.10.2011 in good faith – Both Trial and First Appellate Courts held that agreement (Ex.P1) showed respondent no.1 as buyer and no evidence supported appellant’s plea – Bank records proved earnest money was paid by respondent no.1 from funds withdrawn from his and his wife’s accounts – Held: No cogent evidence by appellant; concurrent findings sustained [Paras 2–9].

Scope of Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – Findings of fact by both courts below that appellant was never part of transaction and consideration flowed from respondent no.1 – High Court found no substantial question of law arising – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 9–10].

Final Decision – Writ for Declaration/Recovery – Relief Denied – In absence of proof of involvement or payment by appellant, suit rightly dismissed; second appeal also dismissed – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].