Public Employment – Judicial Service Recruitment – Viva Voce Weightage – Appellant challenged 200 marks prescribed for viva voce (interview) out of total 1050 marks for Bihar Judicial Services Exam – High Court dismissed petition on ground of estoppel after participation in process – Held: Prescription of 200 marks for viva voce (approx. 19%) not excessive or arbitrary – Constitutionally valid under Rule 14 and Appendix-C – Judicial precedents uphold similar or higher weightage in comparable services [Paras 15–21].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 & 16 – Equality and Arbitrariness – Challenge to rule prescribing viva voce marks rejected – Courts reiterated that no fixed formula exists for determining permissible viva voce weightage – Rules made after consultation with expert bodies like Public Service Commissions and High Courts carry strong presumption of validity unless shown to be arbitrary or mala fide – No such infirmity found in this case [Paras 16–20].

Service Law – Estoppel and Acquiescence – Appellant participated in entire selection process without protest and challenged rule only after failing to make the final list – Held: Candidate who knowingly participates in selection process cannot later challenge its criteria after being unsuccessful – Conduct disentitles petitioner to equitable relief under Article 226 – High Court justified in dismissing writ petition [Paras 6, 22].

Judicial Review – Scope – Court not to interfere with recruitment criteria unless clearly arbitrary or unconstitutional – Expert opinion on recruitment methods (e.g., proportion of interview marks) not ordinarily subject to judicial substitution unless vitiated by mala fides or gross disproportionality [Paras 16–20].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Challenge to rule prescribing 200 viva voce marks rejected – Petitioner's conduct bars relief – Application for intervention/impleadment also dismissed as infructuous.

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Reappreciation of Evidence by High Court – Trial Court, after detailed analysis, disbelieved prosecution case citing delay and discrepancies in FIR, contradictions in dying declarations, and unnatural conduct of alleged eyewitness – High Court reversed acquittal and convicted appellants – Held: Where trial court’s view is reasonable and based on evidence, High Court should not interfere merely because another view is possible – Interference justified only when trial court’s findings are perverse or manifestly illegal – High Court erred in substituting its own opinion without meeting trial court’s reasoning [Paras 7–8, 11].

Criminal Procedure – FIR – Delay, Suppression, and Non-Compliance with Section 157 CrPC – Trial Court found inconsistencies: alleged first report at 1 p.m. suppressed; second FIR registered at 4:45 p.m. after police reached spot at 4 p.m.; no evidence of despatch of special report to Magistrate – Held: Delay in lodging and non-transmission of FIR to Magistrate cast grave doubt on prosecution version – Inference of fabrication justified [Paras 2–3, 8].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Credibility and Caution – Deceased allegedly made oral dying declarations to four witnesses two hours after sustaining 28 injuries each – Medical evidence showed victims would have been unconscious within 10–15 minutes – Held: Oral dying declaration in such circumstances unreliable – Particularly doubtful when made to witnesses with deep enmity against accused – High Court erred in accepting it without proper scrutiny [Paras 3, 9].

Witness Credibility – Conduct of Eyewitness – PW5 (related eyewitness) claimed to have seen incident but fled and failed to inform family present nearby, allegedly out of fear – Held: Conduct unnatural and inconsistent with normal human behaviour – Presence doubtful; evidence untrustworthy [Paras 3, 10].

Criminal Trial – Investigation Lapses – Failure to identify person who made first telephonic intimation and inconsistencies regarding timing of report reflected a perfunctory investigation – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Para 3].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside – Acquittal by Trial Court restored – Accused to be released forthwith if in custody; bail bonds discharged if on bail [Para 11].

Constitutional Law – Removal of Governor – Doctrine of Pleasure – Scope of Article 156(1) – The Governor holds office at the pleasure of the President – However, this power is not absolute – Though no notice or reason is required for removal, the President’s decision must be based on valid and compelling reasons – Removal cannot be arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or mala fide – Grounds such as physical/mental incapacity, corruption, and conduct unbecoming of the office are legitimate – Held: Change in Central Government or ideological mismatch is not a valid ground for removal [Paras 50(i)-(iii)]

Governor’s Office – Nature and Independence – Relationship with Union Government – Governor is a high constitutional authority and not an agent or employee of the Union Government – He is not bound to follow the political ideology of the ruling party at the Centre – Independence of the office must be preserved in a quasi-federal constitutional scheme – Governors are expected to be apolitical and uphold constitutional propriety irrespective of previous political affiliations [Paras 23–27, 41]

Judicial Review – Removal of Governors – Limited Justiciability of Presidential Pleasure – Removal under Article 156(1) is presumed valid – However, judicial review is permissible in limited scope where a prima facie case of arbitrariness, mala fides or extraneous consideration is established – In such cases, the Union may be required to disclose the material forming basis of the President’s decision – If reasons are absent or found irrelevant or mala fide, court may interfere – Sufficiency of reasons is not subject to review [Paras 42–49, 50(iv)]

Public Interest Litigation – Locus Standi – Maintainability in Constitutional Matters – PIL challenging removal of Governors on constitutional grounds is maintainable even if the affected Governors do not themselves seek relief – PIL can be entertained where public wrong or violation of constitutional provisions is alleged – However, specific personal reliefs for individual Governors are not permissible through PIL [Paras 10–11]

Doctrine of Pleasure – Distinction between Constitutional and Common Law Position – Absolute pleasure doctrine from English law does not apply fully in India – In a constitutional democracy governed by rule of law, even powers conferred in broad terms are subject to reasonableness and public interest – Indian Constitution recognises different categories of tenure: at pleasure, at pleasure with restrictions, and fixed tenure with removal only by impeachment – Governors fall under the first category but subject to constitutional limitations [Paras 12–22]

Commissions and Debates – Sarkaria Commission, NCRWC, and Constituent Assembly – Recommendations of Sarkaria Commission and National Commission to Review the Working of Constitution advocate security of tenure and safeguards against arbitrary removal – Though not binding, such recommendations reflect constitutional values – Constituent Assembly rejected fixed tenure and opted for pleasure doctrine assuming responsible use by Union Executive [Paras 31–37]

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Power of President to remove Governors under Article 156(1) upheld but subject to constitutional limitations and limited judicial review – Removal cannot be arbitrary or politically motivated – Transfer Petition dismissed accordingly. [Paras 51–52]

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Existence of Dispute – Petitioner sought appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) for resolution of disputes relating to shareholding and management rights in company Varsha Hill Fort Resorts Pvt. Ltd. – Respondents claimed agreement had worked itself out and petitioner had no locus – Held: Clause 41 of the agreement between the parties constitutes valid arbitration agreement – Whether dispute is “live” or extinguished is a question of fact to be decided by the arbitrator – Petition under Section 11(6) allowed [Paras 1, 11, 12, 15]

Arbitration – Live Dispute vs. Dead Claim – Test for Determination – Court reiterated that at Section 11 stage, Chief Justice or designate must assess if (i) arbitration agreement exists, and (ii) claim is not dead or barred by settlement – Determination whether claim is arbitrable or has merit is for arbitrator – Mere assertion that agreement is worked out cannot defeat invocation of arbitration – Existence of rival claims and dispute over shareholding pattern constituted arbitrable issue [Paras 13–15]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 16 – Competence of Arbitral Tribunal – Arbitrator is competent to decide on jurisdiction and validity of arbitration agreement – All objections including claim of no arbitrable dispute or locus of petitioner may be raised before Arbitrator – No ground for declining appointment at Section 11 stage [Para 15(iv)]

Decision: Petition allowed – Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (Retd.) appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under agreement dated 19/01/2004 – Arbitrator to proceed independently and uninfluenced by prior judicial observations – No order as to costs.

Constitutional Law – Article 282 – Scope and Power to Grant – Public Purpose – Federal Structure – The Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) challenged as ultra vires the Constitution – Contention that expenditure from Consolidated Fund without separate law violates Article 266(3) – Held: Appropriation Acts passed by Parliament constitute “law” for purposes of Article 266(3) – Article 282 empowers the Union and States to make grants for any public purpose, even beyond their legislative fields – MPLADS falls within “public purpose” aiming to advance Directive Principles of State Policy [Paras 27–31, 37–42, 76(1)–(4)].

Financial Provisions – Articles 266, 275 & 282 – Grants and Appropriations – Both Articles 275 and 282 are sources of financial authority under the Constitution – Article 275 intended for regular grants-in-aid, while Article 282 authorizes ad hoc or special grants – Appropriation Acts constitute sufficient legislative sanction; no independent enactment required for schemes like MPLADS [Paras 23–29, 76(4)].

Separation of Powers – Basic Structure – Legislative & Executive Functions – Though Members of Parliament recommend works, the sanction, execution, and audit are entirely handled by district and municipal authorities – No essential executive function transferred to legislature – Hence, the Scheme does not violate the doctrine of separation of powers [Paras 58–70, 76(5)–(6)].

Local Self-Government – Part IX & IX-A – Panchayati Raj and Municipal Bodies – MPLADS supplements and does not supplant the functions of Panchayats and Municipalities – Guidelines prefer local bodies as implementing agencies – No conflict with constitutional distribution of local powers [Paras 71–72, 76(7)].

Administrative Law – Accountability and Transparency – Three-tier accountability system: (1) Parliamentary oversight through ad hoc committees; (2) Administrative controls through District Authorities; and (3) Public scrutiny via RTI and audit reports – Adequate checks and balances exist – Isolated misuse not ground for striking down the scheme [Paras 45–56, 76(8)–(9)].

Election Law – Free and Fair Elections – MPLADS does not confer electoral advantage to sitting MPs – Expenditure under scheme is for public welfare and not personal or political benefit – No violation of Representation of the People Act or democratic principles [Paras 73–75, 76(10)].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – MPLADS held intra vires the Constitution – Scheme valid and constitutionally permissible.

Service Law – Recruitment – Cancellation and Re-Test – Irregularities in Examination – Appellants challenged High Court’s order directing appointments based on first written test despite Railway Board’s decision to hold re-test due to large-scale malpractices – Vigilance and CBI reports revealed serious irregularities including impersonation, mass copying and paper leakage – Held: High Court erred in rejecting re-test and directing appointments from tainted examination – Re-test justified in larger public interest [Paras 1-3, 12-14, 37, 44]

Judicial Review – Wednesbury Unreasonableness and Proportionality – Applicability – High Court applied Wednesbury principle to invalidate Railway Board’s re-test decision – Supreme Court held that both Wednesbury and proportionality standards support Board’s decision – Board acted reasonably and struck correct balance by conducting re-test for candidates who obtained minimum qualifying marks – No arbitrariness or irrationality in decision [Paras 14-22, 30-37]

Natural Justice – Right to Vigilance Report – Whether denial of vigilance report to candidates vitiates Railway Board’s decision – Held: Supply of vigilance report not necessary where action not directed at individual candidates – Re-test ordered due to systemic irregularities, not personal misconduct – No violation of natural justice [Paras 40-41]

Right to Appointment – No Indefeasible Right – Respondents claimed right to appointment based on earlier test – Supreme Court reiterated that qualifying in a recruitment process does not confer a vested right to appointment unless final select list is published – Candidates cannot insist on appointment from a tainted selection process [Paras 42-43]

Judicial Review – Reliance on Subsequent Material – High Court held Railway Board’s action must be justified solely on material available at time of decision – Supreme Court overruled, holding that subsequent material (e.g. CBI report) could be relied upon to justify action taken in public interest [Paras 38-39]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside – Decision of Railway Board to conduct re-test upheld – Appointments made pursuant to second test regularized.

Negotiable Instruments – Section 145 – Affidavit Evidence – Interpretation – Whether deponent who has filed evidence by affidavit can be summoned again for examination-in-chief under Section 145(2) – Held: Section 145(2) is mandatory only to the extent that the witness can be summoned for cross-examination – Where cross-examination has already taken place, fresh summoning is unnecessary – Section 145(2) must be interpreted reasonably to mean the right of cross-examination, not a second examination-in-chief – Provision enacted to expedite trials in cheque dishonour cases [Paras 10, 13, 15, 17].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Suppression of facts – Appellant failed to disclose that complainant had already been cross-examined before filing the application – High Court rightly dismissed the petition under Section 482 – No prejudice caused to appellant to invoke inherent jurisdiction [Paras 8, 9, 10].

Affidavit Evidence – Parallel with Civil and Criminal Procedure – CPC Order 18 Rule 4 and CrPC Section 296 – Both permit examination-in-chief by affidavit followed by cross-examination – Affidavit admissible as evidence; repeated examination-in-chief not warranted – Filing affidavit followed by cross-examination sufficient compliance [Paras 10–12].

Forgery Allegations – Signature Discrepancy – Respondent pointed out differences in appellant’s signatures on different affidavits – Supreme Court ordered enquiry under Section 340 CrPC – Registrar (Judicial) to investigate whether forgery committed – Trial to proceed independently of such enquiry [Paras 7, 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Petition under Section 482 CrPC rightly rejected – No merit in demand for repeated summoning of deponent – Discrepancy in signatures to be investigated separately – Costs of ₹25,000 imposed on appellant [Paras 19, 20].

Service Law – Departmental Inquiry – Appointment of Retired Officer as Inquiry Officer – Rule 9(2), Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 – Whether the term “other authority” in Rule 9(2) restricts appointment of Inquiry Officers to serving officials only – Held: No such restriction exists – Rule 9(2) vests discretion in the disciplinary authority to appoint any competent person as “other authority” – Absence of express or implied exclusion of retired employees indicates legislative intent to allow their appointment – Circulars issued by Railway Board in 1998 and 2008 empanelling retired officers supplement and do not contradict Rule 9(2) – Practice long followed and not opposed to any statutory provision or public policy – [Paras 25–33, 40–44].

Statutory Interpretation – Meaning of “Other Authority” – Expression to be understood in its plain and contextual sense – Not confined to persons in service – Principle of ejusdem generis inapplicable as words in Rule 9(2) are disjunctive – Rule of contextual and purposive interpretation applied – [Paras 21–24, 35–38].

Administrative Circulars – Validity – Departmental circulars clarifying or supplementing existing rules permissible when consistent with statute – Circular empanelling retired officers as Inquiry Officers held intra vires – Harmonious construction between Rule 9(2) and circulars upheld – [Paras 30–31].

Natural Justice – Non-supply of CVC Advice – Non-furnishing of Vigilance Commission’s advice to delinquent not fatal unless shown to have caused actual prejudice – No material to prove that CVC notes were considered by Disciplinary Authority or influenced its decision – Non-supply did not vitiate inquiry – Sunil Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal followed; State Bank of India v. D.C. Aggarwal distinguished – [Paras 46–55].

Doctrine of Prejudice – Requirement of De facto Prejudice – Even if there is alleged procedural violation, delinquent must prove real prejudice – Mere technical infringement does not nullify proceedings – Participation in inquiry without protest bars challenge on hyper-technical grounds – S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, ECIL v. Karunakar, and Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja applied – [Paras 56–63].

Practice – Long-standing Administrative Practice – Practice of appointing retired railway officers as Inquiry Officers consistently followed and recognized as lawful – Not violative of rules or public policy – A long-standing practice consistent with law and public interest can be treated as valid administrative instruction – Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations v. Union of India referred – [Paras 40–43].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court set aside – Appointment of retired railway officers as Inquiry Officers held valid – Non-supply of CVC advice did not cause prejudice – Disciplinary proceedings upheld – No order as to costs – [Para 64].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Constructive Liability – Appellants accused of dragging deceased from station platform to Peepal tree where co-accused fired fatal shots – Eyewitnesses (PWs 1, 3, and 4) consistently deposed that accused were armed and acted jointly in furtherance of shared plan – Held: Active participation in commission of offence and presence at scene with weapons established common intention to kill – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC upheld [Paras 3, 18–20, 23].

First Information Report – Multiple FIRs – Cryptic Telephonic Message Not FIR – Assistant Station Master's report was a cryptic telephonic message lacking details of the crime, names of accused or victim – No evidence it was received at police station prior to formal FIR by PW-1 – Held: Cryptic message not intended to set criminal law in motion – FIR lodged by PW-1 at 5.15 p.m. was the first legal FIR – Plea of two FIRs rejected [Paras 12–17].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – PWs 1 and 3 travelled with deceased and were natural witnesses to the incident – PW 4, a fellow passenger, also corroborated occurrence – Nothing on record to suggest their presence was doubtful or evidence untrustworthy – Consistent and corroborated version upheld by both Trial Court and High Court – Held: Witnesses reliable and trustworthy – No reason to discard their testimony [Paras 18–19].

Criminal Law – Section 33 IPC – Collective Criminal Act – Dragging of deceased and role played by each accused was part of composite act culminating in murder – Under Section 33 IPC, such series of actions form one criminal act when done in furtherance of common intention – Held: Participation in preparatory steps to murder renders all accused equally liable [Para 20].

FIR – Allegation of Police Dictation – PW-1’s FIR alleged to be written by police or at their dictation – Rejected by Court as no evidence to support claim – PW-1 deposed FIR was written in his own handwriting at place of occurrence – Held: Neat handwriting or clean drafting not sufficient to presume police fabrication – No merit in the challenge [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC affirmed – No illegality or infirmity found in concurrent findings of courts below.