Judicial Services – Selection Criteria – Minimum Marks in Viva-Voce – Rule 10, Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 – Advertisement invited applications for 20 vacancies including reserved category posts – Petitioners belonging to Scheduled Caste category failed to secure 45% minimum marks in viva-voce – Contention that fixing minimum marks for interview was impermissible in absence of enabling provision – Held: Rule 10 does not authorize fixation of minimum viva-voce marks – In absence of such prescription, criteria could not be imposed by implication – Reliance placed on *Durgacharan Misra*, *B.S. Yadav*, *P.K. Ramachandra Iyer* and *Umesh Chandra Shukla* – [Paras 8–13].

Service Law – Judicial Recruitment – Change of Selection Criteria – Law settled that selection norms cannot be altered mid-process – Authority competent to prescribe qualifying marks for written and interview stages only before initiation of selection – Subsequent introduction of such requirement impermissible – *K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.* and *Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi* followed – [Paras 12, 16].

Constitutional Law – Article 141 – Binding Nature of Supreme Court Directions – Decisions of the Court have binding effect and constitute law of the land – Directions issued in *All India Judges Association* case regarding non-prescription of interview cut-offs to be implemented unless rules amended – Delhi High Court bound by those directions – [Paras 14–15].

Relief – Appellant Ramesh Kumar having secured 46.25% aggregate marks held entitled to appointment – Writ Petition No. 57 of 2008 allowed – Connected petition (Desh Raj Chalia) dismissed for not meeting aggregate requirement – Respondents directed to offer appointment within two months without retrospective seniority or notional benefits – [Para 18].

Decision: Writ Petition No. 57 of 2008 allowed – Writ Petition No. 66 of 2008 dismissed – Appointment to be offered to Ramesh Kumar within two months – No costs.

Service Law – Departmental Enquiry – Natural Justice – Respondent, an Executive Engineer in PWD, was removed from service based on inquiry reports without being provided copies of documents relied on in the charge sheet – Held: Mandatory requirement under Rule 7(5) of the 1999 Rules to supply relevant documents not complied with – Denial of documents constituted denial of reasonable opportunity to defend – Inquiry proceedings vitiated [Paras 4-14, 22, 24, 31, 34].

Departmental Proceedings – Validity of Ex-Parte Inquiry – Inquiry officer failed to fix date for respondent’s appearance and proceeded ex parte – No oral evidence recorded – Documents not proved – Held: Enquiry officer cannot act as prosecutor and judge – Proceedings conducted in complete breach of fair play and neutrality required in quasi-judicial process – Inquiry stood vitiated [Paras 25-26, 31].

Article 311(2) – Reasonable Opportunity – Respondent denied effective opportunity to defend as he was not furnished relevant materials or allowed to cross-examine witnesses – Inquiry held without following due process – Held: Violation of Article 311(2) and the rule of audi alteram partem [Paras 27-28, 36].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness – Reliance placed on established precedents including Bhagat Ram and Kashinath Dikshita – Held: Denial of access to relevant evidence fundamentally undermines fairness of inquiry – Mere existence of documents in department is no substitute for supply to delinquent employee – Conduct of inquiry failed to meet minimum standards of fairness [Paras 29-33, 35-36].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Show Cause Notice – Respondent alleged to have not replied to show cause notice – Supreme Court rejected plea as no reply could be expected without supply of material documents – Enquiry report itself illegal – Held: Asking for reply without ensuring compliance with procedural safeguards was unjust [Para 37].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of High Court reinstating respondent with all consequential benefits upheld – Liberty granted to State to initiate fresh inquiry in accordance with law and principles of natural justice [Paras 39-40].

Land Acquisition – Valuation of Land – Belting System – Uniform Rate Justified – Acquisition of 38 bighas of compact land in village Jwalapur, District Haridwar for housing scheme – Collector classified lands into three belts, awarding ₹26.25, ₹17.50, and ₹13.12 per sq.ft. respectively – Reference Court reduced to two belts; High Court discarded belting system and awarded uniform rate of ₹26.25 per sq.ft. – Held: High Court justified in treating the entire compact and contiguous land uniformly – No material showing any part of land was less advantageously situated – Belting method unnecessary for such limited extent [Paras 6–7].

Compensation – Market Value – Deduction for Development and Annual Escalation – Collector adopted sale deed dated 19.12.1990 (₹35 per sq.ft.) and deducted 25% for development to arrive at ₹26.25 per sq.ft. – Notification under Section 4(1) issued on 07.12.1991 – Held: Deduction of 25% proper; however, market value to be enhanced by 12% for one-year escalation – Market value fixed at ₹29.50 per sq.ft. as on date of notification – Claimants entitled to all statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 [Paras 9–11, 14].

Interest – Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act – Distinction and Scope – Interest under Section 34 applies to compensation awarded by the Collector; interest under Section 28 applies to enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference or Appellate Court – Not a duplication – Award of interest under Section 28 on enhanced amount is normal rule – Refusal requires specific reasons – Held: High Court rightly granted interest under Section 28; contention of acquiring authority untenable [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Appeals by Authority dismissed – Appeals by landowners allowed in part – Compensation enhanced from ₹26.25 to ₹29.50 per sq.ft. – Claimants entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act – No order as to costs [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Rape – Conviction based on sole testimony of prosecutrix – Corroboration not a rule of law – Victim’s evidence found trustworthy and consistent with medical and circumstantial evidence – Minor inconsistencies or absence of injuries not fatal – Absence of chemical examination of clothes or injuries cannot undermine credible testimony – Victim aged 40 years, accused aged about 20 years – Held: Victim’s inability to resist due to being gagged and overpowered does not negate rape – Conviction justified [Paras 12–15, 18].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal against Acquittal – Scope under Section 378 CrPC – High Court has full power to re-appreciate evidence and reverse acquittal if trial court’s findings are perverse or based on conjecture – Presumption of innocence does not bar interference when miscarriage of justice apparent – Principles in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P. discussed and applied [Paras 16–17].

Evidence – Delay and Conduct – FIR lodged promptly – Medical evidence corroborative – Hostile witnesses not fatal to prosecution case – Delay of few hours in reporting rape reasonably explained by trauma – FIR recorded promptly next day and medical examination consistent with intercourse 12–14 hours earlier – Evidence of victim corroborated by son (PW-7) and medical officers (PWs 2 & 3) [Paras 3, 11, 15].

Finding – Acquittal reversed – High Court justified – Trial court’s view held perverse and against weight of evidence – High Court rightly convicted appellant under Section 376 IPC – Sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹5,000/- upheld [Paras 17–19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC affirmed – No interference warranted.

Criminal Law – Kidnapping for Ransom and Murder – Conviction based on circumstantial and eyewitness evidence – Kidnapping of a 16-year-old schoolboy for ransom of ₹50 lakhs – Victim found murdered by administering chloroform and pentazocine (Fortwin) overdose – Recoveries made at instance of accused – Held: Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of accused – Motive proved – Telephonic ransom calls traced to accused – Fingerprints and medical evidence corroborative [Paras 1–11, 16–18].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Recovery on information from accused – Meaning of “custody” – Formal arrest not mandatory – Person under effective control of police considered in custody – Reliance placed on State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125 – Held: Disclosure statements valid though made before formal arrest – Recovery of body, vehicles, drugs and articles admissible [Paras 11–13].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – Participation and Common Intention – Held: Active participation in every act unnecessary – Meeting of minds sufficient – Conduct of accused, pre-offence purchase of chloroform and Fortwin, and post-offence destruction of evidence proved conspiracy between all three accused including Sonia [Paras 9–10].

Eyewitness Evidence – Chance Witness – Credibility – Presence of witnesses near school and market natural and explained – Expression “chance witness” unsuitable in Indian context – Evidence of PW13 and PW19 accepted as trustworthy [Paras 6–7].

Medical Jurisprudence – Cause of Death – Death due to chloroform and pentazocine poisoning – Medical and forensic reports corroborate purchase of chemicals by accused – Brown pin-point marks on buttocks consistent with injection site – Fatal overdose established [Paras 8–9].

Criminal Procedure – Section 366 CrPC – Confirmation of Death Sentence – Scope of Review – High Court rightly confirmed death penalty for two accused considering cruelty, motive, and age of victim – Supreme Court upheld death penalty for male accused and commuted sentence of female accused [Paras 25–30].

Death Penalty – “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine – Principles reaffirmed – Factors from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab applied – Aggravating factors outweighed mitigating – Murder of innocent child for ransom shows extreme depravity – Held: Death penalty justified for Vikram and Jasvir Singh – Commuted to life imprisonment for Sonia due to lesser involvement and gender [Paras 24–30].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 302, 364A, 120B, and 201 IPC affirmed – Death sentence of appellants Vikram Singh and Jasvir Singh confirmed – Sentence of Sonia modified to imprisonment for life [Paras 30].

Criminal Law – Right of Private Defence – Murder Charge – Acquittal Restored – Appellant, while accompanying his father (co-accused Bakhtawar Singh), fired two shots from his licensed gun when deceased Gurcharan Singh, armed with a Gandasa, attacked his father and caused a deep incised wound on his head – Appellant claimed he apprehended imminent danger to his own and his father’s life – Trial Court accepted defence plea and acquitted both accused – High Court reversed acquittal and convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC – Held: The incident occurred in the accused’s field; the deceased was the aggressor; and the appellant’s act fell squarely within the ambit of private defence – No duty to retreat when faced with imminent threat – Force used not wholly disproportionate – Trial Court’s view plausible and based on correct appreciation of evidence – High Court erred in reversing acquittal without cogent reasons [Paras 16–18, 36–38, 59–64].

Right of Private Defence – Scope and Limits – Sections 96 to 106 IPC – Law does not require a citizen to behave like a coward when faced with imminent peril – Mere reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt sufficient to invoke right of private defence – Force used in such circumstances need not be weighed with “golden scales” – Person exercising the right need not prove it beyond reasonable doubt; preponderance of probabilities suffices [Paras 19–23, 30, 34–35, 58].

Appellate Interference – Acquittal – Presumption of Innocence Reinforced – Appellate court not justified in reversing an acquittal if trial court’s view is possible or plausible – Presumption of innocence strengthened by trial court’s acquittal – Reversal permissible only when trial court’s view is perverse or wholly unreasonable – In this case, trial court’s findings based on sound evaluation of evidence; High Court erred in substituting its own opinion [Paras 61–64].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside – Trial Court’s acquittal restored – Appellant held to have acted in lawful exercise of right of private defence – Acquitted of all charges [Para 65].

Panchayati Raj – Scheduled Areas – 100% Reservation for Chairpersons – Constitutional Validity – Article 243M(4)(b), PESA Act, 1996 – Sections 21(B), 40(B), 55(B) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 – High Court held cent-percent reservation of Chairperson posts unconstitutional as excessive and violative of Article 14 – Supreme Court reversed – Held: Parliament under Article 243M(4)(b) empowered to enact exceptions for Scheduled Areas – Reservation of all Chairperson posts for Scheduled Tribes justified by historical disadvantage and need for tribal self-governance – Bhuria Committee Report and PESA intended to ensure effective tribal participation – Protective discrimination permissible for Scheduled Areas – [Paras 15–23].

Reservation – Aggregate Limit – 80% Reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs – Article 243D – Challenge to Sections 17(B)(2), 36(B)(2), and 51(B)(2) of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act on ground of excessive reservation beyond 50% ceiling – Held: 50% rule in Indra Sawhney applies to public employment, not to political representation – Article 243D a distinct constitutional source – Scheduled Areas constitute an exceptional class warranting special treatment – Reservation up to 80% permissible under Article 243M(4)(b) – [Paras 24–42].

Affirmative Action – Reasonable Classification – Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Areas – Reservation exceeding 50% justified by social and historical conditions – Objective is substantive equality and democratic decentralization – PESA provisions protect tribal communities from exploitation and preserve autonomy – [Paras 28–37].

Election Law – Right to Contest and Vote – Right to vote or contest elections is statutory, not fundamental – Limitations arising from reservation policy incidental to larger objective of ensuring representation of weaker sections – Compelling state interest outweighs individual inconvenience – [Paras 39–40].

Judicial Review – Policy Decisions – Legislative choices for protective discrimination in Scheduled Areas not open to interference – Courts not to second-guess legislative wisdom when policy is founded on intelligible differentia and rational nexus to objective – [Paras 37–38].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Judgment of Jharkhand High Court set aside – Second proviso to Section 4(g) of the PESA Act, 1996 and Sections 21(B), 40(B), 55(B), 17(B)(2), 36(B)(2) and 51(B)(2) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 held constitutionally valid – State Election Commission directed to con

Reservation – Adjustment of Reserved Category Candidates in General Quota – Concessions vs. Merit – Appellants challenged selection of reserved category candidates adjusted in general category despite availing fee/age relaxation – Held: Relaxation in age and fee under Section 8 of the 1994 Act relates to eligibility and does not affect the selection standard – Reserved category candidates securing higher merit than last general category candidate can be adjusted in unreserved quota under Section 3(6) – No conflict with constitutional equality principles under Articles 14 and 16(1) – Distinction drawn between eligibility concession and merit-based selection – Interpretation consistent with object of empowering disadvantaged groups without undermining open competition [Paras 1, 6–10, 16–18, 37–43, 49–53].

Horizontal Reservations – Vacancies for Women and Sportspersons – Carry Forward – 2% posts reserved for sportspersons and 10% for women under horizontal reservations – Held: Horizontal reservations cannot be carried forward – Government Order dated 26.02.1999 mandates unfilled posts under women/sports quotas to be filled by suitable male/general candidates in same cycle – High Court erred in holding such posts were carried forward – Supreme Court clarifies that vacancies were lawfully filled and no illegality occurred in this regard – Directions of High Court modified and set aside [Paras 19–20, 55–64].

Reservation – Constitutional Interpretation – Article 16(4) vs. 16(1) – Held: Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1) but a facet of equality – Reservations must not breach the 50% ceiling (Indra Sawhney) – Reserved category candidates qualifying on merit cannot be excluded from general quota due to non-substantive relaxations – PGIMER v. Faculty Association reaffirms that equality must be balanced with empowerment [Paras 33–36, 48, 54].

Precedents – K.L. Narasimhan Overruled – Reliance on K.L. Narasimhan v. PGIMER for exclusion of reserved category candidates from general quota is misplaced – Overruled by Constitution Bench in PGIMER v. Faculty Association – Observations in Narasimhan not binding – Only candidates benefiting from relaxation in standard (not eligibility) are to be confined to reserved quota [Paras 40–47].

Decision:

Civil Appeals filed by general category candidates dismissed – High Court’s interpretation upheld on merit-based inclusion of reserved candidates in general quota – Civil Appeals filed by State of U.P. allowed – High Court’s directions regarding carry forward of women and sportspersons’ quota set aside – Posts lawfully filled by male/general category candidates.

Limitation – Declaratory Relief – Article 58, Limitation Act, 1963 – Accrual of Cause of Action – Mere existence of wrong entry in revenue records not sufficient to give rise to cause of action – Right to sue arises only when right asserted is infringed or threatened – Suit for declaration filed on 21.08.1990 after parties’ compromise of 26.10.1972 alleged to be barred by limitation – Trial Court, First Appellate Court and High Court dismissed the suit holding limitation began from date of compromise – Held: Right to sue first accrued when defendants refused to correct revenue entries and denied plaintiffs’ title about a week before filing the suit – Plaint averments must be accepted for deciding limitation at threshold – Suit therefore within time – Judgments of courts below and High Court set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for decision on merits [Paras 7–12].

Interpretation of “Right to Sue” – Cause of Action – When Arises – Judicial Precedents – Reiterated that there can be no right to sue until there is infringement or clear threat to infringe the right – Followed C. Mohammed Yunus v. Syed Unissa, AIR 1961 SC 808 – Applied principle that limitation begins when threat to right is manifest, not when adverse entry first made [Paras 7–9].

Revenue Records – Wrong Entry – Effect – Mere wrong entry in record of rights does not confer or extinguish title and cannot by itself start limitation – Cause of action arises when person entitled becomes aware and is denied his claim [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside – Matter remitted for decision on merits – No order as to costs.