Civil Writ - Recruitment Examination – Challenge to Second Written Test under Madrasah Service Commission – Writ Petitions Dismissed – The batch of writ petitions was filed challenging the notices dated 05.08.2024 and 09.08.2024 issued by the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission, which allowed previously eliminated candidates from the 2011 selection process to appear in a second written test – Petitioners, who had cleared the 2011 written test, alleged that holding a second test after publication of interview call list was contrary to judicial directions in Soumen Malakar’s case – The High Court examined the legality of the Commission’s decision under Section 10 of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 and Clauses 15 and 16 of the 2010 Recruitment Rules – Held: No violation of prior judgments, decision to hold second written examination justified in public interest, writ petitions dismissed [Paras 1-2, 123-127].

Recruitment Process – Scope of Judicial Review – Legitimacy of Commission’s Corrective Action – Writ Petitions Dismissed – The petitioners challenged the notices dated 05.08.2024 and 09.08.2024 issued by the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission allowing 73,978 candidates, previously eliminated due to evaluation errors, to appear in a second written test – The Court held that prior decisions in Soumen Malakar’s case and in MAT 907/2018 were confined to directions for publishing pending results and did not preclude the Commission from rectifying genuine evaluation errors – Held: The Commission’s decision to hold a second written test was reasonable, transparent, consistent with public interest, and passed the tests of Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality; challenge to the Commission’s notices and process rejected [Paras 80-102].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Public Interest Supersedes Individual Expectation – Doctrine Not Violated – Petitioners who had appeared in the 2011 written test had no enforceable right to prevent the rectification of evaluation mistakes – Held: Legitimate expectation must yield to larger public interest in recruitment to public posts – The Commission’s action fulfilled constitutional obligations under Articles 14 and 16 to ensure fair recruitment [Paras 105-111].

Constitutional Principles – Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) – Upholding Equality and Non-Arbitrariness – The Court applied the principles of equality, non-arbitrariness and the doctrine of level playing field to validate the Commission’s corrective action – Held: The Commission’s decision to conduct a second written examination was consistent with its duty to eliminate wrongful exclusion of candidates and ensure fairness in public employment [Paras 106-116].

Recruitment Rules – Interpretation of Clauses 15 and 16 – Multiple Written Tests Permissible – Despite absence of express provision for re-tests, the Commission’s action to conduct a second written examination was upheld considering the absence of prohibition and the larger goal of fairness – Held: Recruitment rules must be interpreted in the context of fairness and rectification of administrative errors [Paras 117-122].

Level Playing Field – Comparative Analysis of Question Papers – No Evidence of Discrimination – Petitioners’ claim of unequal evaluation due to two phases of written tests was rejected after a comparative analysis of question papers by the Court – Held: Same standard was maintained; no violation of Article 14 or discrimination established [Paras 119-120].

Final Direction – Court Upholds Recruitment Process – Dismissal of Writ Petitions – The Court directed the Commission to complete the selection process within 21 working days – Held: No merit in the petitions challenging the selection process, all writ petitions dismissed with consequential directions for finalisation of appointments [Paras 123-127].

Civil Law  – Eviction Suit – Challenge to Registered Will – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiffs 2 to 4 (second wife and her daughters) claimed ownership through a registered holograph Will executed by the original plaintiff (father) – Trial Court decreed eviction against the first defendant (son through first wife) and First Appellate Court upheld the Will’s validity – Second Appeal dismissed holding that the Will was duly proved through attesting witnesses and no suspicious circumstances existed – Findings of both Courts held to be legal and valid – No substantial question of law arose for consideration [Paras 1, 12, 33, 45-47].

Testamentary Law – Holograph Will – Greater Presumption of Authenticity – Will written in testator’s own handwriting carries higher presumption of genuineness – Held: Execution of holograph Will (Ex-A8) registered at Sub-Registrar’s Office at Madurai stands proved through credible testimony of two attesting witnesses – Will was written by the testator (a retired Sheristadar) in a sound state of mind – Registration at a place other than his residence does not create suspicion – No infirmity in Will’s execution [Paras 29-33, 38].

Suspicious Circumstances – Mere Disinheritance Not Sufficient – Legal Heirs Omitted from Will – Not Suspicious Per Se – Appellant argued that exclusion of eight children born through first wife renders Will suspicious – Held: Mere exclusion of natural heirs is not sufficient to invalidate a Will – Proven strained relationships, adversarial litigation history, and cohabitation with second wife and her daughters explained the exclusion – No valid suspicion arose – Courts correctly relied on Supreme Court precedents [Paras 34-37].

Evidence Law – Section 68, Indian Evidence Act – Attesting Witnesses Credible – Witnesses Not Beneficiaries – Held: Testimony of attesting witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 was consistent and credible – Both affirmed execution in testator’s presence – Witnesses were not beneficiaries under the Will – No contradiction or bias established – Proof requirements under Sections 63 of Succession Act and 68 of Evidence Act duly met [Paras 31-33, 40].

Judicial Findings – No Perversity – Concurrent Findings Based on Evidence – Held: Both lower Courts analyzed oral and documentary evidence and concluded validity of Will – No perversity or illegality found in such concurrent findings – Second Appeal does not warrant interference under Section 100 CPC [Paras 45-47].

Second Regular Bail – Sections 307, 324, 323, 506, and 34 of the IPC - Extended Custody and Near Completion of Trial – Bail Granted – The petitioner, accused of attempted murder in a familial dispute, sought bail after over three years in custody – The Court found the prosecution evidence nearly concluded, with only one witness left, reducing risk of tampering – Held: Prolonged pre-trial detention unjustified when evidentiary phase nearly complete; bail granted with conditions [Paras 3, 6-8].

Fair Trial Rights – Right to Defence – Bail Facilitates Defence Preparation – The Court emphasized the accused’s right to fair trial includes proper preparation of defence, which is hampered by extended custody – Held: Bail necessary to ensure robust defence in adversarial criminal proceedings [Para 6].

Second Bail Petition Maintainable – Change of Circumstances – The earlier bail plea was withdrawn; present plea justified by extended incarceration and completion of prosecution evidence – Held: Second bail petition maintainable on changed circumstances; Court followed principles laid in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana [Para 7].

No Criminal Antecedents – Age Consideration – Accused aged 69 years with no past criminal record – Held: Advanced age and absence of prior offences weigh in favour of bail [Paras 3, 6].

Conditions Imposed – Safeguards Against Misuse – Bail subject to strict conditions: no tampering of evidence, no absence from trial, no re-offending, surrender of passport, and mandatory mobile number registration with investigating agency [Para 8].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition Allowed – The Court allowed the petition, granted regular bail with standard and additional safeguards; State/complainant granted liberty to seek cancellation upon any violation [Paras 8-10].

Writ Petition – Challenge to Acquisition by Subsequent Purchaser – Bar of Locus Standi – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged e-auction notification and sought declaration over property acquired under 1971 final notification – Court held that the petitioner, being a purchaser 25 years post-acquisition, has no right to question acquisition proceedings – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents barring subsequent purchasers from assailing acquisition – Held: Petitioner lacks locus standi, writ petition dismissed [Paras 10-14].

Acquisition Proceedings – Long Delay in Challenge – 53-Year Delay Rendered Claim Stale – The Court noted that the acquisition notification was issued in 1971 and the petitioner approached court only in 2023 after a gap of 53 years – Such inordinate delay disentitles equitable relief – Held: Petition hopelessly delayed and legally untenable [Paras 14-16].

Possession and Title – Absence of Documentary Proof – No Substantiation of Ownership – The petitioner failed to demonstrate possession of site no. 828 in Sy.No.54/1 or proof of exclusion from acquisition – Court held no credible evidence to establish title or exclusion of land from acquisition – Held: Petitioner's claim unsustainable on facts and law [Paras 9-15].

Supreme Court Precedents – Binding Nature on High Court – Division Bench and Coordinate Bench Judgments Overridden – Court clarified that precedents of the Supreme Court govern the issue, overriding High Court decisions cited by petitioner – Held: Supreme Court judgments conclusively bar post-notification purchasers from challenging acquisition [Para 15].

Decision of the Case – Petition Dismissed with Dissolution of Interim Order – The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit – Interim orders stood dissolved and connected applications disposed of [Para 16].

Criminal Law - Concurrent Running of Sentences – Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Direction Issued – Writ Petition Allowed – The petitioner challenged the cumulative sentence of nine years resulting from six convictions under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, all awarded on the same day on basis of plea bargaining – The Court noted non-exercise of discretion under Section 427 CrPC by the trial court despite simultaneous conviction – Following Supreme Court’s ruling in Iqram v. State of U.P. (2023) 3 SCC 184, it was held that absence of direction on concurrent sentencing leads to violation of personal liberty – Held: Sentences directed to run concurrently to prevent unjust prolonged incarceration [Paras 1-14].

Section 427 CrPC – Judicial Duty to Consider Concurrent Sentences – Court emphasized that Section 427(1) CrPC mandates judicial consideration of concurrent or consecutive sentencing during subsequent convictions – Trial Court failed in its duty to exercise such discretion even though all convictions were on the same day by the same Judge – Held: Trial Courts must exercise judicial discretion while awarding sentences, particularly where convictions are simultaneous [Paras 7-11].

Plea Bargaining and Writ Jurisdiction – Right to Constitutional Remedies – The Court clarified that though judgments rendered under Chapter XXI-A CrPC (plea bargaining) are not appealable under Section 265-G CrPC, the remedy under Article 226 is available where failure to exercise sentencing discretion leads to injustice – Writ jurisdiction invoked to protect the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 8-13].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – The Court quashed the cumulative consecutive sentencing and directed that all six sentences of one year and six months each shall run concurrently – Jail authorities directed to release the petitioner upon fulfillment of sentence period considering concurrency of imprisonment [Paras 13-15].

Bail Appeal – Group Assault – Sections 118, 117 of BNS and SC/ST Act – Bail Granted – The appellant challenged rejection of bail under multiple sections of BNS, 2023 and SC/ST Act alleging injuries inflicted during an altercation – The High Court observed no specific role was initially attributed to the appellant and the parties had since entered into a compromise – The appellant had undergone over five months of incarceration, the investigation was complete, and the trial was yet to commence – Held: Considering the compromise, prolonged custody, and absence of adjudication on merits at the pre-trial stage, the appellant was granted regular bail, subject to conditions [Paras 3-8].

SC/ST Act – Accused Himself Belonging to Scheduled Caste – Prima Facie Non-Applicability – The appellant contended being from a Scheduled Caste himself, hence, provisions of SC/ST Act were not applicable – The Court noted this contention without deciding on merits, considering it was a bail stage and such issues would be decided during trial [Paras 3, 7].

Compromise Between Parties – Impact on Bail – Role in Assault Disputed – The complainant affirmed compromise and settlement of disputes arising from misunderstanding – The Court held that though the allegations were serious, the settlement weighed in favour of granting bail – Held: Settlement between parties is a valid consideration in bail proceedings, especially where custodial trial would be prolonged [Paras 4-8].

Custodial Detention – Right to Liberty – Prolonged Detention Without Trial – The Court emphasised the principle of liberty where the appellant had been in custody since 28.01.2025 with no substantial trial progress – Held: Further pre-trial incarceration not justified, bail granted [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Bail Granted – The appeal was allowed and appellant ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial court – Court clarified that non-furnishing of bail bonds within one week would exclude further custody counting in the present case [Paras 8-9].

Panchayat Reconstitution – Constitution of New Panchayats – Article 243 and Section 4 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 – Challenge to Notification Failed – The petitioners challenged the notification issued by the State Government creating two new Panchayats, Pinjarzadi and Panchmauli, by bifurcating Burudkhe Panchayat – The Court held that the State Government acted in accordance with law, following due consultation process and in compliance with Section 4 of the Act of 1959 – Held: Petition dismissed, impugned notification upheld [Paras 2-15].

Scheduled Area – Protection of Status – No Violation – Petitioners contended that the Scheduled Area status of Burudkhe Village was affected by the notification – Court clarified that inclusion in Scheduled Area was of the ‘village’ under the Scheduled Areas (Maharashtra) Order, 1985 and not the Panchayat – The notification did not affect the Scheduled Area status of the village, thus contention was rejected [Paras 13-14].

Naming of Panchayats – Largest Population Criteria – The petitioners sought retention of Burudkhe Panchayat – Court held that as per Section 4 of the Act of 1959, Panchayats must be named after the village with the largest population – Panchmauli had a higher population than Burudkhe, hence Panchayat rightly named Panchmauli – Held: No arbitrariness in naming [Para 12].

Consultation Requirement – Compliance Established – On the question of mandatory consultation, Court referred to precedents and confirmed that required consultation with the Gram Sabha and Standing Committee was duly undertaken before issuing the notification – Held: Mandatory procedural requirement was fulfilled [Paras 9-11].

Executive Power of State – Valid Exercise of Power – Court upheld the exercise of power by the State under Article 154 of the Constitution, clarifying that issuance of notification in the name of the Governor constitutes valid executive action of the State – Held: No procedural infirmity [Para 14].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – The Court found no merit in the petitioners' objections on procedural or constitutional grounds and dismissed the petition affirming the legality of the bifurcation of Panchayat and naming as per law [Para 15].

Family Law - Senior Citizens Act – Right of Residence – Interplay with Domestic Violence Act – Tribunal’s order upheld – Petitioners (daughter-in-law and relatives) challenged Maintenance Tribunal’s order under Senior Citizens Act permitting 2nd respondent (mother-in-law) to reside on first floor of same building occupied by petitioners on ground floor – Petitioners relied on Apex Court decision in Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner to contend right to shared household under PWDV Act cannot be defeated – Held: Vanitha does not bar invocation of Senior Citizens Act where no prejudice is caused to protection order under PWDV Act – Separate entrances and floors ensured no interference with petitioners’ rights – Tribunal’s order sustained [Paras 8].

Maintainability – Daughter-in-law within definition of “children” – Purposive interpretation applied – Petitioners contended proceedings under Senior Citizens Act not maintainable against daughter-in-law – Court held that purposive interpretation of “children” in Section 2(a) includes daughter-in-law when in possession of property and relief sought is for senior citizen’s residence – Refusal would defeat object of Act to provide speedy remedy – Telangana High Court’s decision in Deepika H. followed [Paras 9-12].

Apprehension of Harassment – Not a ground to deny senior citizen residence in own property – Petitioners argued past incidents of harassment justify denial of residence – Court noted 2nd respondent’s undertaking to reside only on first floor with separate access – Petitioners free to seek remedies under Section 31 PWDV Act or alternate accommodation under Section 19(f) if protection order violated – Mere apprehension insufficient [Paras 13].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Ext.P10 order of Maintenance Tribunal permitting 2nd respondent’s residence on first floor upheld [Final Para]

Criminal Contempt – Publication of Scandalous Remarks – Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act – Conviction Upheld – The respondent posted a series of derogatory and scurrilous statements on Facebook targeting sitting Judges of the Kerala High Court, alleging political bias, improper motives, and judicial dishonesty – The Court held that attributing such motives to Judges adversely affects public confidence in the administration of justice and amounts to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Act – Evidence included Facebook posts marked Exts.C3 to C7 and oral testimony of two prosecution witnesses – Held: Respondent guilty of criminal contempt [Paras 2-5, 9-10, 27-29, 45-46].

Fair Criticism vs. Scandalising the Court – Limits of Free Speech – Article 19 of the Constitution – Justification Rejected – The Court noted that while fair criticism of judgments is permissible, imputing improper motives to Judges and making baseless allegations undermines the integrity of the judiciary – Defence of fair comment and truth was rejected as the respondent failed to substantiate allegations – Reliance placed on precedents including E.M. Sankaran Nampoothiripad v. Narayanan Nambiar, D.C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India – Held: Freedom of speech cannot be used as a shield for scandalising the Court [Paras 34-44].

Repeated Contempt and Absence of Remorse – Effect on Sentence – The respondent, previously discharged in an earlier contempt case upon tendering unconditional apology, resumed similar conduct within a short time – The Court found the respondent’s shifting stand (admitting authorship in affidavit but denying during evidence) to reflect absence of bona fide – Considering previous conduct and contumacious attitude, the Court imposed a deterrent sentence – Held: Respondent sentenced to 3 days simple imprisonment and Rs. 2000 fine under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [Paras 4-5, 29, 45-49].

Punishment in Contempt – Scope of Court’s Discretion under Section 12 – Sentence Justified – The Court declined to suspend the sentence under Section 19(3) of the Act in view of the seriousness of the offence, the respondent’s repeated misconduct, and absence of genuine remorse – Held: Prayer for suspension of sentence rejected; immediate execution of sentence directed [Paras 48-50].

Decision:

The Court convicted the respondent under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 3 days and a fine of Rs. 2000; in default, a further one-month simple imprisonment; application for suspension of sentence was rejected.