Civil Procedure – Section 100 of CPC, 1908 – Second Appeal – Title dispute over land – Reversal of lower appellate court’s judgment by the High Court – Lower appellate court held that a mere suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable without a declaration of title, where the title was disputed – High Court held that the title of the plaintiff was sufficiently clear and not clouded by the defendant's claims, thus allowing the suit for injunction simpliciter and demarcation – Judgment of the trial court restored. [Paras 1-12]

Revenue Law – Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules – Tahasildar’s jurisdiction – High Court held that the Tahasildar could not correct the Record of Rights (ROR) after its publication based on facts that existed prior to the publication – The defendant’s challenge to the ROR correction was rejected as the proceedings were initiated long after the ROR’s publication, without involvement of necessary parties – Findings of the trial court on the invalidity of the mutation proceedings upheld. [Paras 10-14]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment of the first appellate court set aside – High Court restored the trial court’s judgment, allowing the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction and demarcation – Held that there was no cloud over the plaintiff's title to necessitate a declaration of title. [Para 15-16]
 

Service Law – Recruitment – Seniority – Claim for Appointment and Seniority from 2007 Notification – The petitioner, Vijay Kaushik, applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police under the 2007 recruitment notification but was not selected as he scored 127 marks, one mark below the cut-off of 128. After being appointed under the 2009 recruitment process, he sought seniority from 2007, arguing that unfilled vacancies should have been filled from eligible candidates like himself​.

Unfilled Vacancies and Waiting List – Right to Appointment – The petitioner argued that vacancies left unfilled in 2007 should have been filled from a waiting list. However, the Court held that merely participating in the recruitment process does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, and the respondent is not obligated to fill all vacancies unless a waitlist exists​.

Departmental Candidates – Parity in Appointments – The petitioner also sought parity with departmental candidates who were appointed against unfilled vacancies. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the departmental candidates were appointed under different circumstances, and their vacancies could not be claimed by the petitioner​​.

Decision: The petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the CAT’s decision, stating that the petitioner, having been appointed in 2009, could not claim seniority from 2007. His claims were found to be without merit​.

Railway Accident – Claim for Compensation – Bona Fide Passenger – The appellants, legal representatives of the deceased (Rajbir Singh), sought compensation following his death in a railway accident. The claim was initially dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal due to the absence of a valid ticket. The deceased was allegedly travelling on the train from Tilak Bridge Railway Station when he fell and died after colliding with an electric pole. An RPF constable witnessed the incident.

No Ticket Recovered – Presumption of Bona Fide Passenger Status – The Tribunal rejected the claim based on the non-recovery of a train ticket from the deceased's person. However, the Court held that the absence of a ticket alone cannot negate the claim, especially when other belongings were scattered at the accident site. The principle of preponderance of probabilities was applied, and the Court emphasized that the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger could be presumed, especially in light of evidence such as witness testimony and the location of the body near the platform​.

Untoward Incident – Liability for Compensation – The Court found that the incident qualified as an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. The respondent’s argument that the accident occurred due to the victim’s negligence was rejected. The Court referred to Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, ruling that negligence or contributory negligence does not preclude compensation under the "no fault liability" regime​.

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The deceased was deemed a bona fide passenger, and the case was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal for assessment of compensation. The Tribunal was directed to award compensation within four weeks​.

Maintenance – Limitation on Arrears – The petitioner challenged the order directing him to pay ₹1,20,000 in maintenance arrears, arguing that the claim was time-barred under Section 125(3) CrPC, which limits recovery of maintenance arrears to one year – The Court agreed, holding that the learned Magistrate had erred by ignoring the earlier order recognizing the time limitation – Warrant for recovery of maintenance exceeding one year quashed​.

One-Year Limitation – Section 125(3) CrPC – The Court reiterated that an application for recovery of maintenance must be made within one year from when the amount became due, and the Magistrate cannot issue a warrant for more than one year's arrears​.

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 25.12.2023 set aside – Petition filed by the respondent for maintenance arrears beyond one year dismissed​.

Indian Forest Act – Illegal Transportation of Guchhi – The State appealed against the acquittal of the respondent, who was apprehended while transporting 13.7 kg of Guchhi without a valid permit. The trial court acquitted the respondent on the grounds that the forest produce was being transported on behalf of a third party with a valid permit – The Court upheld the acquittal, observing that the trial court's view was reasonable and based on evidence​.

Expert Testimony – Forest Produce – The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the botanical classification of Guchhi as required under the applicable rules – The forest guard’s testimony lacked the necessary scientific data, making the prosecution's case weak​.

Non-Cognizable Offence – Lack of Police Jurisdiction – It was further held that the police could not have investigated the case without a magistrate’s permission since the offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act are non-cognizable​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld​.

Service Law - Civil Law – Reservation in Promotion – Cadre of Head Teachers – Petition filed challenging the benefit of reservation to scheduled caste candidates beyond their entitled quota in promotions to Head Teachers – Petitioners contended that 20% quota for reserved category candidates had been exhausted – High Court directed the State to ensure that reservation did not exceed the prescribed quota as per R.K. Sabarwal vs. State of Punjab – Held: The State must ascertain the exact number of scheduled caste candidates promoted through reservation and adjust promotions accordingly to maintain parity with the 20% quota [Paras 1-10].

Reservation Quota – Calculation and Application – Petitioners argued that the reserved category candidates were being granted promotions to Head Teacher posts even after exhausting the 20% quota – Respondents countered that the promotions would be made in accordance with the total number of posts, ensuring the 20% reservation was respected – Court observed that promotions beyond 20% quota would not be allowed once all cadre posts had been filled under the roster [Paras 2-8].

Promotion Roster – Operation and Cessation – Court emphasized that once all 319 posts in the promotion quota were filled, the roster system for reservation would stop operating – Further promotions would be made only from the source that vacated the post, ensuring the reserved category did not exceed the mandated percentage [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Petition allowed – The State directed to conduct a review to ascertain the correct number of promotions granted under the reserved category and adjust future promotions accordingly – Promotions exceeding the 20% quota to be discontinued unless a new vacancy arises within the quota [Paras 9-10].

Grant-in-Aid – Reduction of Aid Without Notice – Violation of Natural Justice – The petitioners, government-aided educational institutions, challenged the reduction of their grant-in-aid from 90% to 80% without providing any notice or reasons for the change – Held: The court found that the reduction of grant-in-aid was carried out in violation of the principles of natural justice as no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners nor were any reasons provided for the change in category – The impugned order and minutes of the meeting were quashed as they failed to comply with Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 [Paras 5-8].

Power to Stop or Reduce Grant-in-Aid – Section 7 of the Act – The respondents argued that under Section 7(6) of the Act, the sanctioning authority is empowered to reduce, stop, or suspend grant-in-aid – Held: While the sanctioning authority has the power to reduce grant-in-aid, it must follow the prescribed procedure and provide an opportunity to the institution to show cause – The provision does not allow arbitrary reduction of aid without due process, especially when it has civil consequences affecting the education of students [Paras 6-7].

Requirement of Reasons and Adverse Material – The court emphasized the requirement to provide reasons for administrative actions that have civil consequences – It was noted that the reduction of grant-in-aid and change of category must be supported by adverse material or inspection reports – In this case, the respondents did not present any such evidence, and the impugned action was taken without proper justification [Para 9].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the order reducing the grant-in-aid – The respondents were granted liberty to proceed in accordance with the law if they so choose, provided they follow the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Gang Rape Conviction – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Sections 376D, 458, and 352 of IPC for gang rape and trespass – Trial court sentenced each appellant to 27 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376D, 10 years under Section 458, and 3 months under Section 352, IPC – On appeal, Gauhati High Court finds prosecution’s case riddled with inconsistencies, lack of medical corroboration, and unreliable witness testimonies – Medical examination report showed no signs of injury or recent intercourse – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 27, 28, 29, 41].

Witness Testimony – Reliability of Prosecutrix – Court finds that the testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was inconsistent and lacked corroboration from medical evidence or independent witnesses – The prosecutrix’s version of how the accused entered her house varied between the complaint, her statement under Section 164, CrPC, and her deposition – Court also noted contradictions in the testimonies of related witnesses (P.W.5, P.W.6, and P.W.7), raising doubts about their credibility [Paras 26, 32, 33].

Circumstantial Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Medical report did not support claims of forceful sexual intercourse – Despite the alleged duration of the assault, there were no injuries or signs of struggle on the prosecutrix’s body – Children present at the scene were not examined as witnesses, which further weakened the prosecution’s case – The investigating officer (P.W.8) failed to recover any forensic evidence, such as the kerosene lamp, which the prosecutrix claimed was lit during the incident [Paras 28, 29, 34, 35, 40].

Delay in Lodging FIR – The complaint was lodged four days after the incident – Though the court accepted that the delay might be due to the absence of the prosecutrix’s husband, it observed that the reasons for the delay were not fully explained and might have prejudiced the case against the accused [Paras 25, 38, 39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 376D, 458, and 352 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Appellants to be released from custody if not required in any other case [Paras 42, 43].

Maternity Leave – Working woman employed by RSRTC challenged the denial of 180 days of maternity leave – Court held that the petitioner is entitled to 180 days under the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 – Denial of full maternity leave based on Regulation 74 of the RSRTC Regulations is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution [Paras 9-36].

Constitutional Right to Maternity Leave – Right to maternity leave falls under the purview of Article 21 as part of the right to life and dignity – Court emphasized that limiting maternity leave to 90 days is unconstitutional and violates the equal rights of women employees, as guaranteed under Article 14 [Paras 31-35].

Directive to Amend RSRTC Regulations – The court recommended that RSRTC amend its Regulation 74 to align with the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, which mandates 180 days of leave – Also issued a general mandamus to the Government of India and the Government of Rajasthan to ensure similar provisions in the private and unrecognized sectors [Paras 36-41].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Petitioner granted 180 days of maternity leave with consequential benefits – If granting 180 days leave is impractical due to time elapsed, compensation equivalent to 90 days' salary to be provided [Paras 37-38].