Selection Process – Normalization of Marks – Interview Weightage – Petitioner challenges the selection process of ISRO for the post of Administrative Officer, alleging irregularities in the normalization of marks in the written test and interview – Court holds that the selection process followed laid down procedures, including normalization and interview weightage, which were clearly mentioned in the advertisement – No irregularity found in calling more than three candidates for interview or the allocation of 40% marks to the interview stage – Court concludes that the selection board exercised due discretion in evaluating candidates, and the petitioner’s failure in the interview cannot be grounds for challenging the process after participating in it without objection [Paras 26–30, 35–36].

Challenge to Selection Criteria – Participation in Process Without Objection – The petitioner participated in the selection process and only challenged the criteria after being unsuccessful – Court refers to settled law that candidates who participate in a selection process without raising objections cannot later challenge the procedure after finding themselves unsuccessful – Cites Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2017 (4) SCC 357, to emphasize that candidates are estopped from challenging a process they participated in without protest [Paras 33–34].

Court’s Role in Evaluating Selection Decisions – The Court reiterates that it cannot step into the shoes of the appointing authority to reassess the marks assigned to candidates during interviews – The discretion to evaluate a candidate’s performance in interviews lies with the selection board, and courts should refrain from second-guessing such evaluations unless there is evidence of mala fide intent, which was not present in this case [Paras 35–36].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The Court upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, finding no irregularities in the selection process – The petitioner’s challenge was deemed to lack merit, as he participated in the process without objection and failed to show any mala fide or procedural impropriety [Paras 37–38].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Application under Order XI Rules 12/14 CPC – Challenging Validity of Orders – Petitioner challenged the validity of the orders passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC-II, Pratapgarh, rejecting his application under Order XI Rules 12/14 CPC – Petitioner sought to summon the original Will dated 21.03.1952 allegedly in possession of the respondents – Trial Court and Revisional Court dismissed the application and revision respectively, citing lack of evidence that the Will was in possession of the respondents and undue delay in filing the application [Paras 2, 21, 22, 36].

Misjoinder of Parties – Impleading Judicial Officers – Petitioner incorrectly impleaded the District Judge and Civil Judge as opposite parties – Court cited the precedent in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat and held that judicial officers are not to be made parties as they do not defend their orders in higher courts – Court noted the misjoinder of parties but did not dismiss the petition on this ground since the respondents did not raise an objection during arguments [Paras 8, 9].

Will as Evidence – Secondary Evidence – Petitioner argued that the certified copy of the Will dated 21.03.1952, being secondary evidence, was inadmissible and sought to summon the original – Court held that a certified copy of a Will is admissible under Section 57 of the Registration Act – Petitioner failed to establish that the original Will was in possession of the respondents, and thus the application to summon the Will was dismissed [Paras 33, 35, 40, 41].

Delay in Filing Application – The application under Order XI Rules 12/14 CPC was filed after the extended time for completing the trial had lapsed and after evidence had been concluded – Court held that the application was an attempt to fill gaps in the petitioner’s case and would prejudice the respondent’s rights – Application was filed at an advanced stage of the trial without justifiable cause for the delay [Paras 37, 38].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Court found no illegality in the orders passed by the lower courts – Petitioner's challenge lacked merit and was dismissed – No costs awarded [Paras 42, 43].

Criminal Law – Money Laundering – Legality of Arrest under PMLA – The petitioner, a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly, was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with illegal mining activities, alleging that he benefited from the proceeds of crime – The petitioner contended that the arrest was politically motivated ahead of state elections and challenged the remand orders, asserting that no direct evidence linked him to the crime syndicate after he ceased to be a director of the implicated company – Held: The arrest and remand orders were quashed as the grounds for arrest and reasons to believe were found unsustainable – The court noted procedural lapses in complying with Section 19 of the PMLA, including the absence of concrete evidence directly implicating the petitioner in money laundering [Paras 1-15].

Illegal Mining – Non-scheduled Offence under PMLA – The case against the petitioner primarily rested on allegations of illegal mining, which is not a scheduled offence under the PMLA – The court held that without a scheduled offence, prosecution under the PMLA was untenable – Further, the petitioner had ceased to be a director of the implicated company years before the alleged illegal activities occurred, weakening the link between the petitioner and the proceeds of crime [Paras 12-14].

Political Vendetta – Timing of Arrest – The petitioner argued that his arrest was timed to prevent his participation in upcoming elections, as he had fully cooperated with the investigation prior to his arrest – The court observed that the arrest coincided with the election schedule and that there was no substantial new evidence to justify the arrest at that time – Held: The arrest appeared to be politically motivated and unwarranted under the circumstances [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Quashing of Arrest and Remand Orders – The court quashed the arrest order dated 20/07/2024 and remand orders dated 20/07/2024 and 29/07/2024, directing the petitioner’s immediate release unless required in any other case – The court emphasized that compliance with procedural safeguards under the PMLA is paramount, and violations cannot be justified on political grounds [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Conviction under Section 307 IPC – Modification to Section 326 IPC – Appellants’ Conviction Partially Reduced – The appellants, Sugreev and Ghanshyam, were convicted under Section 307 IPC for causing grievous injuries by firearm to the complainant and his father – Held: The injuries inflicted by Sugreev were on non-vital parts (legs), and medical testimony did not support the allegation of life-threatening injuries – As such, Sugreev’s conviction under Section 307 IPC was reduced to Section 326 IPC, with a sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 – Ghanshyam, whose injury was deemed to be simple and not by firearm, was convicted under Section 323 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC, and as he had already served two years in custody, no further imprisonment was required [Paras 27-35].

Ocular vs. Medical Testimony – Prevalence of Medical Testimony – In cases where there is a conflict between ocular testimony (eyewitness accounts) and medical evidence, the medical evidence prevails if it completely rules out the possibility of the ocular evidence being true – Held: In this case, medical testimony contradicted the claim that the complainant Santosh was injured by a firearm – The court relied on the medical evidence, which indicated that the injury was caused by a hard and blunt object, not a gunshot [Paras 14-17].

Defective Investigation – Not Fatal to Prosecution Case – Allegations of defective investigation, such as missing X-ray reports and delayed witness statements, do not vitiate the trial if the material evidence, including testimonies of injured witnesses, remains reliable – Held: Despite some investigation flaws, the prosecution's case was upheld based on strong injured-witness testimonies and corroborative medical evidence – The appellants' convictions were modified accordingly [Paras 19-22].

Common Intention – Absence of Pre-Determined Common Object – The court ruled that common intention under Section 34 IPC was not applicable as the injuries were caused on the spur of the moment, and there was no evidence of premeditated common object – The appellants were held liable for their individual actions without invoking common intention [Paras 28-29].

Decision:

The criminal appeals are partly allowed.

Sugreev’s conviction under Section 307 IPC is modified to Section 326 IPC, and he is sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000. In default of payment of fine, he will undergo an additional 3 months of imprisonment.

Ghanshyam’s conviction is modified to Section 323 IPC, and as he has already served approximately two years in custody, no further imprisonment is required. A fine of Rs. 1,000 is imposed, and in default, he will undergo 10 days simple imprisonment.

Out of the total fine amount, Rs. 25,000 will be paid to injured Govind, and Rs. 1,000 to injured Santosh as compensation under Section 357(3) of CrPC.

Contract Law – Specific Performance – Temporary Injunction – Appellant sought to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell – Trial court dismissed appellant’s application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC – High Court, on appeal, found that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for interim relief – Respondents had entered into another Agreement to Sell with a third party, which risked causing irreparable loss to the appellant – Held: Appeal allowed and interim injunction granted [Paras 2, 28, 64, 65].

Limitation – Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963 – Whether suit barred by limitation – Respondents contended that the suit was time-barred as it was filed more than 9 years after the Agreement to Sell – High Court held that the question of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law, and the endorsement extending the time for execution of the Sale Deed prima facie extended the limitation period – Held: Suit not barred by limitation [Paras 12, 31, 55, 61].

Reciprocal Obligations – Agreement to Sell – Appellant alleged that the respondents failed to perform their part of the contract by not obtaining government permission for sale and clearing liabilities on the property – Respondents contended that the appellant did not pay the full balance consideration – High Court found that the obligations were reciprocal and the appellant could not be expected to pay the balance amount without the respondents fulfilling their duties – Held: Appellant had not failed in his obligations under the Agreement [Paras 4, 5, 50, 56].

Extension of Time – Endorsement Dated 16.12.2014 – Agreement to Sell initially stipulated that the balance consideration was due by 31.12.2014 – Endorsement made on the Agreement extended the date for registration of the Sale Deed to 01.01.2020 – High Court held that this endorsement was prima facie binding on the respondents and negated their claim that the appellant had defaulted by not paying the balance amount by 31.12.2014 – Held: Endorsement valid and enforceable [Paras 34, 52, 62].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Temporary injunction granted restraining the respondents from alienating, transferring, or creating encumbrances on the suit property pending final disposal of the suit – Impugned order of the trial court set aside [Paras 65].

Bail Cancellation – Alleged Violation of Conditions – Matrimonial Dispute – The petitioner sought the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2, alleging that he had violated bail conditions by threatening her – Held: The alleged violation pertained to a separate incident for which an FIR was filed belatedly, and respondent No.2 had complied with the bail conditions post the Sessions Court's order – Petition dismissed [Paras 9-11].

Delayed FIR – Questionable Credibility – The FIR for the alleged threat by the respondent was lodged 25 days after the incident – The delay in filing the FIR raised doubts about the genuineness of the allegations – Held: The delay in filing the FIR undermined the credibility of the petitioner’s claim of threat [Para 9].

No Grounds for Bail Cancellation – Regular Compliance with Bail Conditions – Respondent No.2 had been regularly attending court and had not violated any conditions since the Sessions Court's previous order – Held: No valid grounds for cancellation of bail were made out – Petition dismissed [Paras 10-11].

Decision:   Petition for cancellation of bail dismissed – Respondent No.2 to continue on bail as per the existing conditions​.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Offence under Section 370(A) IPC – The petitioner, accused as a customer in a brothel case, sought quashing of the proceedings against him under Sections 370(3) and 370(A) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act – The Court observed that for Section 370(A) to apply, the customer must have knowledge that the victim was trafficked – Held: The proceedings for Section 370(A) IPC against the petitioner were upheld, as there was sufficient prima facie evidence – Petition partly allowed, quashing proceedings under Section 370(3) IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, but continuing prosecution under Section 370(A) IPC [Paras 8, 12, 13, 17].

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act – Sections 3 and 5 – Non-applicability to Customers – The Court noted that Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act are aimed at brothel keepers and those procuring women for prostitution, not customers – Held: The petitioner, being a customer, is not liable to be prosecuted under these sections – Proceedings quashed for these offences [Paras 10-12, 15].

Interpretation of Section 370(A) IPC – Customer’s Liability – The Court distinguished between the acts of trafficking and the role of customers – Held: The petitioner was found at the scene of the offence and could be prosecuted under Section 370(A)(2) IPC for engaging in sexual exploitation of trafficked persons – Petition dismissed in this regard [Paras 7, 14, 16].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Proceedings under Section 370(3) IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act quashed – Proceedings under Section 370(A) IPC to continue​.

Employment Law – Ex-servicemen Reservation – Writ petition challenging the cancellation of appointment by State Bank of India (SBI) – Petitioner, an ex-serviceman, secured employment as a primary teacher under the West Bengal Board of Primary Education after availing of ex-servicemen reservation benefits – Petitioner applied for another job in SBI under ex-servicemen category without disclosing his existing employment – Bank canceled his appointment as per the recruitment advertisement and clause (4) of the Office Memorandum prohibiting dual benefit for ex-servicemen – Held: The petitioner’s appointment was rightly canceled, as he violated the declaration requirements for ex-servicemen benefits [Paras 5, 10-15].

Ex-servicemen Status – Dual Employment Benefits – Petitioner admitted in his affidavit that he had already secured employment in a government-aided primary school, but claimed his employment did not fall under “Central Government/Public Sector Undertaking” jobs – Court found the petitioner had benefited from ex-servicemen reservations once, and his status ceased for further re-employment as per the Office Memorandum – Held: Appointment cancellation upheld as per the applicable rules [Paras 3-4, 12-15].

False Declaration – Cancellation of Appointment – Petitioner failed to disclose his employment as a primary teacher in his affidavit submitted to the Bank, despite being aware of the rule prohibiting ex-servicemen from claiming multiple reservations – The omission in the affidavit led to the cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment – Held: The cancellation of the appointment was valid, and the writ petition was without merit [Paras 7, 13-15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – The appointment cancellation by State Bank of India upheld – All connected applications disposed of – No order as to costs [Paras 15-17].

Jurisdiction – Guardianship of Minor – Section 9 of Guardians and Wards Act – The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the guardianship suit before the Ranchi Family Court, arguing that the minor ordinarily resides in Delhi – The trial court rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, stating that jurisdiction was a mixed question of law and fact to be determined after trial – Held: Section 9(1) mandates that the court having jurisdiction is where the minor ordinarily resides, and the minor’s residence in Delhi was an admitted fact – The trial court erred in dismissing the application – Petition allowed, trial court order set aside [Paras 24, 32-33, 55-56].

Jurisdiction – Ordinary Residence of Minor – Admitted Facts – The respondent had previously withdrawn a guardianship petition from Delhi Family Court after admitting that the minor’s ordinary residence was in Shahdara, Delhi – Despite this, the respondent filed a fresh petition in Ranchi, which the petitioner challenged on jurisdictional grounds – Held: When the ordinary residence of the minor is admitted, no inquiry into facts is required, and the trial court’s decision to relegate the issue to trial was erroneous – Jurisdiction lies with the Delhi court [Paras 56-59].

Mixed Questions of Law and Fact – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – The trial court dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that jurisdiction involved mixed questions of law and fact – Held: Where facts, such as the minor’s residence, are admitted, there is no need for an inquiry or trial – The trial court wrongly dismissed the application, and the order is quashed [Paras 63-64, 68].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of the Constitution – The High Court exercised its powers under Article 227 to set aside the lower court’s erroneous decision, emphasizing the admitted facts and improper interpretation of the Guardians and Wards Act – Held: The trial court misapplied Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, failing to appreciate the admitted facts and the correct legal position [Paras 62-67].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 10.04.2024 of the Additional Family Court-II, Ranchi, in O.M. Case No. 539 of 2023 quashed – Respondent given liberty to file a fresh petition in a court having jurisdiction – No costs [Paras 69-71].