Service Law – Seniority – Retrospective Promotion – Legality – Held: Promotees cannot claim seniority from a date prior to their actual appointment to the cadre. Appellants, who were promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACFs) in 2002, were retrospectively given seniority from 1994. Respondents, appointed directly in 1996, challenged this retrospective promotion. Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that retrospective seniority was illegal, as the appellants were not borne in the cadre prior to 2002. Seniority begins only from the date of entry into the cadre, not from when vacancy arises or when promotion becomes due [Paras 3, 9, 12-14].

Quota System – No 50:50 Quota in Unamended Rule 5 – Retrospective Interpretation Rejected – Clarificatory Argument Denied. Appellants contended that their delayed promotion violated an implied 50:50 quota between promotees and direct recruits. However, the Court held that Rule 5 (prior to 1999 amendment) only referred to filling "substantive vacancies from time to time" and did not fix cadre-based quota. The 1999 amendment introducing a 50:50 quota was prospective in nature, not clarificatory or retrospective [Paras 8-11].

Seniority – Fortuitous Appointments – Not Applicable to Respondents. Argument that respondents' direct recruitment in 1996 was in excess of quota and hence "fortuitous" was rejected. As there was no cadre quota in force at the time, their appointments were valid and entitled to seniority [Paras 6-9].

Seniority – Working Under Direct Appointees for Years – Relevant Factor. Appellants had worked under the direct recruits from 1996 to 2002 as Range Forest Officers. Granting them seniority over respondents would disrupt service structure and create unfairness. Court refused to upset settled seniority after such long duration [Para 15].

Conclusion – Appeal Dismissed. Supreme Court upheld High Court’s judgment; retrospective promotions quashed; no costs awarded [Paras 15-16].

Veterinary Practice – Certificate Holders – Central Act Superseding State Law – Section 30 of Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 held valid – It prohibits non-degree holders from practising veterinary medicine except for minor services under supervision – Court held this to be a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) – Not unconstitutional [Paras 30, 39, 51].

Repeal and Savings – Applicability of Section 6, General Clauses Act – Held: Section 6 is not applicable when new legislation indicates contrary intention – Since Central Act replaces State Act with higher qualification requirement, accrued or inchoate rights of unregistered certificate holders not protected – No vested right to continue practice [Paras 58-70].

Fundamental Rights – Article 19(1)(g) – Reasonable Restrictions – Section 30 imposes professional qualifications – Supreme Court upheld legislative competence and validity – Parliament can impose higher qualifications in public interest – Legislative choice respected [Paras 28-30, 35-36].

Public Employment – Right to Continue in Service – Certificate Holders Already in Government or Semi-Government Service – Held: Cannot be terminated merely due to change in qualification norms – They enjoy protection under Article 311 – Allowed to continue to perform "minor veterinary services" as defined in State notifications under Section 30(b) [Paras 81-82].

Registration – Prerequisite for Right to Practice – Certificate holders not registered under State Veterinary Council cannot claim right to practice – Holding educational qualification alone does not confer enforceable right to be registered or to practice [Paras 73-76, 80].

Legislative Supremacy – State Laws Yield to Central Act – Once Central Act enacted under Article 252 and adopted by States, State Acts stand repealed – Veterinary qualification standards must be uniform and centrally regulated [Paras 18-19, 52, 61-65].

Decision – Writ Petition and Appeal Dismissed – Section 30 upheld as constitutional – Certificate holders not entitled to practice unless covered under notification – Those already in service allowed to continue in limited roles under State notification [Paras 81-82].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Sections 306 and 107 IPC – Mens rea Essential – Mere harassment or taunting insufficient – Suicide by wife allegedly due to continuous harassment and dowry demands – No suicide note – No specific instigation or intentional aid proved – Held: Mere discord or cruelty in matrimonial home does not automatically amount to abetment to suicide – Mens rea (guilty intent) and direct or indirect instigation or aid must be clearly established to sustain charge under Section 306 IPC [Paras 8–13].

Abetment – Legal Interpretation – Words Uttered in Anger Not Sufficient – Cited decisions clarify that stray remarks or general harassment without active encouragement or instigation do not satisfy Section 107 IPC – Accused must have actively participated or instigated suicide by deliberate conduct or conspiracy [Paras 12–13].

Dowry Harassment – Scope of Section 304B IPC – Distinction from Section 306 IPC – Supreme Court clarified that if suicide occurs "soon before death" due to dowry demand, Section 304B IPC may be attracted – However, no such charge was framed in this case – Hence, conviction under that section was not possible [Paras 16–17].

Framing of Charges – Judicial Scrutiny – Charge under Section 306 IPC rightly quashed by High Court – Charge under Section 498A IPC remitted and framed by competent Magistrate – Appeal filed by deceased’s father (Bhagwan Das) dismissed – Supreme Court declined to interfere [Paras 6–7, 15–18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s view that ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC not made out – Reiterated need for careful legal scrutiny in suicide cases, especially involving matrimonial disputes [Para 18].

Service Law – Direct Recruitment vs. Promotion – Eligibility Criteria – Appellant, a degree-holder Junior Engineer, challenged the appointment of diploma-holder JEs as Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment – Contended that degree-holders had legitimate right to be considered for promotion ahead of diploma-holders – Held: Recruitment rules permitted diploma-holders with required experience to be appointed by direct recruitment – No infirmity in appointment process [Paras 8-10].

Promotion – No Vested Right – Appellant claimed entitlement to promotion over diploma-holder JEs due to higher qualification – Held: Mere possession of higher qualification does not automatically confer right to promotion – Promotion must be as per rules – Unless rules specify preference for degree-holders, such claim cannot be sustained [Paras 11-12].

Equality – Articles 14 and 16 – Discrimination Alleged – Appellant alleged that promotion of diploma-holders via direct recruitment bypassed degree-holders – Held: No violation of Articles 14 or 16 – All candidates selected as per prescribed rules – There was no hostile discrimination or denial of equal opportunity [Paras 13-14].

Seniority – Appellant's claim based on date of entry into service as JE – Held: Seniority alone does not override recruitment norms – Appointment to higher post must conform to rules governing eligibility and selection – No arbitrariness found [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld appointments made through direct recruitment of diploma-holders as Assistant Engineers – No interference with High Court decision warranted – Appeal dismissed without costs [Para 17].

Succession Law – Proof of Will – Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – Will executed two weeks before testator’s death due to cancer – Alleged execution in favour of niece while disinheriting wife and minor children – High Court held Will valid based solely on compliance with formal proof – Supreme Court held that proof of execution must be accompanied by explanation of suspicious circumstances – Will set aside [Paras 1, 7–9, 12–20]

Suspicious Circumstances – Will executed secretly and without testator's family's knowledge – Sole attesting witness unable to explain key events – Sub-Registrar did not confirm reading over contents to testator – Disproportionate bequest to niece raised doubts – Propounder (respondent) did not examine herself – Held: Adverse inference must be drawn – Suspicious circumstances not dispelled [Paras 13–16]

Burden of Proof – Propounder of Will must not only prove execution and attestation but must also dispel suspicious circumstances – Propounder failed to explain how original Will came into her possession or justify disinheritance of minor daughters – Non-examination of propounder fatal – High Court erred in shifting burden back to appellants [Paras 14–16, 18–19]

Execution and Registration – Mere registration of Will is not conclusive of validity – Execution must be voluntary and with full understanding – DW-4’s evidence about registration late in the day and lack of clarity in sequence of events cast doubt on due execution – DW-5 (Sub-Registrar) did not confirm compliance with statutory formalities [Paras 8, 16]

Judicial Review – Appellate Interference – High Court erred in reversing findings of fact by Trial Court without dealing with core suspicious circumstances – Judgment based on wrong legal test – Appellate court should not lightly interfere with factual findings on execution of Will unless perverse or unsupported [Paras 18, 20]

Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Trial Court’s judgment restored – No costs.

Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Husband’s Liability Upheld – Deceased Found Hanging in Matrimonial Home – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant, Raja Lal Singh, was the husband of the deceased who died within seven months of marriage due to hanging – Evidence showed repeated dowry harassment including shortly before her death – Held: Ingredients of Section 304B IPC were satisfied – No explanation offered by husband as to the cause of death in matrimonial home – Absence of rebuttal to presumption under law – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15–19].

Benefit of Doubt – Co-accused (In-laws) Acquitted – Evidence Insufficient – Separate Residence – Co-accused Pradip Singh (brother-in-law) and Sanjana Devi (sister-in-law) were acquitted – Court noted they lived on a different floor and there was no direct evidence linking them to the death – Held: Mere omnibus allegations of dowry demand from family members insufficient – Possibility of false implication to widen net acknowledged – Appeal allowed in their favour [Paras 13–14].

Presumption under Section 304B – Suicide vs Homicide – Both Covered – Burden on Accused to Rebut – Court clarified that whether death was homicidal or suicidal is immaterial under Section 304B IPC – What matters is whether the death occurred in unnatural circumstances and whether dowry-related cruelty preceded the death – In absence of alternative explanation by husband, presumption stands [Paras 16–19].

Interpretation – 'Soon Before Her Death' – Meaning – Not Literally Immediate – Dowry-related harassment need not occur immediately before the death – Even a few days or weeks earlier can satisfy the requirement, provided a nexus is established – Evidence showed clear temporal connection between demands and death [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal of Husband Dismissed – In-laws Acquitted – Criminal Appeal No. 513 of 2006 (by husband) was dismissed – Criminal Appeal No. 514 of 2006 (by in-laws) was allowed – Conviction of in-laws set aside and they were directed to be released forthwith [Para 20].

Service Law - UGC Scheme – Revision of Pay Scales and Age of Superannuation – Voluntary Nature – Not Binding on States – Teachers Not Entitled to Claim as Matter of Right – The appellants relied on UGC letters of 1998 and subsequent notifications recommending superannuation at 62 years – Andhra Pradesh, by G.O.Ms. No. 208 (1999), implemented revised pay scales but retained retirement age at 58 for college teachers and 60 for university teachers – Held: The UGC scheme and Central Government communications were voluntary, not mandatory – State Governments have discretion to adopt or modify the scheme – Teachers cannot enforce UGC recommendations as of right – Acceptance of pay scales does not compel acceptance of superannuation clause [Paras 13–16].

Precedent – T.P. George Case – Applied – The issue was identical in earlier challenge where Kerala High Court’s view that UGC scheme is non-binding was affirmed by Supreme Court – This principle governs the present appeals – Teachers cannot compel extension of retirement age merely because State accepted other parts of scheme [Paras 12–14, 18].

Entry 66 List I vs Entry 25 List III – Distinction – No Conflict with Parliamentary Legislation – UGC letters not statutory enactments – Even if treated as policy under Article 73, they expressly leave implementation to States’ “wish” – Hence, no encroachment or repugnancy with State powers – Prof. Yashpal case distinguished – It dealt with validity of legislation creating private universities, not applicable here [Paras 15, 18–20].

Policy on Superannuation – Court’s Limited Role – Fixation of retirement age is a matter of policy for State Governments – Court cannot prescribe or mandate a uniform age under Article 226 or Article 32 – Desirability arguments for higher age cannot substitute legislative or executive policy choice [Paras 19–20].

Challenge to G.O.Ms. 208 – Procedural Deficiency – Many writ petitions were filed before the G.O.Ms., and petitioners failed to amend or properly challenge it – No constitutional challenge to State’s power raised – Appeals based on UGC scheme alone unsustainable [Para 20].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – No right to enhanced age of superannuation – State’s discretion under G.O.Ms. 208 upheld – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 21].

Service Law – Current Duty Charge (CDC) / Look-after arrangement – No right to promotion – Diploma-holder JEs given CDC as SDOs under proviso to Rule 5 of 1941 Rules – CDC withdrawn by order dated 22.06.2005 – Held: CDC is a stop-gap, non-promotional arrangement carrying no seniority or right; withdrawal confers no cause of action – High Court erred in interfering under Article 226 [Paras 6-9, 13-15].

Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction over CDC withdrawal – Limits – Reliance on State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharma – No one has a right to ask for or retain CDC; its withdrawal causes no legal prejudice – High Court’s exercise of jurisdiction deprecated as misuse in facts [Para 14].

Promotions – Applicable Rules – Repeal vs. Amendment – Vacancies of 2000–01 – 2004 Rules held applicable – Although normal rule is that pre-amendment vacancies are governed by old rules, here 1941 Rules stood repealed by 2004 Rules (Rule 10) and Government took a conscious decision not to fill under 1941 Rules pending new framework; direction to apply 1941 Rules set aside [Paras 17, 20-24, 30, 35, 38].

Conscious Policy Decision – Validity – Evidence & context – Government’s intention discerned from (i) withdrawal order citing filling through DPC under 2004 Rules, (ii) affidavits indicating impending amendment and withheld DPCs, and (iii) serious doubts over “outstanding merit” certifications with Vigilance inquiry – Such decision to await/apply 2004 Rules upheld [Paras 10-11, 20-24, 28].

Outstanding Merit Route under 1941 Rules – Nature and concerns – Proviso to Rule 5 permitted relaxation for “outstanding merit”, not a regular promotional channel; 2004 Rules replaced this with a structured quota (diploma-holders 25% of 40% promotional quota) under seniority-cum-merit – Challenges based on “outstanding merit” rejected in these facts [Paras 17, 19].

Precedents – Distinction from ‘vacancies governed by old rules’ line – Rangaiah, Ganeshwar Rao, B.L. Gupta, P. Mahendran, A.A. Calton distinguished as cases of amendments or ongoing selection; here there was repeal and a valid policy not to operate the old rules – Applied: Dr. Ramulu v. Suryaprakash Rao (upholding conscious decision pending new rules); State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharma; Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar (CDC not promotion) [Paras 13-15, 24-25, 29-37].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – State directed to fill SDO vacancies strictly under 2004 Rules; all eligible candidates to be considered; entire process of recommendation and appointment to be completed within three months – No order as to costs [Paras 38-39].

Service Law - Headmaster Recruitment – Requisite Teaching Experience – Experience as Lab Assistant/Teacher Grade-III under Subordinate Service Rules does not satisfy 1970 Rules – Posts of Headmaster governed by Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 requiring Bachelor’s degree + B.Ed./equivalent and specified teaching/admin experience in higher classes – Experience gained as Laboratory Assistant or Teacher Grade-III (minimum qualification: matric/secondary with training) is not equivalent – Held: RPSC rightly declined consideration; High Court erred in holding otherwise [Paras 9-15, 17].

PSC/Expert View – Judicial Deference – Commission, an expert body, after consulting experts, opined Lab Assistants are ineligible for Headmaster posts – Courts should be slow to interfere with academic/technical opinions absent mala fides or rule breach – Applied: P.K. Ramachandra Iyer; principle of expert deference reiterated [Paras 15-16, 24].

Strict Compliance with Recruitment Rules – No Relaxation of Essential Qualifications – A candidate must possess essential qualifications/experience on the notified date (or as per rules); selection bodies cannot relax essentials absent express power – Applied: J.C. Yadav; Ashok Kumar Sharma; U.P. PSC v. Alpana; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Sajal Kumar Roy [Paras 20-22].

Ineligibility Cannot be Cured by Regularisation/Equivalence – Appointments/promotions must conform to statutory rules; ineligible candidates cannot be brought in via regularisation or by clubbing disparate experiences – Applied: A. Umarani; State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Verma – Division Bench view in Manmohar Singh (clubbing Grade-III with Grade-II experience) disapproved [Paras 18-19, 25-27].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Division Bench judgment set aside – RPSC’s rejection of respondents’ claims sustained – No order as to costs [Para 28].