Technical Education – Bridge Course – AICTE Policy – Institute affiliated to State Board converted its four-year Post Diploma course (with 10+1 entry) into a four-year Advance Diploma course (with 10+2 entry) – Later upgraded to five-year B.Tech degree – Institute sought permission for one-year bridge course for diploma holders to obtain B.Tech – AICTE rejected request citing policy concerns and lack of enabling provisions – High Court directed approval of bridge course first for 10+2 diploma holders, later extended to 10+1 holders – Held: Grant of bridge course approval involves academic and technical policy decisions, within exclusive domain of AICTE – Courts cannot override academic standards or dilute entry qualifications through judicial directions [Paras 1–11, 12–17].

Judicial Review – Educational Policy – Role of Courts – Courts should not interfere in academic matters or substitute expert opinion of statutory educational bodies – Power of judicial review limited to examining legality, not wisdom, of policy decisions – High Court erred in granting relief by directing academic bodies to create or continue unauthorized academic programmes – Held: Entry-level qualification of 10+2 (PCM) for B.Tech must be strictly enforced – Courts cannot create equivalence through judicial fiat [Paras 13–15, 17–18].

Doctrine of Precedent and Estoppel – AICTE had earlier accepted Delhi High Court’s directions for one-time bridge course for 10+2 diploma holders – Later decisions extending benefit to 10+1 holders challenged – Held: Absence of appeal against earlier orders does not estop AICTE from resisting subsequent erosion of academic standards – No estoppel against statutory function to uphold quality of education [Para 16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court orders permitting 10+1 Post Diploma holders to take bridge course set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Clarified: Those who already completed bridge course and obtained degrees pursuant to High Court orders not affected by this judgment [Paras 18–19].

Criminal Law – NDPS Offence – Conscious Possession – Meaning and Scope – Conviction under Section 15 NDPS Act requires proof of conscious possession – Possession implies control with awareness of its nature – Once possession established, burden shifts to accused under Sections 35 and 54 NDPS Act to explain innocence – However, failure to question accused on possession under Section 313 CrPC vitiates conviction – High Court rightly acquitted respondents [Paras 10–18, 43–45].

Criminal Procedure – Examination of Accused – Section 313 CrPC – Mandatory Nature – Purpose is to afford opportunity to explain circumstances against accused – Not a mere formality – Failure to put vital question on possession amounts to violation of fair trial principles – Answers under Section 313 serve as substitute for testimony and must be personal unless exemption justifiably granted [Paras 18–21, 23–33].

Interpretation of Section 313 CrPC – Personal Examination and Exemption – Though general rule mandates personal questioning, in exceptional circumstances (hardship, incapacity, expense), the court may allow written responses verified by affidavit – Course permitted in Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka – Such pragmatic approach ensures substantial compliance without prejudice to accused [Paras 37–40].

Evidence – Use of Circumstances Not Put to Accused – Circumstances not confronted under Section 313 cannot be used for conviction – As held in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab – Omission to question on possession fatally affects prosecution case [Para 44].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s acquittal upheld – Directions for departmental action against officials expunged [Para 45].

Service Law – Promotion – Reservation vs. Concession – Regional Rural Banks governed by NABARD Circulars – Circular dated 10.06.1997 providing concession to SC/ST candidates within the “zone of consideration” – Held: The circular did not create reservation of posts but only a concession allowing automatic promotion if the SC/ST candidate was within the number of vacancies and found not unfit – A candidate outside the vacancy range had to compete in selection process – High Court erred in treating the concession as reservation [Paras 16–17].

Administrative Law – Jurisdiction of State Reservation Policy – Regional Rural Banks governed by Central Act and NABARD circulars – State reservation policy inapplicable – Division Bench’s direction to promote respondent contrary to governing policy and circulars – Set aside [Paras 12, 16–18].

Service Law – Selection Process – Participation and Estoppel – Candidate having participated in the interview and failed cannot challenge selection process thereafter – Reliance placed on G.N. Nayak v. Goa University – Respondent not entitled to relief after unsuccessful attempt [Para 12].

Interpretation of Circulars – Expression “Reservation Posts” in NABARD Circular – To be construed as ‘concession’ not ‘quota’ – Concession operates only for SC/ST officers senior enough to fall within the number of vacancies – No independent right to appointment merely by belonging to SC/ST category [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Single Judge and Division Bench of Gauhati High Court set aside – No costs [Paras 18–19].

Service Law – Work-Charged Employees – Time Bound Promotional Scales – Distinction between work-charged and regular service – Under the PSEB Scheme of 23.04.1990, only “regular service” counts for grant of time-bound promotional scales after 9/16 years and promotional increments after 23 years – Work-charged service cannot be equated or clubbed with regular service unless specifically provided – High Court erred in directing benefit to work-charged employees [Paras 7, 10, 13].

Work-Charged Establishment – Nature and Status – Work-charged employees are engaged for specific projects, paid from project funds, and their tenure ends with the project – They form a separate class from regular employees; hence, not entitled to parity in pay, seniority, promotion or other benefits – Applied Jaswant Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 115 and State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman, AIR 1997 SC 693 [Paras 7–10].

Service Law – Regularization – Effect – Upon regularization, employee becomes member of regular establishment from date of regularization – Past work-charged service cannot be counted for seniority or promotional benefits unless expressly provided by statute or scheme [Paras 7, 13].

Ad hoc Service – Not Equivalent to Regular Service – Even ad hoc service cannot be counted towards seniority or financial benefits like selection grade or time-bound scale – Applied State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association, AIR 2000 SC 3020; State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal, AIR 2001 SC 2691 [Paras 11–12].

Interpretation – “Regular Service” – Expression in PSEB scheme held to mean service rendered after regular appointment – If the Board intended to include all service irrespective of status, it would not have used the qualifying term “regular” repeatedly – Scheme to be applied as written [Para 13].

Administrative Instructions – Government Circulars – Circular dated 17.07.2002 issued by Haryana Government to implement High Court orders in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana not binding on PSEB – State instructions cannot alter or interpret independent PSEB scheme framed under its own regulations [Para 15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court orders set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – No costs [Para 16].

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Industrial Employment – Natural Justice – Interplay between Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Standing Orders Act, 1946 – Civil Court’s Jurisdiction not automatically barred – Conflict between Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant (1995) and Rajasthan SRTC v. Khadarmal (2006) referred for resolution – Held, civil court has plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC to entertain all civil disputes unless expressly or impliedly barred by statute – A suit challenging termination for violation of constitutional or common law rights (e.g., natural justice or Article 14) is maintainable in civil court – However, where relief is based on rights or obligations under the Industrial Disputes Act or Standing Orders, exclusive jurisdiction lies with labour forums [Paras 9–23, 28].

Industrial Law – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(k), 2A, 10, 11A – Enforcement of Rights under Industrial Law – Where dispute involves enforcement of rights under the Industrial Disputes Act or “sister enactments” like the Standing Orders Act, the only remedy is to seek adjudication before Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal – However, where the cause of action stems from violation of statutory regulations framed under another Act (e.g., Road Transport Corporations Act) or constitutional provisions, civil court retains jurisdiction [Paras 15–16, 21–23].

Labour Law – Standing Orders and Regulations – Certified Standing Orders do not oust Civil Court Jurisdiction – Certified Standing Orders, though statutorily binding, do not themselves create a special adjudicatory forum – Hence, unless the claim is exclusively for enforcement of Standing Orders, the civil court’s jurisdiction remains unaffected [Paras 15–17, 23].

Administrative Law – Violation of Natural Justice – Effect on Jurisdiction – Violation of principles of natural justice amounts to violation of Article 14 and renders the impugned order void – Civil court can entertain a suit alleging such violation even where the employer is a State instrumentality under Article 12 [Paras 22–23, 28].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 14(1)(b) – Enforcement of Contract of Service – Exceptions – Ordinarily, a contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced – Exceptions: (i) statutory employment protected by Article 309/311; (ii) statutory corporations acting in violation of statutory regulations; (iii) employees protected by statute; (iv) rights under Industrial Disputes Act – RSRTC being a statutory corporation must comply with its Regulations and principles of natural justice [Para 23].

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – Application in Jurisdictional Questions – Doctrine of prospective overruling cannot apply to cases where the court lacked inherent jurisdiction; such orders are void ab initio – Earlier use of prospective overruling in Krishna Kant disapproved [Paras 29–30].

Interpretation – Presumption in favour of Civil Court Jurisdiction – Where doubt exists, presumption lies in favour of civil court jurisdiction – Ouster not to be readily inferred [Paras 10, 24].

Held: Civil Court’s jurisdiction not barred in cases where an employee of a statutory corporation challenges termination on grounds of violation of constitutional rights, statutory regulations or natural justice – Only where rights flow solely from the Industrial Disputes Act or Standing Orders Act is such jurisdiction barred – Reference answered accordingly and cases remitted to Division Bench for decision on facts [Paras 31–32].

Decision: Question of law answered – Civil court jurisdiction upheld in cases based on violation of statutory regulations or constitutional provisions – Matters remitted to Division Bench for disposal in light of legal findings.

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Mere cruelty or harassment without proof of direct or indirect instigation not sufficient – Letters proved dowry demand and cruelty – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Convictions under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 Dowry Prohibition Act upheld – Sentence under DP Act reduced to three years – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 10–15].

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 306, 107, and 109 – Abetment of Suicide – Meaning of “Instigation” – Proof and Mental Element – Abetment involves active mental process of instigating, provoking, or aiding commission of suicide – Mere cruelty or harassment without proof of direct or indirect incitement not sufficient to attract Section 306 IPC – Courts must be cautious in cases of domestic discord; hypersensitivity of victim cannot justify conviction – Held: No material to show any direct instigation or aiding by appellant – Conviction under Section 306 IPC unsustainable [Paras 8–13].

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – Cruelty – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 3 – Demand for Dowry – Evidence including letters written by accused demanding ₹40,000 for purchase of house established persistent harassment and dowry demand – Such conduct constitutes cruelty within meaning of Section 498A IPC and offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Convictions under these provisions sustained – However, sentence under Section 3 of the Act reduced from five years to three years [Paras 3, 14–15].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 209 – Commitment of Case – Properly invoked where offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act were triable exclusively by Sessions Court – No procedural infirmity in trial process [Para 3].

Judicial Approach – Abetment of Suicide – Evaluation of Evidence – Courts must carefully assess whether cruelty in domestic setting was of such nature as to induce suicide – Mere marital discord or ordinary domestic friction not sufficient – Reference made to State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418; Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797; Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 5097; Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 2108 [Paras 10–13].

Decision: Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Convictions under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 Dowry Prohibition Act upheld – Sentence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act reduced to three years – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 14–15].

Judicial Service – Departmental Proceedings – Natural Justice – Bias – Appellant, a Judicial Officer, was dismissed from service on recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court of Gujarat based on inquiry findings – Same judge who was a member of that Disciplinary Committee also later sat on the bench hearing the appellant’s writ petition challenging his dismissal – Held: Impermissible – Participation of a judge in adjudication of a matter in which he had earlier acted in an administrative or disciplinary capacity creates a reasonable apprehension of bias – Order of High Court set aside – Matter remitted for fresh consideration by a different bench [Paras 6–10].

Principles of Natural Justice – Nemo judex in causa sua – Person cannot be a judge in his own cause – Test is not actual bias but reasonable likelihood of bias – Justice must not only be done but also appear to be done – Applied from Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417 [Paras 9–10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned order of Gujarat High Court set aside – Case remitted to High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Unexplained and inordinate delay of over 25 years in completing investigation and commencing trial – Held: Such delay violates the fundamental right to speedy investigation and trial guaranteed under Article 21 – Proceedings pending for decades without sanction or progress amount to abuse of process – Continuation of prosecution unsustainable [Paras 12–16].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 CrPC – Power of quashing criminal proceedings – Scope – Held: Powers under Section 482 are wide but to be exercised sparingly – When continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process or violation of constitutional rights, courts must intervene to secure ends of justice [Paras 9–11].

Investigation – Jurisdiction of Officer – Initial investigation conducted by an officer lacking authority – Subsequent reinvestigation ordered by High Court not initiated for 17 years – No explanation from prosecution – Held: Delay not attributable to the accused – State’s inaction fatal to prosecution [Para 16].

Speedy Trial – Scope and Evolution – Right extends to all stages – investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and retrial – Delay attributable to systemic inefficiency cannot prejudice the accused – Article 21 ensures fair, just and reasonable procedure, which includes expeditious investigation and trial [Paras 12–15].

Constitutional Law – Enforcement of Article 21 – Even serious allegations cannot justify violation of constitutional rights – Courts bound to quash proceedings where prolonged delay defeats the ends of justice [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings in Special Case No. 29 of 1987 pending before the Special Judge, Muzaffarpur, quashed [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appreciation of Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Conviction can rest on testimony of a solitary witness only if his presence is natural, and his version is wholly reliable and free from contradictions – Where witness changes version, gives improbable account and is of doubtful credibility, conviction unsafe [Paras 16–18].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal by Convict – Prohibition on Enhancement of Conviction – High Court erred in converting conviction from Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder without intention) to Section 304 Part I IPC (with intention) in absence of State appeal or notice of enhancement – Held: Improper and contrary to law laid down in Abdul Aziz v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 10 SCC 283 [Paras 14, 20].

Evidence – Contradictory Versions – Where eyewitness gives one version in FIR and investigation, but substantially alters story in court, his testimony loses credibility – Case must rest on reliable, consistent and corroborated evidence – Prosecution version improbable and riddled with contradictions [Paras 17–18, 20].

Witness Credibility – “Chance Witness” – Presence of PW-7, brother of deceased, at night incident found to be unnatural – Evidence that he could see events through van headlights and open windows on a winter night held improbable – PW-7’s conduct in not helping deceased or taking him to hospital also doubtful – Held: Not a natural witness; unsafe to rely solely on such testimony [Paras 16–18].

Evidence – Hostile and Missing Witnesses – Out of three alleged eyewitnesses, one not examined, another hostile, leaving only brother of deceased as supporting witness – Absence of corroboration fatal to prosecution [Para 17].

Result: Prosecution story unreliable – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted giving benefit of doubt – Ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 20–21].