Service Law - Eligibility for Appointment - Academic Qualifications - Interpretation of Advertisement

The Supreme Court held that the appointment of Ganapath Singh as a Lecturer in MCA at Gulbarga University was invalid because he did not possess a postgraduate degree in MCA. The advertisement for the post clearly stipulated the requirement of a postgraduate degree in the relevant subject, which in this context is MCA. The contention that a Masters in Mathematics qualifies as a relevant subject was rejected, as Mathematics is not interchangeable with MCA. The Court emphasized that the language of the advertisement must be given its clear and explicit meaning, and it should not be interpreted to include degrees in related but distinct subjects​​ .

Judicial Review - Role of Expert Bodies - Limits on Judicial Interference

The Court acknowledged the deference typically given to the decisions of expert academic bodies. However, it clarified that such deference does not extend to allowing appointments that violate clearly stated eligibility criteria. The Court underscored that judicial review is warranted when an expert body’s decision is manifestly arbitrary or in contravention of statutory provisions. The Court highlighted that accepting an expert body's decision without scrutiny could lead to unqualified appointments, which is against the principles of fairness and merit​​ .

Decision - Appointment Quashed - Mandamus Issued for Reconsideration

The appeal by Ganapath Singh was dismissed, and his appointment as Lecturer in MCA was quashed. The Court directed the University to reconsider the appointment process and evaluate eligible candidates, including the respondent Shivanand, who possessed a postgraduate degree in MCA. However, the Court modified the High Court's order mandating the direct appointment of Shivanand, stating that the proper procedure should be followed to ensure fairness to all eligible candidates​​ .

Service Law - Eligibility Criteria for Teaching Posts - Interpretation of Advertisement

The Supreme Court held that the qualifications specified in the advertisement for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) must be strictly followed. The advertisement required a B.Ed. degree simpliciter and not a B.Ed. with Specialisation in Vocational Education. The Court found a marked difference between the two degrees, emphasizing that the specialization in vocational education does not fulfill the criteria intended for teaching general subjects at the school level. The High Court erred in equating the two qualifications and directing the inclusion of candidates with B.Ed. with Specialisation in Vocational Education in the selection process​​.

Educational Qualifications - Relevance of Specialization - Applicability to Teaching Posts

The Court clarified that a higher qualification in a different field cannot be substituted for the prescribed qualification unless it falls within the same channel. The decision to include only a B.Ed. degree simpliciter in the advertisement was justified as it was relevant for the duties of an Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade), which did not require vocational training specialization. This distinction was critical to ensure that candidates possess the necessary skills and knowledge for teaching primary subjects effectively​​.

Decision - Setting Aside High Court Judgment - Strict Adherence to Prescribed Qualifications

The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of the High Court, which directed the consideration of candidates with B.Ed. with Specialisation in Vocational Education, was set aside. The Court mandated that only candidates with the specified B.Ed. degree simpliciter, as per the advertisement, are eligible for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade). There was no order as to costs​​.

Quo Warranto – Legality of Appointment – High Court quashed the appointment of the CEO of CESU and ordered recovery of honorarium – Supreme Court examines the legality of the Chairman holding the additional charge of CEO – High Court's decision found flawed as it misconstrued the Scheme and Regulations – Authority to make temporary arrangements upheld [Paras 1-15, 39-41].

Public Interest Litigation – Quo Warranto – Maintainability – PIL challenging service appointments – Supreme Court reiterates that PILs are not maintainable in service matters except for writ of quo warranto – Emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in quo warranto proceedings, focusing on eligibility and statutory compliance [Paras 15-29].

Recovery of Honorarium – Principle of Natural Justice – Supreme Court holds that recovery of honorarium for services rendered cannot be directed in a writ of quo warranto – Denial of remuneration for work done amounts to forced labor, violating Article 23 – Orders for recovery quashed [Paras 42-43].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Directions for recovery of honorarium annulled – Clarifies the scope of quo warranto and maintains the legality of temporary additional charge arrangements under the Scheme [Paras 44-45].

Urban Land Ceiling Act – Occupancy Certificate – Challenge to grant of Occupancy Certificate by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai – Appellants alleged illegalities and fraud by the developer in obtaining the certificate – High Court dismissed the writ petition citing delay, laches, and vexatious proceedings – Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the retention of 37865 sq. ft. of FSI as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) [Paras 1-24].

MOU and Development Rights – Terms of MOU – Appellants' predecessor entered into MOU with developers, granting development rights subject to retaining 37865 sq. ft. of FSI – Appellants claimed the developers misrepresented the status of existing structures – Supreme Court held that Appellants are entitled to retain the specified FSI and existing structures – Occupancy certificate valid except for the reserved FSI area [Paras 3-23].

Procedural Fairness – Administrative Authority's Duty – Supreme Court emphasized that while granting Occupancy Certificates, administrative authorities must examine the MOU and other relevant documents to ensure certificates are issued to rightful owners, minimizing litigation [Para 10].

Decision – Special Leave Petition partly allowed – High Court's judgment upheld with modifications – Occupancy certificate and No Objection Certificate valid for the plot except for 37865 sq. ft. reserved for Appellants as per MOU – Directions for authorities to respect reserved FSI and existing structures [Paras 22-24].

Public Interest Litigation – Quo Warranto – Integrity of SEBI Chairman

Petitioner filed for writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of U.K. Sinha as SEBI Chairman, alleging lack of integrity and manipulations in the selection process. Supreme Court held the Chairman of SEBI must be a person of high integrity as mandated by Section 4(5) of the SEBI Act, given the crucial role SEBI plays in the securities market [Paras 1-31].

Administrative Law – Eligibility Criteria – SEBI Chairman

The Court scrutinized the eligibility criteria under Section 4(5) of the SEBI Act, requiring the Chairman to be a person of ability, integrity, and standing. The Court emphasized that the selection process must ensure the appointment of individuals who meet these stringent requirements [Paras 2-30].

Mala Fide Allegations – Burden of Proof

Supreme Court reiterated that the burden of proving mala fide lies heavily on the petitioner. The Court examined the detailed allegations and found no substantial evidence to prove mala fide intentions in U.K. Sinha’s appointment [Paras 50-49].

Decision:

The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the appointment of U.K. Sinha as Chairman of SEBI. The Court highlighted the paramount importance of SEBI's role and the necessity of appointing a person of high integrity to its leadership [Para 31].

Fixation of Pay – Re-employed Pensioners – Ex-servicemen

Respondent, an ex-serviceman re-employed as a Clerk by the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, challenged the re-fixation of his pay which was initially fixed incorrectly. The Supreme Court upheld the rectification of the pay fixation under the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Reemployed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, as the Respondent’s initial pay fixation granted undue benefit from his past military service, contrary to Order 4 of the Orders [Paras 3-12].

High Court's Error – Tribunal's Decision Reinstated

Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition, ignoring the relevant provisions and the option exercised by the Respondent, which did not entitle him to include his military service for higher pay fixation. The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which upheld the corrected pay fixation, was reinstated [Paras 10-13].

Recovery of Overpaid Salary – Rectification of Mistake

Supreme Court held that any overpaid salary due to incorrect pay fixation must be recovered, and accounts should be settled accordingly. The rectification of errors in pay fixation is necessary to prevent undue benefits [Para 12].

Decision:

Appeal allowed. The High Court's order was quashed, reinstating the Tribunal's order upholding the corrected pay fixation dated 13th October 1998 [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Murder and Rape Conviction – Respondents convicted of gang rape and murder of a girl. Trial court’s judgment affirmed by the High Court. Supreme Court evaluates the credibility of the approver’s testimony, considering corroborative evidence to uphold the conviction [Paras 1-88].

Approver's Testimony – Reliability and Corroboration – Sole eyewitness, the approver, provided detailed accounts of the crime. Court examines consistency and corroborative elements such as the recovery of the motorcycle and the deceased’s belongings. Despite inconsistencies, the corroboration of key details validates the approver’s testimony [Paras 15-24].

Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Discovery of Facts – Importance of the discovery of the motorcycle and the deceased’s bag based on information from the accused. The admissibility of these discoveries as corroborative evidence, despite the delay and custody of the accused [Paras 21-22].

Section 306 of CrPC – Pardon to Accomplice – Evaluation of the legality and reliability of the pardon granted to Rajesh (PW-1). The court clarifies that an accomplice’s testimony is admissible even if not fully self-incriminating, provided there is corroboration in material particulars [Paras 15-17].

Sentencing – Death Penalty Review – The trial court's imposition of the death penalty scrutinized under the "rarest of rare" doctrine. The Supreme Court converts the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for special reasons considering both the crime and the criminal [Paras 24-25].

Decision:

Appeal allowed in part – Conviction under Sections 376(2)(g) and 302 read with Section 34 IPC upheld – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC maintained [Para 25].

Public Administration – Civil Service Reforms –

Supreme Court addresses the necessity of creating an independent Civil Service Board (CSB) at the Centre and State levels to regulate transfers and postings of civil servants, ensuring their stability and independence. Recommendations based on various reports, including the Hota Committee and the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission, highlight the need for statutory backing for such boards [Paras 1-12].

Fixed Tenure for Civil Servants –

Necessity for a fixed tenure to ensure stability and efficiency in administration is emphasized. The court directs the Union and State Governments to implement measures for providing minimum tenure of service to civil servants within three months [Paras 13-16, 30-31].

Recording of Instructions –

Mandate for civil servants to record all instructions and directions received, especially verbal orders, to prevent arbitrary and illegal decisions. This practice is essential for ensuring transparency, accountability, and protection from undue influence by political and other vested interests [Paras 17-19, 32-33].

Right to Information (RTI) Act –

Compliance with RTI Act necessitates that all instructions and decisions must be recorded to uphold citizens' rights to information. The court directs all States and Union Territories to implement rules similar to Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 [Paras 34-35].

Decision:

The writ petitions are disposed of with directions to the Union, State Governments, and Union Territories to constitute Civil Service Boards with high-ranking serving officers within three months, secure fixed tenure for civil servants, and ensure the recording of all instructions and directions. Compliance with these directives is necessary to improve public administration and uphold the integrity of civil services [Paras 29-36].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death –

Appellant convicted for dowry death under Section 304B IPC. Supreme Court evaluates the evidence, particularly the dying declarations and the statements of the deceased's relatives, to determine the presence of dowry-related cruelty soon before death [Paras 2-4, 10-12].

Dying Declarations – Medical Condition –

Court assesses the medical condition of the deceased to determine her ability to give dying declarations. The testimonies of medical experts and police officers confirm that the deceased was in a condition to speak when the declarations were recorded [Paras 5, 8-10].

Section 304B IPC – Cruelty in Connection with Dowry –

Analysis of whether the cruelty inflicted on the deceased was connected to dowry demands. Evidence fails to establish that cruelty was linked to dowry soon before death, leading to a conclusion that the requirements for Section 304B IPC are not met [Paras 11-12, 14-15].

Conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC –

Court finds sufficient evidence of cruelty and abetment of suicide under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. Appellant's conduct is established as willful and of such nature as likely to drive the deceased to suicide, warranting convictions under these sections instead of Section 304B IPC [Paras 15-17].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 304B IPC set aside. Appellant convicted under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, sentenced to one year imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 498A IPC, and three years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Sentences to run concurrently [Paras 17-18].