Bail Cancellation – High Court's Error – The Supreme Court canceled the bail granted to the second respondent, noting that the High Court failed to consider crucial aspects such as the pending examination of important witnesses and the risk of witness tampering. The Court emphasized the nature and gravity of the offense and the role attributed to the second respondent [Paras 10-11].

Fair Trial – Witness Examination – The Court highlighted that the release of the second respondent on bail could impede a fair trial, especially given the apprehension of witness tampering. The ongoing trial's completion was directed to be expedited [Para 10].

Discretionary Power – Improper Exercise – The Supreme Court found the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail to be improper, given the circumstances of the case and the material evidence against the second respondent [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The High Court's order dated 2 March 2022 granting bail is set aside – The second respondent is to surrender forthwith – The trial court is directed to conduct and conclude the trial expeditiously within one year [Paras 12-13].

Service Law – Civil Judges Selection – The Supreme Court held that the rejection of candidates on the technical ground of non-production of original certificates at the time of the interview was improper, unjustified, and not warranted. The Court noted that there were vacancies available, which, if filled by meritorious candidates, would benefit the institution by helping in the disposal of cases pending in large numbers [Paras 16-17].

Adjustment of Candidates – The Court directed that the eight appellants, who had secured higher marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories, be allowed to join forthwith. They would be entitled to seniority as per their merit but not to any arrears of salary for the intervening period. The State was directed to adjust three candidates from reserved categories against future vacancies or borrow posts from future vacancies [Paras 17-19].

Non-Production of Original Certificates – The Court observed that non-production of original certificates at the time of the interview, despite later submission, should not result in the cancellation of candidatures, especially when the candidates were duly qualified and had scored higher marks than the last selected candidates [Paras 9-14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The rejection of candidatures and the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside. The appellants are to be allowed to join immediately with seniority as per merit but without arrears of salary for the intervening period [Paras 19-20].

Contempt of Court – Advocate's Conduct – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Sections 2(c)(iii) and 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The Court found that the appellant's behavior was thoroughly contemptuous and involved a clear attempt to obstruct the process of justice. The appellant's actions included preventing the execution of a non-bailable warrant and obstructing police officials, as recorded in video footage [Paras 2-5].

Disproportionate Sentence – The Court rejected the argument that the sentence was disproportionate, affirming both the two weeks' imprisonment and the one-year debarment from practicing as an advocate. The decision was consistent with the precedent set in R.K. Anand vs Registrar Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 [Paras 6-8].

Abuse of Judicial Process – The appellant's conduct included leveling wanton allegations against a Single Judge of the Madras High Court and seeking the recusal of a judge on improper grounds. The Court noted the appellant's lack of respect for the administration of justice, as evidenced by his multiple adjournments and improper applications [Paras 8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The conviction and sentencing, including the debarment from practicing as an advocate for one year, are upheld [Para 9].

Public Service – Promotion and Direct Recruitment – Applicability of Rules – Appeals challenging the High Court's directive to fill vacancies as per the old rules – High Court applied the principle from Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, holding vacancies arising prior to rule amendments should be filled by old rules – Supreme Court reviews and restates the principle, emphasizing no vested right to promotion under old rules without specific statutory provisions – Appeals allowed, reversing High Court's directive [Paras 1-24].

Doctrine of Pleasure – Constitutional Provision – Status of Public Servants – Discusses Articles 309, 310, and 311 of the Constitution – Highlights the public policy behind the doctrine of pleasure, maintaining that public servants hold office during the pleasure of the President or Governor, subject to statutory rules – Explains the legal relationship of status over contract, allowing unilateral rule changes by the government [Paras 6-20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Supreme Court clarifies that vacancies arising before the amendment of recruitment rules do not necessarily follow old rules unless explicitly stated – Sets aside High Court's order, directing compliance with new recruitment rules for vacancies arising post-amendment.

Compassionate Appointment – Applicability of Rules – High Court dismissed appellant’s plea for appointment under 1990 Rules, directing consideration under 2020 Rules – Supreme Court reversed this decision – Clarified that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, appellant entitled to appointment under 1990 Rules prevailing at the time of the father's death and initial application – Held that delays attributable to the department should not disadvantage the applicant [Paras 6-7].

Compassionate Appointment – Delays by Authorities – Emphasized that applications for compassionate appointments must be considered promptly, ideally within six months – Directed authorities to ensure timely, fair, and reasonable consideration to avoid frustrating the policy's purpose [Paras 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Respondents directed to consider appellant's application under the 1990 Rules – Decision to be made within four weeks – Appellant to receive benefits from the date of appointment only – No order as to costs [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Bail – High Court granted bail to respondent-accused based on parity – Supreme Court reversed this decision – Emphasized that bail should not be granted mechanically and must consider the nature of the offence, severity of punishment, and prima facie involvement of the accused – Highlighted the need for reasoned orders reflecting judicial discretion and application of mind [Paras 30-39].

Cancellation of Bail – Parameters – Supreme Court underscored the importance of considering relevant factors such as criminal history, material evidence, and the seriousness of charges – Stressed that bail granted on untenable grounds or overlooking significant details can be cancelled even without supervening circumstances [Paras 30-39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Respondent-accused's bail cancelled – Directed to surrender within one week – Observations limited to bail cancellation and not to influence the trial court’s final adjudication [Paras 40-42].

Pension Scheme – Applicability – High Court held that respondent, the widow of a deceased employee, was entitled to family pension under the Old Pension Rules – Supreme Court reversed this decision – Clarified that employees appointed or absorbed after 31.08.2005 are governed by the New Contributory Pension Scheme, which does not provide for pension/family pension – Absorption in government service does not retroactively apply old pension rules [Paras 1-7].

Family Pension – New Contributory Pension Scheme – The Supreme Court emphasized that the corrigendum issued clarified that prior service before absorption would not be treated as government service – Thus, the respondent's husband, absorbed in government service from 02.03.2009, was subject to the New Contributory Pension Scheme [Para 6].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgments quashed – Respondent not entitled to family pension under Old Pension Rules – Respondent governed by New Contributory Pension Scheme – No order as to costs [Para 7].

Pay Fixation – Re-employment – High Court held that respondent, a retired Major, should have his basic pay fixed at par with his last drawn pay in the Armed Forces upon re-appointment in the Central Reserve Police Force – Supreme Court reversed this decision – Clarified that Para 8 of the CCS Order does not grant entitlement to pay protection based on last drawn pay – Pay on re-employment to be fixed with reference to the minimum scale of the civil post, not exceeding last drawn pay in Armed Forces [Paras 1-6].

Central Civil Services Order – Interpretation – Para 8 – Supreme Court emphasized that Para 8 provides for advance increments based on years of service in the Armed Forces, but does not mandate fixing pay at the last drawn rate in the Armed Forces – The reference to last drawn pay is to ensure the computed pay in the civil post does not exceed it [Para 5.3].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Writ petition by respondent dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 6].

Land Acquisition – Deemed Lapse – High Court held acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation – Supreme Court reversed High Court’s decision – Clarified Section 24(2) applies only when authorities fail to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more – Compensation deposited in treasury valid – Exclusion of period covered by interim orders for computing five years – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-5].

Section 24(2) – Proviso to Section 24(2) forms part of the main section – No new cause of action for challenging concluded proceedings – Period of interim orders excluded in computation of five years – Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority case applicable – High Court’s reliance on overruled precedent erroneous [Paras 4-4.1].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment and order quashed – Acquisition proceedings valid – No order as to costs [Paras 5].