Education Service – Appointment of Principal – Requisition Sent to Board – The petitioners challenged the transfer orders appointing other individuals as Principals in intermediate institutions – The petitioners contended that once the requisition for appointment had been sent to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board in accordance with Rule 11(4) of the 1998 Rules, the vacancy could not be filled by transfer – Held: Once requisition for a post is sent to the Board, the vacancy cannot be filled by transfer – The saving clause in Section 31(2) of the 2023 Act protects actions taken under the 1998 Rules, and the vacancies must be filled through the selection process initiated by the Board [Paras 19-24].

Saving Clause – Section 31(2) of the 2023 Act – The respondents argued that the transfer was permissible under the 2023 Rules, specifically relying on Rule 28(5), which allows for a single transfer in special circumstances – Held: Section 31(2) of the 2023 Act, being a saving clause, preserves actions taken under the 1998 Rules, including the requisition sent to the Board – Transfers cannot override the selection process already initiated under the 1998 Rules [Paras 22-25].

Appointment Process – Role of Management – The management’s authority to appoint by transfer ceases once the requisition is made to the Board – The court emphasized that the process of determining vacancies and notifying them to the Board is mandatory, and once the Board is notified, the management cannot alter the process or make appointments through transfer [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Writ petitions allowed – The transfer orders dated 28/06/2024 are set aside – The posts of Principal must be filled through the selection process under the Rules of 1998 as protected by Section 31(2) of the 2023 Act [Paras 26-28].

Murder – Criminal Liability – Conviction for Murder under Section 302/34 IPC – Life Imprisonment – The appellants were convicted for the murder of the deceased, who was assaulted with a knife – The primary appellant, Diplal Rai, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on consistent eyewitness accounts from the deceased’s daughters (P.W.-3 and P.W.-5) – The court upheld his conviction and life sentence – However, co-appellants Anil Rai and Krishna Rai were acquitted due to insufficient evidence linking them to the actual assault, as there was no clear role attributed to them in causing the fatal injuries [Paras 20, 33-36].

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility of Family Members as Witnesses – Testimony of the daughters of the deceased was held reliable and consistent with the medical evidence – The court reiterated that family members' testimony cannot be disregarded solely on the basis of their relationship with the victim, especially when corroborated by material evidence [Paras 19, 22, 23].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal of Co-Accused – The co-accused, Anil Rai and Krishna Rai, were acquitted as the evidence failed to conclusively prove their involvement in the fatal assault – Minor discrepancies in the testimonies did not amount to falsity, and the benefit of doubt was given to these appellants [Paras 28, 35].

Compensation – Victim Compensation Scheme – The court upheld the trial court’s direction to provide compensation to the widow and daughters of the deceased under the Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 – Compensation was ordered to be paid within two months by the Siwan District Legal Services Authority [Paras 45, 46].

Decision: The appeal by Diplal Rai (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1241 of 2019) was dismissed, and his conviction and life sentence were upheld.

The appeals by Anil Rai and Krishna Rai (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1152 of 2019 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1171 of 2019) were allowed, and they were acquitted of all charges.

The Siwan District Legal Services Authority was directed to pay compensation to the victims (the widow and daughters of the deceased) within two months.

Service Law - Delay and Laches – Writ Petition Filed After 14 Years of Retirement – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner retired in 2010 and sought relief in 2024 for the grant of promotional increment on completing 23 years of service – The Court dismissed the petition due to inordinate and unexplained delay of 14 years, citing principles of delay and laches established in several Supreme Court rulings, which hold that a belated claim for service benefits cannot be entertained [Paras 6-19].

Promotion and Salary Refusal – No Fresh Cause of Action – The petitioner’s reliance on previous judgments was found inapplicable, as the case involved stale claims – The Court reiterated that repeated representations do not extend the limitation period for claiming benefits, and the petitioner had failed to raise the issue during his service or shortly after retirement [Paras 17-19].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, with no merit in the petitioner’s claim for promotional increment.

Criminal Law – Acquittal in Murder Case – Section 302 IPC – Appeal Against Acquittal Allowed – The trial court acquitted the accused based on alibi and lack of motive, finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient – The High Court, upon re-evaluating the testimonies and the material evidence, including the recovery of the weapon, held that the trial court erred in relying on unproven documents and incomplete defense evidence – The plea of alibi was not substantiated adequately [Paras 10-20].

Plea of Alibi – Burden of Proof – Defense Failed to Prove Alibi – The defense presented photocopied military records to prove the presence of certain accused at Roorkee at the time of the crime – The Court rejected the plea of alibi, emphasizing that primary documents and author testimony were not provided to validate the defense's claim [Paras 15-17].

Witness Credibility – Eye Witness Testimony – The Court restored the conviction based on the consistent and corroborated testimony of the eyewitness, PW-13, which matched the events described in the FIR – The Court found no contradictions in the witness's account, and his testimony remained unshaken during cross-examination [Paras 21-22].

Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the acquittal was set aside. The case was remanded for sentencing of the accused in light of the restored conviction under Sections 302, 149 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Motor Accident – Negligence and Compensation – Petition Dismissed – The appellant, Harbans Kaur, was injured when a scooter driven by Darshan Lal allegedly struck her leg, causing crush injuries and a blunt head injury – The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) dismissed her claim, finding insufficient evidence to link the accident with the scooter driven by Darshan Lal – On appeal, the High Court upheld the MACT's decision, emphasizing the lack of immediate police reporting, delayed complaint, and contradictory statements regarding the transfer of vehicle ownership [Paras 10-15].

Delay in Filing Claim – Adverse Impact – The claim petition was filed more than three years after the accident, raising doubts about the credibility of the incident – The delay in filing, combined with the absence of a timely police report and the eventual registration of a complaint only after the petition was filed, contributed to the Court's decision to dismiss the claim [Paras 14-16].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision to deny compensation was upheld.

Anticipatory Bail – SC/ST (PoA) Act – False Implication – Bar Under Section 18 - The appellants sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the charges were filed as a counterblast to an incident involving political rivalry and that they were falsely implicated – Held: Based on the material, including the FIR, the parties were found to be living in inimical terms, raising doubts about the veracity of the complaint – False implication cannot be ruled out, and anticipatory bail granted despite the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act – Decision: Anticipatory bail granted [Paras 6-8, 12-14].

Custodial Interrogation – No Need Established – Bail Granted - The prosecution did not establish the need for custodial interrogation, and the accused in a connected case were already granted bail – Anticipatory bail granted with conditions – Decision: Anticipatory bail granted [Paras 9-10, 18].

Evaluation of Prima Facie Case – SC/ST Act – No Bar on Anticipatory Bail - In evaluating whether a prima facie case under the SC/ST (PoA) Act existed, the court found insufficient evidence to apply the statutory bar under Section 18, following precedents such as Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Subhash Kashinath Mahajan – Bail granted – Decision: Anticipatory bail granted [Paras 11, 16-17].

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Departmental Inquiry – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, a Bulldozer Operator, was compulsorily retired following a departmental inquiry for misbehaving with committee members during an interview process, being intoxicated during work hours, and other charges – On appeal, the dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement – The Court upheld the order, noting that the inquiry was conducted per the rules and natural justice principles, and all dues had been released to the petitioner [Paras 7-12].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Court Not an Appellate Authority – The Court reiterated that in disciplinary matters, the scope of judicial review is confined to ensuring compliance with procedural rules and natural justice – The Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with factual findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence [Paras 9-13].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the order of compulsory retirement was found to be valid, and all admissible dues had been released.

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – Long Pre-trial Incarceration – Speedy Trial – The petitioner, charged with offenses under Sections 302, 307, 324, 379, 411, 483, 506, 34, and 120-B of the IPC, sought bail after being in custody for over 4 years. Only 5 out of 21 witnesses had been examined in that period – Held: The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, coupled with the absence of any strong indication that the petitioner would tamper with witnesses, justified the grant of bail. The protracted incarceration without meaningful trial progress was deemed unjustifiable – Bail granted, subject to strict conditions to ensure the petitioner’s attendance at trial and to prevent witness tampering [Paras 6-11].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution of India – The right to speedy trial, embedded in Article 21, requires that an accused should not be subjected to indefinite pre-trial detention. Relying on judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the court reiterated that prolonged delay without justifiable reasons infringes upon personal liberty. In this case, the petitioner’s long detention of over 4 years warranted his release on bail in the absence of trial progress [Paras 7-9].

Decision:
The bail petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. Stringent conditions, including reporting to the police and restrictions on influencing witnesses, are imposed to ensure the petitioner’s compliance during the trial. The State is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail if any of these conditions are violated or if the petitioner engages in further criminal activity [Paras 12-13].
 

Criminal Law – POCSO Act – Discharge – Absence of Sexual Intent – Revision Petition Allowed – The petitioner, a college student, was charged under the POCSO Act for allegedly entering the victim's house and attempting to force her to revive a past relationship – The Trial Court rejected his discharge plea – Held: Upon examination of the evidence, including the victim’s and her mother’s statements, it was found that no sexual intent or assault occurred – The Court further noted that the petitioner and the victim had been in a consensual relationship during their school years, and the case arose from a failed attempt by the petitioner to revive the relationship – The victim and her family expressed a lack of interest in pursuing the case, and no credible evidence of house trespass or harm was presented – The petitioner was discharged from the case [Paras 5-7].

Victim’s Consent to Withdraw Case – No Sexual Assault Proven – The Court observed that both the victim and her mother appeared before the Court and confirmed that they were not inclined to proceed with the case – Given the absence of evidence indicating sexual assault or trespass, and the victim’s and her family's statements, the case against the petitioner was dismissed [Paras 8-9].

Impact on Petitioner’s Future – The Court held that the case and its outcome would not affect the petitioner’s future employment or prospects, as no substantive offence was proven against him – The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Petitioner discharged – The case and its record shall not be used against the petitioner in any future context, including employment [Para 11].