Service Law – Time-bound Promotion – Eligibility Criteria – Respondent retired employee claimed higher pay scale after 16 years of service under 1990 circular issued to address stagnation – Held: Benefit available only to directly recruited Assistant Engineers or those promoted under Regulation 7(a)(ii) read with Regulation 10(4) or 10(6)/(9) having requisite qualifications like AMIE – Respondent did not possess such qualifications – Not eligible for higher pay scale [Paras 22–26, 41].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 16 – Equality and Unequal Classification – Granting benefit of time-bound promotion to unqualified promotees would violate principle of equality – Legal fiction in circular limited to certain qualified promotees – Unequals cannot be treated as equals – Respondent not similarly situated with direct recruits or qualified promotees [Paras 23–25].

Judicial Discipline – Dismissal of SLP – Effect – High Court relied on earlier judgment affirmed by Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP in similar case – Held: Dismissal of SLP by non-speaking order does not operate as binding precedent – Impugned order can still be challenged and examined on merits [Paras 20–21].

Statutory Interpretation – Purpose and Object – Interpretation of 1990 circular must further purpose of relieving stagnation among qualified employees – If interpreted to include all promotees irrespective of qualification, it defeats legislative intent and violates constitutional mandate – Circular applies only to those with required qualification and experience [Paras 33–38].

Service Law – Delay and Laches – Respondent filed writ petition 8 years after retirement – High Court failed to properly consider delay – Held: Petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone – Approach of High Court unsustainable [Para 39].

Relief – Recovery – Respondents had already retired – Benefits granted under High Court order – Held: Though order now set aside, no recovery to be made from amounts already paid to respondents [Para 40].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Respondent not entitled to benefit of 1990 circular due to lack of requisite qualifications – No recovery from amounts already disbursed.

Criminal Procedure – Appeal – Absence of Counsel – Sections 385 & 386 CrPC – Duty of Appellate Court – Appellant’s criminal appeal before the Punjab & Haryana High Court was disposed of on merits in absence of his counsel – Appellant was in jail and unrepresented; no amicus or State counsel was appointed – Held: Dismissal or disposal of appeal without representation for accused, particularly when he is in custody, violates fair hearing principles – Court must either adjourn the hearing, secure the presence of accused, or appoint counsel at State expense – Order passed without such opportunity unsustainable [Paras 3–5].

Interpretation of Sections 385 and 386 CrPC – Disposal of Appeal on Merits – Under these provisions, appellate court cannot dismiss criminal appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter – It must peruse the record and decide on merits – However, where accused is in jail and counsel is absent, it is advisable to adjourn or appoint amicus curiae to ensure fair hearing – Reiterated principles from Bani Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720 and Shyam Deo Pandey v. State of Bihar, (1971) 1 SCC 855 [Paras 5–6].

Remand – Fresh Hearing Directed – Considering appellant’s incarceration and lack of legal assistance, impugned judgment set aside – Matter remanded to High Court to restore appeal and hear afresh after giving opportunity to both sides – High Court directed to dispose of appeal within four months [Paras 6–7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 19.08.2008 set aside – Criminal Appeal No. 1440-SB of 2001 restored to file – High Court directed to hear and decide appeal on merits after ensuring representation for accused – No order as to costs [Para 7].

Evidence Act – Sections 35 & 114 – Public Documents – Probative Value – Entries in school registers, voter lists, and official certificates may be admissible under Section 35 but probative value must be assessed based on authenticity and source of information – Inconsistencies in age and birth records leading to absurd results (e.g., mother giving birth before her own birth) render documents unreliable – Admissibility and credibility are distinct concepts – Admissible documents may have no evidentiary weight [Paras 9–14, 16–18].

Proof of Age and Birth – Documentary Evidence – Standard of Proof – Date of birth in school records not conclusive – Must be corroborated by credible evidence such as birth registers or unimpeachable testimony – Burden lies on the party relying on such entries to prove authenticity as per Sections 32(5), 50–61 of the Evidence Act [Paras 15–18].

Live-in Relationship – Presumption of Marriage – Section 114, Evidence Act – Continuous cohabitation between a man and woman as husband and wife over a long period raises a presumption of lawful marriage – Such presumption can be rebutted only by strong, unimpeachable evidence – Law favours presumption of marriage over concubinage [Paras 19–22].

Illegitimacy – Children Born from Long Cohabitation – Children born of a long-standing live-in relationship are presumed legitimate unless contrary proof is established – Findings of fact by consolidation authorities recognizing respondents as legitimate heirs based on long cohabitation affirmed – No perversity found [Paras 6–7, 22–23].

Consolidation Proceedings – Findings of Fact – Limited Judicial Review – Concurrent findings of three consolidation authorities affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court declined to reappreciate evidence in absence of perversity – Reliance on contradictory and improbable documents not sufficient to disturb concurrent findings [Paras 6–8, 23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Findings of authorities and High Court upheld – Respondents held legitimate heirs of deceased khatedar – No costs [Para 23].

Quashing of FIR – Criminal Proceedings – Effect of Civil Court Findings – Standard of Proof – Held: Findings of Civil Court are not binding on Criminal Court and vice versa – Standard of proof in civil cases (preponderance of probabilities) differs from that in criminal cases (proof beyond reasonable doubt) – No statutory or legal principle that a finding recorded in one forum is conclusive in another – Sections 41 to 43 of the Evidence Act only define limited relevance of previous judgments – Constitution Bench decision in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras (AIR 1954 SC 397) followed; Karam Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India (AIR 1971 SC 1244) held per incuriam [Paras 11–19].

Criminal Law – Abuse of Process – Delay in Lodging FIR – FIR filed 14 years after the alleged forgery and immediately after losing the civil case – Held: Delay unexplained – FIR clearly an afterthought and motivated by frustration of losing before Civil Court – Filing of belated criminal complaint amounts to abuse of process – Courts must prevent criminal law from being used as an instrument of harassment [Paras 20–24].

Simultaneous Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Permissibility – Reiterated that both can proceed independently where facts justify – However, inordinate delay and mala fide motive in filing criminal case after adverse civil verdict justifies quashing to prevent misuse of criminal process [Paras 17, 23–24].

Relief – Although High Court erred in law by treating civil findings as binding on criminal proceedings, Supreme Court declined interference in view of inordinate and unexplained delay and mala fides – Appeal disposed of without disturbing High Court’s quashing of FIR [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Framing of Charge – Suicide by law student following false accusation of theft – Appellant, a retired IPS officer serving as university security officer, was summoned under Section 306 IPC despite no allegation in the suicide note – FIR did not name appellant – Suicide note specifically blamed another student and faculty head – No material evidence of instigation, conspiracy or aiding by appellant – Held: In absence of credible material, framing of charge was unjustified – Appellant exonerated [Paras 5–7, 13–15, 30–31]

Criminal Procedure – Section 306 IPC – Legal Threshold for Abetment – Reiterated that abetment involves mental process of instigation or intentional aiding – Requires active or direct act pushing deceased to commit suicide – Mere presence or official role in disciplinary inquiry insufficient – Each case must be judged individually – Held: No mens rea or active role proved against appellant – Suicide note silent on any role of appellant – Charge quashed [Paras 21, 24–28, 30]

Criminal Trial – Abuse of Process – Frivolous Prosecution – Court noted it would be travesty of justice to compel appellant to face trial without evidence – Emphasized caution in invoking Section 306 IPC based on suicide in sensitive cases – Framing of charge must meet legal standards – Held: Summoning appellant in complaint without credible basis violates fairness in criminal process [Paras 13–14, 28–30]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Charge under Section 306 IPC against appellant quashed – All pending proceedings against appellant dropped

Service Law – Dismissal on Ground of Conviction – Effect of Probation – Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Appellant, a bank employee, convicted under Section 409 IPC for misappropriating Rs. 5000 meant for deposit – Though appellate court granted benefit of probation, employer dismissed appellant from service – Held: Grant of probation does not nullify conviction – Section 12 removes statutory disqualifications under other laws but does not bar employer from dismissing employee based on conduct and conviction [Paras 8–13, 17–19, 27]

Banking Regulation Act – Section 10(1)(b)(i) – Mandatory Cessation of Employment on Conviction – As per Section 10(1)(b)(i), banking company is prohibited from continuing employment of a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude – Conviction for criminal breach of trust (Section 409 IPC) held to constitute moral turpitude – Held: Bank was legally bound to terminate employment upon conviction irrespective of probation benefit [Paras 20–25]

Moral Turpitude – Definition and Application – Moral turpitude means conduct contrary to honesty, modesty, or good morals – Includes acts of baseness and depravity that shock societal conscience – Conviction for embezzlement of funds by a bank employee held to be an offence involving moral turpitude – Reinstatement not permissible [Paras 21–24]

Judicial Precedents – Limited Applicability of Aitha Chander Rao and Shankar Dass Cases – Reliance on Aitha Chander Rao rejected as it was passed under Article 142 without reasoning – Shankar Dass not applicable as it did not establish a principle overriding statutory mandates – Each case must be decided based on its own facts and relevant statutory framework [Paras 9–10, 15–18]

Judicial Review – Scope of Court’s Power – Article 142 – No Direction Against Statutory Provision – Courts cannot issue directions contrary to statutory mandates – Once an employee is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, and statute prohibits continuation, courts cannot direct reinstatement despite probation [Paras 26, 27]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 409 IPC upheld – Benefit of probation under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act does not entitle reinstatement – Dismissal from bank service justified under Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act – No order as to costs. [Paras 27–29]

Judicial Service – Eligibility Criteria – Basic Computer Knowledge – Appellant participated in selection for Civil Judge (Junior Division) under the Uttaranchal Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – Though successful in written and viva voce exams, he was not selected for lack of basic knowledge in computer operation – Held: Requirement of basic computer knowledge is part of Rule 8(c) and was explicitly mentioned in the advertisement and call letters – No new criterion introduced mid-selection – No violation of law or arbitrariness established [Paras 5-6, 10-11, 19-21, 24-25].

Selection Process – Challenge to Procedure – Appellant claimed vague standard applied to test computer knowledge and raised objections only after failing – Held: Appellant participated in full knowledge of criteria, faced viva including computer knowledge component without protest – Barred by estoppel from challenging process post facto – Once a candidate participates in process with knowledge of procedure, he cannot later dispute it upon being unsuccessful [Paras 20-21, 26-28].

Administrative Law – Estoppel – Participation without Protest – Supreme Court reiterated principle that candidates who knowingly participate in selection process cannot challenge its validity after unfavourable result – Cited decisions in G. Sarana, P.S. Gopinathan, S. Vinodh Kumar, and K.H. Siraj [Paras 26-28].

Public Employment – Relevance of Computer Literacy – Supreme Court recognized importance of basic computer knowledge for judicial officers in light of e-governance and digitalisation of court systems – Held: Essential criteria like computer literacy cannot be diluted in judicial appointments – Assessment by subject expert during interview process upheld [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld Uttarakhand High Court's rejection of writ petition – Found no merit in contention that selection process was vitiated or that eligibility criteria were altered midstream [Paras 30-31].

Service Law – Recruitment Policy – Discriminatory Application – State initially followed batchwise recruitment of Pharmacists under 1980 Rules prioritising diploma-holders from earlier years – Respondents were denied appointment under that system – Later, the State adopted merit-based selection under 2003 Rules, again excluding those previously denied – Held: State cannot apply the same rules differently at different times to the prejudice of the same group – Once deprived on one basis, they cannot be excluded again under a new method – Arbitrary action violates Article 14 [Paras 1, 5–7, 10, 25, 31–34]

Constitutional Law – Equality before Law – Article 14 – The State’s interpretation and application of recruitment rules in a shifting manner led to denial of legitimate expectations – Court held that executive discretion must be fair and non-arbitrary – The principle of fairness required the State to accommodate diploma-holders denied earlier due to policy constraints [Paras 7, 25, 31–33]

Recruitment Rules – Harmonious Construction – Uttar Pradesh Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980 continued to operate even after 2002 and 2003 Rules – No express repeal – Recruitment procedures must be interpreted harmoniously – Past practice, though not codified, cannot be discarded to the detriment of those previously excluded [Paras 29–30, 31–34]

Decision: SLPs filed by State of U.P. and similarly placed private parties dismissed – SLPs filed by Ajay Singh and Shravan Kumar Pandey allowed – Petitioners entitled to same benefits as diploma-holders governed by 1980 Rules who obtained diplomas before 1998 – No order as to costs

Land Acquisition – Urgency Clause – Invocation of Section 17(1) and Dispensation of Section 5A – Acquisition for residential colony by Gorakhpur Development Authority – State invoked urgency powers under Section 17(4) to bypass Section 5A inquiry – Held: Acquisition for 'planned development' or 'housing' cannot routinely bypass Section 5A – Government failed to justify urgency warranting elimination of hearing – Notifications to the extent of excluding Section 5A found legally infirm [Paras 12, 30–32]

Constitutional Law – Article 300A – Right to Property – Section 5A as substantive right – Dispensing with Section 5A eliminates valuable right to object – Supreme Court reiterates need for strict compliance before bypassing procedural safeguards – Emphasizes judicial review of urgency decisions in absence of material evidence [Paras 30–31, 35–36]

Delay and Urgency – Pre-notification and Post-notification Delay – Land identified in 2001, but acquisition notifications issued only in 2003/2004 – Declaration under Section 6 delayed further till 2004 – Such delays negate claim of urgency – State failed to demonstrate urgency could not brook delay for Section 5A procedure [Paras 7–8, 32]

Relief – De-acquisition under Section 48(1) – Though invocation of urgency was unjustified, large portion of land already developed – Over 370 landowners accepted compensation – Award passed and work completed over 60% – Acquisition not quashed – Appellants permitted to make representation under Section 48(1) for release of their land – State directed to consider without discrimination [Paras 32–34]