Service Law – Regularization of Special Police Officers – Appellants were appointed as SPOs under Section 17 of the Police Act, 1861 during a period of disturbance in Punjab – Supreme Court held that the relationship of master and servant existed between the appellants and the State – Directed the State to regularize their services by creating necessary posts within three months, entitling them to all service benefits of similar posts [Paras 1-38].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 16 – Equal Opportunity and Non-Arbitrariness – Court emphasized that the failure to regularize the services of the SPOs, who had been working for decades, constituted arbitrary action by the State – Regularization cannot be denied merely due to the absence of sanctioned posts, which the State has the authority to create based on need [Paras 13-35].

Public Employment – Compliance with Recruitment Procedures – The initial appointments of the appellants were made following a rational and statutory procedure, thus differentiating their case from those involving irregular appointments as discussed in the Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [Paras 22-33].

Financial Implications – The State's Argument on Financial Burden – The State's claim that financial implications prevent regularization was rejected as the wages for the SPOs were being paid by public sector banks, which utilized their services – The State can demand the banks to meet any additional financial burden arising from regularization [Para 36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments under appeal set aside – State directed to regularize the services of the appellants within three months, providing them with benefits similar to regular police officers – Costs of Rs. 10,000 awarded to each appellant [Paras 37-38].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Written Statement – Defendants sought to amend their written statement to include a claim for a sum of Rs. 4,19,509.43 as an equitable set-off – Plaintiffs opposed, arguing it was an impermissible counterclaim or set-off – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision allowing the amendment, recognizing the claim as equitable set-off connected to the same transaction [Paras 1-18].

Equitable Set-Off – Requirements and Discretion – Equitable set-off is distinct from legal set-off and is governed by principles of equity, justice, and good conscience – Requires mutual debts and credits or cross-demands arising out of the same transaction or connected in nature and circumstances – Discretionary for the court to allow based on the specifics of each case [Paras 11-16].

Legal Set-Off – Conditions Under CPC – Legal set-off under Order 8 Rule 6 requires an ascertained sum of money legally recoverable, involving the same character of parties in both claims – Equitable set-off, being independent of CPC provisions, does not strictly adhere to these conditions [Paras 11-16].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – High Court's allowance of the amendment affirmed as equitable set-off – Suit to be expedited and disposed of within one year from the date of the judgment [Para 18].

Service Law – Incentive Increment – Respondent-employee, reemployed as a Male Nurse, sought an incentive increment for his wife's pre-reemployment sterilization – Central Administrative Tribunal denied the claim based on a policy excluding re-employed individuals from such incentives for pre-reemployment sterilizations – High Court overturned this, directing the increment – Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing the reasonableness and purpose of the policy to control population growth through incentives only for current service period [Paras 3-14].

Government Policy – Judicial Interference – Supreme Court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in interfering with government policies aimed at broader social objectives, like population control – Highlighted the rational connection between the policy and its intended purpose [Para 14].

Precedent – Mistakes in Individual Cases – Court clarified that mistakes in individual cases, like the one cited by the High Court (Vijay Kumar's case), do not set binding precedents, especially when special reasons for such decisions are unspecified [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Tribunal's decision upheld – No costs awarded [Para 14].

Constitutional Law – Equality Before Law – Petitioner, a permanent resident of Delhi, challenged the eligibility criteria for postgraduate medical courses in Uttarakhand, which favored domiciles and those admitted through Uttarakhand State PMT – Supreme Court found the criteria discriminatory and violative of Article 14 – Ordered a fresh Information Bulletin to be issued and admissions to be redone [Paras 1-16].

Admissions Policy – Institutional Preference – Court reiterated that while institutional preference is permissible, it should not violate equality principles – Cited previous rulings affirming that residential or domicile-based preferences for postgraduate courses contravene Article 14 [Paras 10-15].

Precedents – Relevant Case Law – Reaffirmed principles from Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others and Magan Mehrotra and Others v. Union of India and Others, emphasizing merit over residential preferences for higher education admissions [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of the Eligibility Criteria in the Information Bulletin quashed – Admissions based on these criteria declared void – Fresh admissions to be conducted by end of August 2013 [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Dying Declarations – The deceased, Sudesh, made two dying declarations (Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-10) implicating the respondent, Santosh Savita, in pouring kerosene and setting her on fire – Supreme Court found these declarations credible and corroborated by both direct and circumstantial evidence – High Court's reliance on inconsistent statements and disregard for the dying declarations deemed erroneous [Paras 13-16].

Evidence – Admissibility and Reliability – Dying declarations recorded by the ASI and a doctor considered valid despite the absence of a Magistrate – Court emphasized the relevance of dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act when supported by other evidence [Paras 16-19].

Criminal Responsibility – Intention and Knowledge – While the respondent's actions led to Sudesh's death, the Court found insufficient evidence of an intent to kill – Conviction altered to Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) due to reckless actions likely to cause death [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's acquittal set aside – Respondent convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to six years of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 2000, with a default clause of two months' additional imprisonment [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Murder – Appellant Bakhshish Singh conspired with Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh to murder Gurcharan Singh, Chairman of "Khandi Friends Educational Trust" – High Court affirmed convictions and life sentences of all accused under Sections 302 and 120B IPC – Supreme Court upheld the judgments, finding sufficient evidence of conspiracy and motive [Paras 1-37].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Kulwinder Kaur (PW 1), wife of the deceased, witnessed the attack and identified Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh as the assailants – Court found her testimony reliable despite minor inconsistencies, noting her close observation during the traumatic event [Paras 19-21].

Circumstantial Evidence – Corroboration – Recovery of blood-stained dagger, scooter, and clothing at the instance of the accused corroborated the eyewitness testimony – Court dismissed contentions regarding discrepancies and emphasized the consistency of core prosecution evidence [Paras 22-31].

Motive – Hostility and Control of Trust – Prosecution established Bakhshish Singh’s motive rooted in animosity and desire to control the trust – Evidence showed Bakhshish Singh's threats and his absence from India on the day of the crime as part of the conspiracy [Paras 32-34].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgments upheld – Convictions and life sentences under Sections 302 and 120B IPC affirmed – Bakhshish Singh directed to surrender to undergo remaining sentence [Paras 36-37].

Civil Procedure – Transfer of Proceedings – Appellant-wife sought transfer of divorce proceedings from Hyderabad to Kakinada citing difficulty in managing travel and work – High Court dismissed the petition considering the appellant's employment status – Supreme Court found High Court’s reasoning unsustainable, noting the impact on the appellant's professional duties and the inequity of expecting her to bear the inconvenience while contesting the divorce [Paras 1-6].

Employment and Travel – Practical Implications – Supreme Court highlighted the adverse effects on the appellant’s job due to frequent travel and the need for leave to attend court hearings – Emphasized that the respondent-husband's convenience should not outweigh the professional and personal hardships faced by the appellant [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Discretion – Equitable Relief – Court emphasized the need for a practical and balanced approach in considering transfer petitions, ensuring that one party is not unduly disadvantaged [Para 5].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Divorce proceeding (O.P. No. 1256 of 2011) transferred from Family Court, Hyderabad to Family Court, Kakinada [Para 6].

Service Law – Time-Bound Promotion – Appellant received a time-bound promotion in 1998, which was canceled in 2009 on grounds of non-fulfillment of the required promotional examination – Single Judge set aside the cancellation, noting the promotion was not obtained through fraud or misrepresentation – Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s decision – Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s order, emphasizing no fault on the part of the appellant [Paras 1-11].

Administrative Law – Non-Retroactive Application – Court highlighted that the appellant passed the required examination in 2007, two years before the cancellation of his promotion – Reiterated principles from earlier judgments restricting recovery or cancellation of benefits unless obtained through fraudulent means [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability – Relied on Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Bijay Bahadur and Anr. and Purshottam Lal Das and Others v. State of Bihar and Others – Distinguished from Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Others due to lack of mutual mistake or fault on the appellant's part [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Division Bench judgment set aside – Single Judge’s order reinstating the appellant’s promotion upheld – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Eyewitness Testimony – Appellant convicted for firing a shot that killed Bharat Mondal – High Court upheld conviction based on testimony of Avik Mondal (PW-1), brother of the deceased – Supreme Court found inconsistencies in the evidence and lack of corroboration from other witnesses [Paras 1-13].

Eyewitness Credibility – Discrepancies in Testimony – Testimony of Avik Mondal (PW-1) not corroborated by another brother, Badal Mondal (PW-3), whose evidence was found unreliable – Court emphasized the need for credible and corroborated eyewitness testimony in serious criminal cases [Paras 8-10].

Lack of Recovery and Forensic Evidence – No recovery of weapon or ballistic evidence linking the appellant to the crime – Absence of physical evidence weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 11-12].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal of Co-Accused – Court noted that the trial and High Court acquitted 13 out of 14 accused – Similar evidence used against all accused should have led to appellant's acquittal as well [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 13].