Service Law – Post Graduate Medical Courses – In-Service Quota – Eligibility: The Supreme Court held that there is a clear distinction between junior resident doctors who completed their undergraduate medical courses at ESIC institutions and regularly recruited Insurance Medical Officers (IMO-II). The in-service quota for postgraduate medical courses is justifiably reserved for regularly recruited IMO-II doctors and not for junior resident doctors serving under a bond​​.

Institutional Preference – Postgraduate Medical Education – Legal Validity: The Court reiterated that institutional preference in postgraduate medical admissions is permissible and constitutional as upheld in previous judgments (Pradeep Jain v. Union of India and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India). However, the decision to provide such institutional preference lies within the policy realm of the respondent-authority and cannot be mandated by the Court​​.

Difference in Recruitment and Employment Nature: Junior resident doctors are appointed on a contractual basis to fulfill bond conditions after completing their undergraduate courses, whereas IMO-II doctors are recruited through a formal selection process and serve as permanent employees. This fundamental difference justifies the reservation of the in-service quota for the latter category​​.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that junior resident doctors cannot claim parity with regularly recruited Insurance Medical Officers (IMO-II) for the benefit of the in-service quota for postgraduate medical courses. The in-service quota is reserved for IMO-II doctors due to their permanent employment status and continued service in ESIC institutions post their postgraduate studies​​.

Employment Law – Regularization of Services – Deceased Employee – Respondent’s claim for regularization of her deceased husband’s services after 12 years from his death – High Court directed State to regularize services one day prior to death for pensionary benefits – Supreme Court held deceased was not entitled to regularization at the time of death due to lower seniority – Regularization policy required seniority-based regularization as per vacancy – High Court’s direction deemed unsustainable [Paras 2-5].

Pensionary Benefits – Entitlement Posthumously – Claim for family pension based on posthumous regularization – Supreme Court emphasized that entitlement to regularization and consequent pensionary benefits must adhere to policy and seniority rules – Regularization not feasible after death if not eligible during lifetime – Appeal allowed setting aside High Court’s judgment [Para 4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment directing regularization one day prior to death and awarding family pension set aside – Original writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 5].

Bail – Cancellation – Criteria – The appeal addresses the cancellation of bail granted to the accused, highlighting misuse of liberty, influence over witnesses, and potential threat to the complainant. The Court emphasized that bail can be cancelled if the accused misuses his liberty by engaging in similar criminal activity, attempts to tamper with evidence, influences witnesses, evades court proceedings, or if any facts emerge post-grant of bail that are unconducive to a fair trial [Paras 24, 26-27].

Misuse of Bail – Influence and Threat – The respondent No. 2, a student leader, misused his liberty post-bail by displaying his influence through social media and posters celebrating his release. This conduct caused a bona fide fear in the complainant regarding the fairness of the trial and potential influence over material witnesses. The Court found this behavior sufficient to cancel the bail [Paras 28-30].

High Court’s Failure – Inadequate Reasoning – The High Court's order granting bail was criticized for lack of cogent reasons and failure to consider the criminal antecedents of the respondent No. 2, thereby leading to its reversal by the Supreme Court. The importance of providing reasons for granting bail, especially in serious offenses, was reiterated [Paras 26, 27].

Decision: Bail Cancelled – The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to respondent No. 2, directing him to surrender within a week. The Court clarified that observations made are limited to the bail context and do not influence the trial's merits [Paras 31-32].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Fraudulent Claims – Respondent-employees were appointed on compassionate grounds in the Eastern Railway based on forged and fabricated documents – The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal from service, emphasizing that appointments obtained through fraud vitiate the proceedings and nullify any claims to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution – The Court noted that the principles of natural justice were complied with, as the respondents were given the opportunity to respond to the show-cause notices [Paras 7-14].

Service Law – Natural Justice and Disciplinary Proceedings – The respondents alleged a violation of natural justice due to the lack of a full disciplinary inquiry – The Court rejected this claim, noting that the respondents had actively participated in the proceedings and failed to provide necessary documentation to support their claims – The Tribunal's dismissal of their applications was restored [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Law – Simultaneous Proceedings – The Court confirmed that the criminal proceedings related to fraud and forgery can run concurrently with departmental proceedings – The outcome of the criminal cases will not affect the decision regarding dismissal from service [Paras 12-14].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – The High Court's order was set aside, and the Tribunal's order dismissing the respondent-employees' original applications was restored – The respondents' dismissal from service was confirmed, with the clarification that this decision does not affect the ongoing criminal proceedings.

Adoption Validity – Contesting of Registered Adoption Deed – Section 16 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, raises presumption in favor of registered adoption documents, but is rebuttable – Requirements of actual giving and taking in adoption under Section 11(vi) of the same Act not convincingly proven – Adoption ceremony’s credibility doubted due to absence of key participants and lack of convincing photographic evidence. [Paras 35-51]

Will Validity – Requirements under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, for proving a Will – Necessity of attestation by two witnesses as mandated by the Act not satisfied – Inadequate evidence to establish that Will was signed in testator's presence or with her acknowledgment – Will deemed not proved as per legal requirements, rendering it legally ineffective. [Paras 17-32]

Testamentary Document – Examination of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Will – Consideration of age, health condition, and behavior of testator at the time of Will execution – Discrepancies in adoption and testamentary documents indicating lack of consistent and credible evidence for legal validation. [Paras 33-34, 52-54]

Decision – Appeal of Moturu Nalini Kanth dismissed – Adoption and Will not proved in accordance with law – Findings of High Court confirmed, denying Nalini Kanth any right or share in Venkubayamma’s properties. [Para 55]