Service Law – Transfer – Equivalency of Post – Appellant challenged transfer from Associate Professor to Professor post on ground that it was not an equivalent post – Held: Transfer was to a higher-grade post and not disadvantageous – No violation of service conditions or constitutional provisions – Transfer upheld [Paras 18–19, 23]

Administrative Law – Conditions of Service – Executive Authority – Terms of appointment expressly permitted transfer within university jurisdiction – University transfer guidelines mandated minimum five-year service outside Bangalore – Challenge to administrative discretion in issuing transfer found meritless – Tejshree Ghag case distinguished [Paras 20–22]

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 16 – Validity of Transfer – Transfer to higher-grade post with no reduction in pay, rank, or promotional avenues – No civil consequences shown – Transfer not arbitrary or discriminatory – No violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India [Paras 18, 23–24]

Education Law – Definition of ‘Teacher’ – UAS Act – Appellant claimed exemption from transfer as he was not a ‘Teacher’ – Held: Appointed and promoted under teaching cadre – Claimed teaching credits in promotion application – Definition under Section 2(25) of UAS Act applicable – Contention rejected [Paras 25–28]

Service Law – Consent from Government – Validity of Transfer Without Consultation – MoU did not mandate prior consultation with Central Government – University had administrative control – Transfer valid without government approval – Appellant’s claim unsubstantiated [Paras 29–31]

Service Law – Transfer to Another University – Structural Reorganisation – Appellant objected to transfer to V.C. Farm as it later became part of a new university – Held: On the date of transfer, V.C. Farm was under respondent University – Status of absorption in new university not within scope of this appeal [Paras 32–33]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Transfer order upheld – Interim relief vacated – Appellant to be treated on par with other faculty posted at V.C. Farm, Mandya [Paras 35–36]

Mines and Minerals – Quarry Lease – Renewal – Delay – Interpretation of Expiry Date – Application for renewal of quarry lease rejected as being filed after expiry of lease term – Lease expired on 29.12.2013 (a Sunday) – Application filed on 30.12.2013 – Held: By operation of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, where the last day falls on a holiday, act done on the next working day is valid – Application held to be within time – Rejection order unsustainable [Paras 10, 15–17]

Service of Orders – Communication Requirement – Limitation for Revision – Revision petition under Rule 53(1) of 1994 Rules rejected as delayed by more than six years – Petitioner claimed order of rejection dated 18.01.2014 was never communicated and came to know only in 2019 through RTI – Held: No material to show rejection order was ever communicated – Limitation would run from date of communication – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 18–19]

Quarry Lease – Penalty for Delayed Renewal – Acceptance of Application with Fee – Application filed with two demand drafts for renewal fee and security deposit – Prima facie shows compliance with payment requirement – Issue of absence of arrears clearance certificate not sufficient ground for rejection in absence of notice or opportunity – Revisional authority to re-examine [Para 20]

General Clauses Act – Applicability to Lease Renewals – Provisions of Section 10 applicable to statutory time limits for filing applications under mining rules – Sunday falling on last day of lease term entitled petitioner to file application on next working day – Similar approach adopted by High Court in Robo Silicon Ltd. case affirmed [Paras 12–13, 16]

Decision: Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded to Revisional Authority for reconsideration – Petition disposed of with liberty to parties to raise all contentions afresh [Paras 21–22]

Juvenile Justice – Preliminary Assessment – Trial as Adult – The Juvenile Justice Board and the Children’s Court found the revisionist (aged 17 years, 6 months) capable of understanding consequences of the offence under Section 302 IPC and directed trial as adult – Held: Preliminary assessment was not in conformity with Section 15(1) of JJ Act and Rules 10A & 11(2) of the JJ Model Rules – Mandatory requirement to seek assistance from trained psychologists and undertake proper cognitive and emotional intelligence evaluation was not fulfilled – The psychologist’s report was vague and failed to specify tests or findings on IQ or EQ – Assessment was perfunctory and failed to follow mandatory procedural safeguards [Paras 3, 4, 7-10, 28-30, 36].

Juvenile Justice – Guidelines – Need for Framework – Court finds absence of any statutory guidelines or framework defining the process or tools for psychological assessment under Section 15 of JJ Act – Refers to Supreme Court judgment in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 – Guidelines framed by NCPCR (2023) considered insufficient – Held: Until legislature frames appropriate norms, Court lays down detailed mandatory guidelines for Boards and Children’s Courts to conduct proper preliminary assessments of juveniles alleged to have committed heinous offences [Paras 20-25, 34-35].

Juvenile Justice – Role of Psychologist – Assessment Procedure – Psychologist’s report must include specific cognitive and emotional tests like Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence, VSMS, Bhatiya Battery Test etc. – Must state findings on child’s IQ, EQ, social and emotional maturity – Report should aid Board in evaluating physical and mental capacity to commit and understand consequences of the alleged offence – Mere recording of past criminal involvement is insufficient for trying child as adult [Paras 30, 34(i)-(ii)].

Juvenile Justice – Compliance with NCPCR Guidelines – The Court held that Boards and Courts must obtain Social Investigation Report (SIR), Social Background Report (SBR), Individual Care Plan (ICP), and witness statements per JJ Act and Rules – Found that most Boards do not comply with this mandatory documentation during assessment – Directed State Registrar (Compliance) to circulate order to all JJBs and Children’s Courts for strict adherence [Paras 25-27, 39].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Orders dated 04.12.2020 (JJB) and 30.11.2023 (Children’s Court) quashed – Matter remanded to Juvenile Justice Board for fresh preliminary assessment in accordance with detailed guidelines issued by this Court – Direction issued for circulation to all JJBs and Children’s Courts in the State [Paras 36-39].

Family Law – Maintenance to Wife and Minor Son – Justified Separation – Wife alleged harassment, extramarital affair, and addiction issues – Husband claimed wife voluntarily deserted him – Family Court accepted wife’s version supported by criminal complaint and lack of evidence of reconciliation from husband – Held: Justified separation established – Past and future maintenance rightly granted [Paras 12–19]

Maintenance – Past and Future Maintenance – Statutory Right – Family Court awarded ₹5,000/month to each of wife and son for past period of 3 years and ₹3,000/month each as future maintenance in addition to previous award under Section 125 CrPC – Held: Statutory entitlement under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Maintenance proportionate to earning capacity and cost of living – No interference warranted [Paras 20–21]

Property – Creation of Charge – Maintenance Enforcement – Charge created on appellant’s share (1/3rd) in family properties – Held: Justified under law to secure minor child and wife’s maintenance – Appellant’s means established – No proof to rebut wife’s claim of his property interest [Paras 16, 22]

Interest – Modification of Rate – Applicability of CPC – Family Court awarded 12% p.a. interest on past maintenance – High Court held that Family Courts Act read with Section 34 CPC limits post-decree interest to 6% unless commercial – Modified interest to 9% pendente lite and 6% post-decree – Held: Award of 12% interest excessive in absence of commercial element – Interest must be reasonable and within statutory framework [Paras 28–31]

Burden of Proof – No Evidence by Husband – Husband failed to rebut wife’s allegations or prove counterclaims – No legal notice issued for restitution – No documentary evidence to show wife’s independent income – Held: Oral assertions by husband insufficient – Family Court findings sustained [Paras 14, 17, 19]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Interest on past maintenance reduced from 12% to 9% (pendente lite) and 6% (post-decree) – All other findings, including award of maintenance and creation of charge over property, upheld – No order as to costs [Para 32]

Service Law – Premature Retirement – Scope and Procedure – Petitioner, a Head Typist/Computer Assistant Grade-I in OPTCL, was prematurely retired at age 53 under Clause 3(ii) of the OSEB Employees’ Age of Retirement Regulation, 1979 – Review Committee relied on Government guidelines (24.09.2019) intended to weed out inefficient or doubtful integrity employees – Held: Under Para 4 of the guidelines, review of Group-C and D employees can be undertaken only upon attaining age 50 and/or 55 years – Review at age 53 contrary to prescribed procedure – Once procedure is laid down by statute or executive instructions, it must be followed strictly [Paras 6.4–6.6].

Administrative Law – Doctrine of “Manner Prescribed” – Where statute or rule prescribes a mode for exercise of power, it must be done only in that manner or not at all – Principles reiterated from Bernard Francis Joseph v. State of Karnataka, Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja, and Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT – Review Committee acted contrary to mandatory procedure; its recommendation invalid [Paras 2.6–2.9, 6.5–6.6].

Service Law – Adverse Confidential Reports – Communication and Effect – The only alleged adverse remark in CCR for 2016–17 (“very negative attitude”) was never communicated to Petitioner – No other adverse CCR on record – Minor punishment in 2007 followed by successive promotions in 2013 and 2015 – Held: Non-communication of adverse remark vitiates reliance thereon for compulsory retirement; subsequent promotions indicate satisfactory service [Paras 6.7–6.8].

Compulsory Retirement – Judicial Review – Entire service record must be considered; old minor punishment cannot justify premature retirement absent continuing inefficiency or doubtful integrity – Reliance placed on State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, and CISF v. HC (GD) Om Prakash – Action of Corporation arbitrary and without public interest foundation [Paras 6.8–6.9].

Decision: Order dated 09.10.2020 prematurely retiring Petitioner quashed – Petitioner to be reinstated with continuity of service – Break period to be regularized with 50% back benefits – Exercise to be completed within two months [Paras 6.9–6.11].

Custody of Minor – Non-Compliance with Production Order – Discretion under Section 45(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act – Family Court directed mother to produce child before it on 10.09.2025, failing which she was made liable for prosecution and per diem costs – Appellant residing in Sharjah after remarriage pleaded inability to travel due to financial hardship and lack of employment – Held: While the mother and child are bound to submit to jurisdiction of Family Court, insistence on immediate appearance unreasonable given her foreign residence and circumstances – Opportunity granted to appear with child on reopening day of Family Court in January 2026 [Paras 5–9, 11–13, 16].

Guardianship Proceedings – Welfare of Child – Interaction by High Court – High Court interacted with mother and child via online platform – Child expressed desire to reunite with elder sister living with father – Court observed emotional divide between siblings due to parental dispute and directed Family Court to consider best interests of both children during further proceedings [Paras 8–10].

Procedural Fairness – Practical Considerations in Custody Orders – High Court observed that orders requiring international travel by a single parent must consider genuine financial incapacity and logistical limitations – Family Court erred in not accommodating reasonable timelines – Directed parties to cooperate and allowed production of child in January 2026 to ensure compliance without undue hardship [Paras 12–16].

Decision:

Matrimonial Appeal and Original Petition allowed – Impugned orders dated 21.08.2025 (IA 11/2025) and 01.09.2025 (IA 12/2025) of the Family Court set aside – Appellant directed to appear with minor child before Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram on reopening day in January 2026 – Family Court to proceed thereafter as per law after hearing both sides.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Failure of Prosecution to Establish Complete Chain – Appellant convicted for murder of his adoptive parents (D-1 and D-2) – Prosecution case based entirely on circumstantial evidence – No eyewitness – Trial Court convicted relying on appellant’s presence in the house, alleged motive to inherit property, false plea in FIR, and subsequent abscondence – Held: Mere presence of appellant in same house, inconsistent defence, and abscondence are insufficient to establish guilt – Conduct of appellant in lodging FIR, calling neighbours, accompanying deceased to post-mortem, and cooperating with investigation was natural – Chain of circumstances incomplete and incapable of excluding hypothesis of innocence – Conviction based on conjecture and surmise, not legal proof [Paras 13–16, 19].

Motive – Property Dispute – Absence of Cogent Evidence – Prosecution failed to establish any motive for the appellant to kill his adoptive parents – Witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.9 deposed cordial relations between deceased couple and appellant – Trial Court erred in relying solely on P.W.1’s version – Absence of motive weighs in favour of the accused in a circumstantial case [Paras 12, 19].

Second FIR – Legality – Investigation Based on Subsequent Discovery – Second FIR (Ext.17) lodged by Investigating Officer after initial FIR by appellant (Ext.14) held irregular but not illegal – Applying ratio in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 – Proper course was to include appellant as accused in first case rather than register a fresh FIR – Irregularity did not vitiate prosecution in absence of prejudice [Para 17].

Investigation – Informant as Investigating Officer – Bias Allegation – Merely because Investigating Officer was also informant of second FIR does not vitiate investigation – No proof of mala fides or bias – Reliance placed on Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), (2020) 10 SCC 120 and State v. V. Jaya Paul, AIR 2004 SC 2684 [Para 18].

Absconding – Relevance under Section 8, Evidence Act – Mere abscondence cannot establish guilt – Absconding may indicate fear of arrest but is not conclusive proof of guilt – Cited Matru v. State of U.P., (1971) 2 SCC 75 and Sekaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176 [Para 15].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – Prosecution cannot invoke Section 106 to compensate for its failure to prove a complete chain – Burden shifts to accused only after prosecution establishes prima facie case – Court cautioned against reversing burden without foundational proof [Para 16].

Conduct of Accused – Lodging FIR and Accompanying Deceased – Appellant’s conduct found natural and consistent with innocence – His immediate lodging of FIR and cooperation during investigation cannot be treated as incriminating conduct [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled – Trial Court judgment reversed [Paras 19–20].

Scheduled Tribe Certificate – Jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Officer – Act of 2000 – Petitioners challenged rejection of their applications for Scheduled Tribe certificates by SDO and Caste Scrutiny Committee – Held: Under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, SDO is only empowered to issue caste certificates, not adjudicate their validity – Scrutiny of validity lies solely with the Caste Scrutiny Committee under Section 6 – Impugned orders quashed as being without jurisdiction [Paras 10-11, 13].

Caste Scrutiny Committee – Premature Adjudication – Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected appeal treating it as a validity determination – Held: Committee acted beyond jurisdiction by deciding caste validity at appeal stage before certificate was issued – Required to examine only when certificate is referred for verification under prescribed procedure – Action contrary to statutory scheme and binding precedents [Paras 12-13].

Precedent – Identical Issues Already Decided – Reliance placed on prior binding decisions in W.P. No. 7081 of 2024, Namdeo Baburao Ingale, Dhanashree Ravindra Koli and Vishal Namdeo Gopewad – Consistent view that SDO cannot adjudicate caste validity while issuing certificate – Impugned orders quashed following settled position [Paras 10, 13].

Direction to Authorities – Writ Allowed – SDO directed to issue caste certificates to petitioners within three weeks – Scrutiny Committee directed to consider caste validity afresh, without being influenced by earlier findings, if referred as per procedure [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – PC Act Ss. 13(1)(c), 13(2) – IPC Ss. 409, 468, 471 – Allegation that petitioner misused official position as Secretary, TN Legislative Assembly, and claimed travel allowance for private visit – Petitioner obtained Speaker’s permission and undertook travel; no records of meeting with Secretary General, Lok Sabha – Held: Whether trip was private or official is factual issue – Since act reasonably connected with official duty, sanction under Section 197 CrPC mandatory – Cognizance without sanction improper – Prosecution directed to seek sanction by 31.12.2025, failing which petitioner entitled to discharge [Paras 16-21].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Requirement of Sanction – Section 19(1), PC Act – Petitioner had retired in 2011; amendment requiring sanction for former public servants came only in 2018 – Hence, no sanction needed under PC Act – However, CrPC S.197 sanction still required as alleged act connected with official duty [Paras 12-14, 20].

Scope of Discharge – Prima Facie Case – Trial Court dismissed discharge petition without considering sanction issue – High Court held that sanction requirement goes to root of jurisdiction – Without sanction, proceedings cannot continue – Discharge postponed until sanction issue resolved [Paras 10-13, 20-21].

Decision – Criminal Revision partly allowed – Respondent directed to seek sanction by 31.12.2025 – If sanction not obtained, petitioner entitled to discharge – Till then, trial Court not to frame charges [Paras 20-22].