Service Law – Appointment – Appellants, having secured qualifying marks in LDCE for promotion to Section Officer's Grade, were denied appointment – Despite DoP&T's requisition for six candidates to fill vacancies, UPSC forwarded only three names – Supreme Court found this arbitrary and discriminatory – Mandated UPSC to forward names of next three candidates including the appellants [Paras 1-19].

Public Employment – Filling Vacancies – Legal position affirmed that inclusion in select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment – However, when vacancies are available and requisitioned within permissible limits, non-recommendation of qualifying candidates is unjustified – Directive for filling vacancies to avoid discrimination and ensure fair opportunity [Paras 12-18].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court and Tribunal orders set aside – Mandamus issued to UPSC to forward names of next three candidates – Appellants to get seniority from date of Rajesh Kumar Yadav's appointment – Pay fixed notionally without arrears [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Appeal against acquittal of the respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting bribe – High Court acquitted on grounds of insufficient evidence and possible tampering – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision, citing procedural and evidentiary shortcomings [Paras 1-11].

Evidentiary Standards – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act – Mere recovery of money insufficient without substantive evidence of demand and acceptance – Prosecution failed to establish a foolproof case [Paras 7-10].

Witness Credibility – Testimony of Complainant – Considered partisan and unreliable without independent corroboration – Supreme Court emphasized careful evaluation of complainant’s evidence due to vested interests [Para 8].

Procedural Lapses – Trap Case – High Court noted procedural irregularities and inconsistencies in the prosecution's trap case – Executive Magistrate’s testimony highlighted discrepancies in planning and execution [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s acquittal upheld – Supreme Court emphasized adherence to stringent evidentiary and procedural standards in corruption cases [Para 11].

Review Jurisdiction – Grounds for Review – Review petition filed by Kamlesh Verma challenging the quashing of the FIR against Ms. Mayawati – Supreme Court reiterated the narrow scope of review jurisdiction – Review is maintainable only on grounds of discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons analogous to those specified – Review dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent or new evidence [Paras 1-25].

Review Principles – Error Apparent on the Face of Record – Court emphasized that an error must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument to establish – Reiteration of existing arguments and disagreement with the view taken in the original judgment does not constitute grounds for review [Paras 7-12].

FIR Quashing – Jurisdiction and Directions – The original judgment correctly interpreted the scope of directions regarding the Taj Corridor case – No specific direction to investigate disproportionate assets of Ms. Mayawati – FIR quashed as the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction [Paras 20-24].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – No sufficient grounds for review established – Court upheld its original decision quashing the FIR against Ms. Mayawati [Para 25].

Stamp Duty – Deficient Stamp Duty – Agreements for sale executed by the appellant impounded for deficient stamp duty – Deputy Registrar referred the matter for adjudication – Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) directed payment of deficit stamp duty, penalty, and interest – High Court modified the amount of deficit stamp duty and penalty but upheld the requirement for payment of deficient stamp duty – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision [Paras 2-18].

Stamp Act – Applicability of Provisions – Conjoint reading of Section 28 and Article 5 (b-1) of Schedule 1B of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable to Uttarakhand mandates payment of stamp duty on 50% of the value of consideration of the sale agreement – Appellant’s argument based on Sections 2, 3, and 10 rejected due to state amendment – Section 33 invoked correctly for impounding documents [Paras 10-14].

Cancellation of Agreements – No Relief – Subsequent cancellation of agreements within two months does not nullify action taken under Sections 33/38 of the Stamp Act for deficient stamp duty at the time of presentation for registration [Para 17].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No further relief granted – High Court’s decision regarding deficit stamp duty and reduced penalty affirmed [Para 18].

Environment Law – Coastal Regulation Zone – Vembanad Lake identified as a Critically Vulnerable Coastal Area (CVCA) under CRZ Notification 2011 – Appellant's property classified as Filtration Pond (FP) and included in CRZ-I – Appellant challenged the inclusion and classification as ultra vires CRZ Notification 1991 and 2011 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision maintaining the classification and inclusion under CRZ-I based on scientific evidence and larger public interest [Paras 1-25].

CRZ Notifications – Validity and Application – CZMP prepared based on guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) – CZMP 1995 classified Vettilla Thuruthu as FP and included it in CRZ-I – High Court and Supreme Court found no illegality in the map and techniques used for classification – Satellite imagery and expert reports supported the classification [Paras 6-21].

Construction Regulations – Demolition Orders – Appellant's constructions found in violation of CRZ Notification 1991 and 2011 – High Court directed demolition of illegal constructions to protect Vembanad Lake's ecological sensitivity – Supreme Court upheld demolition orders [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Directions for demolition of illegal constructions in CRZ-I maintained [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Appeal against the acquittal of the accused previously convicted of murder – High Court reversed the conviction on the grounds of non-mentioning of the accused’s name in the FIR, non-disclosure of the accused’s name by the deceased, and the non-examination of certain witnesses – Supreme Court held the High Court’s reasoning as flawed and restored the trial court’s conviction [Paras 1-34].

FIR and Witness Testimony – Non-Mentioning of Accused’s Name – The Supreme Court reiterated that non-mentioning of the accused’s name in the FIR is not fatal if the name surfaces at the earliest opportunity during investigation – Emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence over minor discrepancies [Paras 19-24].

Evidence – Minor Discrepancies – Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies should not undermine the overall credibility if the testimonies are trustworthy – The Court stressed that evidence should be read as a whole, and undue emphasis on minor contradictions is unwarranted [Paras 28-29].

Non-Examination of Witnesses – Non-examination of certain witnesses, including a treating doctor, does not necessarily affect the prosecution’s case if the available evidence is credible and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 30-31].

Non-Recovery of Weapon – The non-recovery of the weapon used in the crime is not detrimental to the prosecution’s case if there is ample ocular and corroborative evidence establishing the accused’s guilt [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment of acquittal set aside – Trial court’s conviction restored – Respondent directed to surrender to custody to serve out the sentence [Para 34].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Grant of anticipatory bail by Additional Sessions Judge based on opinion that no case under Section 326 IPC was made out due to the simple nature of injuries – Supreme Court held it was premature to form such an opinion as the investigation was still ongoing and the weapon had not been recovered – The Court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the source of the weapon and bullets used in the offence [Paras 2-12].

Anticipatory Bail – Judicial Discretion – Court reiterated that judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail must be exercised with caution, especially in serious offences where investigation is incomplete and the accused may not cooperate – Highlighted the necessity of custodial interrogation in such cases [Paras 8-12].

Criminal Investigation – Recovery of Weapon – Emphasized the importance of recovering the weapon used in the commission of the offence to establish the nature of the crime and the involvement of the accused – The Court found fault with the lower court's decision to grant bail without such recovery [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondents set aside – Respondents given liberty to apply for regular bail before the trial court, to be considered in accordance with law [Para 12].

Compassionate Appointment – Scheme Change – Respondent applied for compassionate appointment after the death of his father, an employee of the appellant bank – During the pendency of the application, a new scheme came into force providing for ex-gratia payment instead of compassionate appointment – Supreme Court held that the case should be considered under the new scheme, not the old one, as the scheme does not create a vested right [Paras 2-15].

Service Jurisprudence – Compassionate Employment – Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the general rule of employment and is intended to alleviate the immediate financial crisis of the deceased's family – It cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is subject to the conditions of the scheme in force at the time of consideration [Paras 5-9].

Change of Policy – Vested Rights – A scheme change does not affect vested rights unless the previous scheme created a vested right – The new scheme must be applied to pending applications unless otherwise specified [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgments set aside – Respondent directed to apply for consideration under the new scheme – Appellant to consider the application as per the new scheme within three months [Paras 14-15].

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].