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]

Service Law – Dismissal of Bank Officer – Misconduct – Charges of misappropriating Rs. 16.48 lakhs by granting 20 loans against fictitious FDRs – Handwritten ledger entries showed disbursement to unrelated third parties – Respondent absconded from duty without charge handover after vigilance inquiry – Departmental inquiry held charges proved based on documentary and oral evidence – High Court set aside dismissal citing sketchy inquiry report – Held: Findings of inquiry officer were based on adequate evidence and supported by detailed documents – Respondent failed to explain irregularities – High Court erred in interfering with disciplinary authority’s conclusions [Paras 2–11, 16–18].

Judicial Review – Departmental Proceedings – Scope – Inquiry officer not required to write a judicial order but must apply mind and base findings on evidence – Inquiry report assessed relevant entries, witness deposition and handwriting – Held: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and labelling findings as perverse without justification – Findings not based on conjecture or no evidence – Interference unwarranted [Paras 17–18].

Banking Sector – Duty of Integrity – Branch Manager entrusted with public funds – Established that withdrawals were made in names unrelated to FDRs – Documentary evidence in respondent’s handwriting – Respondent offered no defence nor produced borrowers – Held: Misconduct of this nature grave – High level of integrity required in banking services – Reinstatement not justified in law or equity [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside – Writ petition and related contempt proceedings dismissed [Para 20].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based on Sole Eye-Witness – Appellant convicted for killing his wife and son and injuring another son with a knife – Conviction based mainly on testimony of surviving son (PW-1), corroborated by immediate post-incident disclosure to neighbours – Held: Testimony of PW-1 was natural, consistent and credible – Other prosecution witnesses, though not eye-witnesses, supported immediate disclosure – No reason to falsely implicate father – Conviction upheld [Paras 1–4, 11–14, 17]

Criminal Trial – Evidence of Sole Witness – Section 134 of Evidence Act – Quality of evidence, not quantity, is determinative – No legal bar to convict on testimony of a single witness if wholly reliable – Court reiterated that a trustworthy solitary eye-witness can form the basis of conviction even in absence of corroboration – Appeal based on numerical inadequacy of witnesses rejected [Paras 24–28]

Criminal Law – Motive – Not Always Necessary – Absence of established motive immaterial where prosecution relies on direct evidence – Held: When direct evidence by natural witness (son) is credible, lack of motive does not weaken prosecution case – Appellant's silence under Section 313 CrPC and lack of explanation for abscondence also weighed against him [Paras 16–21]

Criminal Law – Abscondence of Accused – Not Conclusive of Guilt – Absconding after incident, while relevant, cannot by itself establish guilt – However, unexplained abscondence adds to suspicion when read with other incriminating circumstances – Court refused to treat abscondence as determinative but considered it contextually [Para 22]

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Accused’s Silence – Accused gave identical response (“I am innocent”) to all questions under Section 313 – No explanation offered for circumstances – Held: Incriminating evidence uncontroverted – Absence of denial or explanation adds to weight of prosecution case [Paras 15–16]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302 and 323 IPC confirmed – Sentence of life imprisonment and 6 months RI to run concurrently – Appreciation recorded for amicus curiae assistance.

Criminal Law – Dying Declaration – Section 32(1), Evidence Act – Section 162(2), CrPC – Statement of deceased recorded by Head Constable after medical certification of fitness held admissible as dying declaration. There is no mandatory requirement that such declaration must be recorded by a Magistrate or Doctor. What is essential is voluntariness, truth, and fitness of maker. Statement corroborated by medical and ocular evidence – FIR based on such statement valid. [Paras 6–7]

Criminal Law – Appreciation of Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Non-examination or hostility of some witnesses does not demolish prosecution case if other reliable evidence and dying declaration conclusively establish guilt. Conviction can rest solely on truthful and voluntary dying declaration corroborated by medical evidence. [Para 8–9]

Criminal Law – Homicide – Section 302 vs Section 304 Part II IPC – Assault arose from family property dispute. Accused armed with iron rod inflicted single blow on head of deceased; no premeditation or intention to kill established. Injury fatal but inflicted without knowledge that it was likely to cause death. Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II IPC. [Paras 10–11]

Criminal Procedure – Evidence – A police officer may record a statement under Section 32(1) Evidence Act if the victim is in fit condition and statement is voluntary; such statement is not rendered inadmissible merely because not recorded by a Magistrate. [Paras 6–7]

Sentence – Life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC modified to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of ₹20,000 under Section 304 Part II IPC; in default, further imprisonment of six months. [Para 11]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence reduced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹20,000, in default to undergo further six months’ rigorous imprisonment – Other convictions under Sections 148, 452, and 323 IPC maintained.

Motor Accident Compensation – Valuation of Homemaker’s Services – Structured Formula – Tribunal and High Court awarded inadequate compensation for death of housewife by undervaluing her contribution to the household – Supreme Court held that services rendered by homemakers must be recognized and quantified reasonably – Applied structured formula under Section 163A and fixed annual income at Rs. 60,000 – Award of Rs. 2.5 lakh enhanced to Rs. 6 lakh with interest [Paras 30–34, 61–63]

Gender Justice – Article 15(1) – Bias Against Homemakers – Court decried systemic gender bias in valuing unpaid domestic work of women – Criticised Census categorisation equating homemakers with beggars and prisoners – Recognized that homemakers perform valuable, non-market work vital to economic and social stability – Recommended legislative reforms to recognize and compensate such labour [Paras 2–12, 28]

Judicial Recognition – CEDAW and International Standards – Referred to India’s obligations under CEDAW to value and quantify women’s unpaid care work – Quoted international and domestic jurisprudence (e.g., Deepika v. NIC, Lata Wadhwa) – Urged development of gender-sensitive legal frameworks for assessing compensation in motor accident and matrimonial matters [Paras 14–20, 27]

Multiplier Method – Tribunal Error – Tribunal assessed income correctly using the structured formula but arbitrarily reduced compensation citing victim’s non-earning status – Held unjustified – High Court erroneously treated the deceased as non-contributor despite evidence – Multiplier method reaffirmed as appropriate for determining just compensation [Paras 33–34, 60–62]

Doctrine – Just Compensation – Reiterated that compensation must reflect the actual loss to dependents and not be arbitrary or tokenistic – Held: Even in absence of market income, homemaker’s services have pecuniary value and must be compensated using structured criteria under Section 163A Second Schedule [Paras 47–60]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Tribunal judgments set aside – Compensation of Rs. 6 lakh awarded with 6% interest from date of claim application – Respondents directed to pay within 3 months – Appellants also awarded costs of Rs. 50,000.

Military Law – Disability Pension – Attributability to Military Service – Appellant invalided out for “unspecified psychosis” with 40% disability – Medical Board opined that disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, noting absence of service in field/high-altitude/stress conditions – Held: Appellant not entitled to disability pension under Regulation 173 – Medical Board’s opinion, being expert and unanimous, accepted [Paras 4–7, 19–21].

Pension Regulations – Regulation 173 – Requirements – To qualify for disability pension under Regulation 173, (i) disease must be attributable to or aggravated by military service, and (ii) assessed at 20% or more – Though disability exceeded threshold, attributability not established – Held: Failure of first limb of Regulation 173 bars entitlement [Paras 8–10].

Entitlement Rules – Presumption of Soundness – Benefit of Doubt – Rules 5 and 14 provide presumption of sound mental health at time of entry into service and benefit of doubt in absence of contrary evidence – Held: These beneficial rules to be liberally interpreted, but not blindly applied when medical board gives reasoned finding ruling out service connection [Paras 11–15].

Medical Board – Evidentiary Value – Judicial Review – Medical Board found disease not linked to service based on medical consensus and factual assessment of posting locations (peace areas) – Held: Opinion of Medical Board as expert body given due weight – Absent perversity or procedural irregularity, Court will not substitute its view on medical diagnosis [Paras 20–21].

Precedents – Similar Psychiatric Disability Cases – Court relied on prior rulings in Baljit Singh and Dhir Singh China where similar psychiatric illnesses held to be constitutional and not attributable to service – Held: Consistent view that expert medical opinion excluding service connection must be respected [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Medical Board’s finding upheld – No recovery of any disability pension amount already paid – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 21–22].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Common Object – Vicarious Liability – Eight accused charged for murder arising from land dispute – Deceased shot by co-accused Rajeshwar Singh; appellants armed with lethal weapons (spear, farsa, lathi) – Held: Even though only one fired the gun, all members of the assembly shared the common object to “teach a lesson” to the complainant party – Presence with deadly weapons and conduct showed awareness that murder was a likely consequence – Common object proved – Conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC justified – Vicarious liability under Section 149 correctly applied [Paras 13–19].

Right of Private Defence – Scope and Limitations – Sections 96–105 IPC – Plea of self-defence rejected – Accused were aggressors, having gone armed to the land in dispute – Deceased unarmed, engaged in cleaning land – No imminent threat to life or property – Right of private defence cannot be exercised against an unarmed person, nor used as a pretext for aggression – Doctrine protects only defensive acts, not retaliatory or vindictive ones – Held: Appellants failed to establish even preponderance of probability to sustain plea of private defence [Paras 20–28].

Criminal Law – Non-Explanation of Injuries on Accused – Effect on Prosecution Case – Omission to explain minor injuries on accused does not ipso facto vitiate prosecution case – Obligation arises only where (i) injuries are serious, and (ii) they are shown to have been caused during the same incident – Injury on appellant Sheo Jee Singh (swelling and fracture near elbow) superficial and not material – Conviction not affected [Paras 29–30].

Principles Reaffirmed –
– “Common object” does not require prior meeting of minds; can develop on the spot.
– Right of private defence is a defensive, not aggressive, right.
– Non-explanation of trivial injuries is not fatal to prosecution where evidence is otherwise cogent.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of appellants under Sections 302/149, 307/149, and related provisions upheld – Sentences affirmed [Para 31].