Recruitment Notification Validity - Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) notification for lecturer posts in Home Science without specifying subject specializations held valid - Tribunal and High Court erred in quashing the notification - Supreme Court found no mandate in recruitment rules for subject-wise specification - Set aside judgments, upheld recruitment process. [Paras 2-3, 8, 12, 17-18]

Interpretation of Recruitment Rules - Rules governing lecturer posts in Home Science don’t require subject specialization specification - Qualification for teaching undergraduate students is a master’s degree in Home Science, irrespective of specialization. [Paras 10, 14]

Judicial Review Scope - High Court's error in extending beyond judicial review - Misapplication of rules by assuming the need for subject specialization in Home Science - Supreme Court emphasizes adherence to rule-based recruitment. [Paras 13, 16-17]

UGC Affidavit Reference - UGC affidavit supports non-requirement of subject-wise classification for Home Science lecturer posts - Reinforces Supreme Court’s interpretation of rules. [Para 11]

Error in Tribunal and High Court Judgment - Misinterpretation of Home Science as a stream, not a subject - Incorrect comparison with specialized executive posts - High Court’s logic flawed regarding specialization in undergraduate subjects like History. [Paras 13-15, 16]

Decision - Appeals allowed, judgments of High Court and Tribunal set aside - Recruitment based on the challenged notification affirmed. [Para 18]

Bail Application in Serious Offences – Rejection by High Court and Subsequent Appeal to Supreme Court – Involvement in offences under IPC and Arms Act – FIR No. 77/2019 from Police Station I.P. Estate, Delhi. [Para 1-3]

Duration of Custody and Health Issues – Appellant in custody for over four and a half years and facing health issues – Considered significant in granting bail. [Para 4]

Supreme Court’s Decision – Bail granted considering the duration of custody and appellant's health condition – Appellant directed to be produced before the Trial Court for release on bail, subject to conditions imposed for ensuring presence in trial proceedings and not misusing liberty. [Paras 5-6]

Conditions for Bail – Emphasis on cooperation with trial and prohibition against misuse of liberty – Warning that any violation may lead to cancellation of bail. [Para 6]

Constitutional Law – Fundamental Rights – Right to Fair Trial – Interpretation of Procedural Laws – Court examined the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Court distinguished between special laws with explicit limitations and procedural laws with inherent flexibility in applying limitation provisions. [Para 1-12]

Interpretation of Limitation Provisions – The Court clarified the scope of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, in relation to special or local laws prescribing periods of limitation. It highlighted the distinction between special laws expressly excluding the application of Section 5 and procedural laws where Section 5 could be invoked unless expressly excluded. [Para 7-11]

Precedents on Limitation – The Court analyzed precedents such as Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh, Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, and Gopal Sardar v. Karuna Sardar to elucidate the principles governing the application of limitation provisions in various statutory contexts. [Para 5-11]

Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act – The Court concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be invoked in appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC unless expressly excluded by the statute. It rejected the contention that special laws prescribing limitation automatically preclude the application of Section 5. [Para 12]

Dismissal of Appeal – The Court dismissed the appellant's challenge against the delay condonation granted by the High Court, affirming the validity of the appeal against acquittal filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. It vacated the interim order and directed the matter to continue in the Delhi High Court. [Para 12]

Decision: Court upheld the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC. It dismissed the appellant's challenge, affirming the validity of the appeal filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The interim order was vacated, and the matter was directed to continue in the Delhi High Court.

Anticipatory Bail Denied by High Court – Challenge Against Order Dated 04.08.2023 in Criminal Misc. No.44004/2022 by Patna High Court – FIR No.817/2016 for offenses under IPC Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 34, 120-B – Initial application for anticipatory bail withdrawn, subsequent application dismissed based on G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu precedent. [Para 1-3]

Supreme Court’s Consideration – Hearing by Supreme Court Justices – Assessment of circumstances on record. [Para 4]

Entitlement to Anticipatory Bail – Supreme Court finds appellant entitled to relief under Section 438 of the Code – Overturning High Court’s decision. [Para 5]

Conditions for Bail – Direction for appellant's release on bail upon arrest, subject to Rs.25,000 cash security and two like sureties – Instructions to not misuse liberty, influence witnesses, or tamper with evidence. [Para 5]

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Overruling of High Court’s order – Grant of anticipatory bail to appellant Nandu Prasad in connection with specified crime. [Para 5]

Constitutional Law – Administrative Arbitrariness – Judicial Review – The Supreme Court reviewed the decision of the High Court regarding an appeal by the appellant for a primary school teacher position. The Court examined the administrative actions of the Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for the Physically Handicapped in their recruitment process and the arbitrariness of their criteria. [Para 2, 10-11, 13, 26]

Advertisement and Selection Criteria – Institute's advertisement for primary school teacher post in 2016, stipulating qualifications and selection process including an interview – Modification in 2016 replacing interview with allocation of marks for additional qualifications [Para 3, 4].

Judicial Review in Public Law – The Court distinguished between judicial review in public law and civil law, emphasizing the role of constitutional courts in controlling the exercise of power by the state and its instrumentalities. It clarified that the primary purpose of quashing administrative actions is to prevent excess and abuse of power. [Para 17-18, 20]

Arbitrary and Illegal Administrative Actions – The Court found the Institute's action in denying the appellant marks for his PG Degree as arbitrary and illegal. It rejected the submission that the PG Degree must be in a "relevant subject" for additional qualification marks. [Para 11-12]

Remedial Measures for Arbitrary Actions – Addressing the limitations in providing restitution for arbitrary actions due to systemic delays in the judicial process, the Court highlighted the need for appropriate measures to compensate for injurious consequences arising from such actions. [Para 19, 23-25]

Compensation in Lieu of Specific Performance – Owing to the closure of the school for which the recruitment was conducted, the Court could not direct employment for the appellant but acknowledged the need for an alternative form of restitution. Consequently, the Court directed monetary compensation to the appellant for the arbitrary denial of appointment. [Para 16, 25-26]

Decision – Appeal allowed, High Court's judgment set aside, and compensation awarded to appellant [Para 27].

Murder of Child & Extra-Judicial Confession – Appellant (younger brother of PW-1) allegedly confessed to murdering his nephew and disposing of the body in a well – Circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession formed the basis of conviction by High Court, overturning Trial Court's acquittal – Supreme Court scrutinizes the reliability and consistency of the confession and other evidence. [Paras 1, 3-5, 14-17, 19, 21-23, 25]

Testimony of PW-1 (Father of Deceased) – Multiple inconsistencies in PW-1's statements regarding the confession, its circumstances, and subsequent actions – Non-examination of key witnesses present during the confession, raising doubts on its existence – Supreme Court finds PW-1's testimony unreliable. [Paras 6-7, 16-18, 20, 23]

Circumstantial Evidence Analysis – Discrepancies in chain of circumstances, including doubts about the identity of the deceased's body, arrest procedures, and last seen theory – Recovery of body and arrest of the appellant marred by inconsistencies – Supreme Court finds circumstantial evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 8, 20-24, 27]

Legal Principles in Circumstantial Evidence Cases – Need for a complete and consistent chain of circumstances, leading to only conclusion of guilt – Supreme Court finds prosecution's circumstantial evidence incoherent, thereby failing to establish guilt. [Paras 25-27, 29-30]

Reversal of Acquittal Standards – High Court's re-appreciation of evidence deemed inappropriate without finding perversity or illegality in Trial Court's order – Supreme Court emphasizes the reinforced presumption of innocence post-acquittal and the necessity of resolving doubts in favor of the accused. [Paras 25-26]

Decision – Supreme Court sets aside High Court's judgment, reinstating Trial Court's order of acquittal – Appellant acquitted from all charges, reinforcing the principle of reasonable doubt in criminal jurisprudence. [Para 30]

Service Law - Prospective Resignation Withdrawal – Case involving Dr. Mrs. Suman V. Jain's right to withdraw her resignation before the effective date – Appellant’s prospective resignation could be withdrawn at any time before it became effective as there was no legal, contractual, or constitutional bar preventing such action – No prior consent to treat resignation as 'final, binding, and irrevocable' – The judgment of the College Tribunal and the High Court set aside – The appellant's service from 24.09.2003 to 01.10.2007 to be regularized without backwages, counting towards pension eligibility. [Paras 1, 17-21, 27, 29-30]

Legal Principles on Resignation – The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing prospective resignation – The principle of 'locus poenitentiae' allows withdrawal of resignation before the effective date, subject to specific governing rules – The judgment of Gopal Chandra Misra and Srikantha S.M. applied, establishing that an employee could withdraw a prospective resignation before its effective date. [Paras 22-23, 26]

Pension and Retiral Benefits – Direction for regularization of service period and treating it as period spent on duty for pension purposes – Appellant entitled to pension and other retiral benefits from the combined tenure at both institutions, subject to minimum service requirement under the rules – The Trust directed to calculate and pay the pension and retiral benefits, including arrears, within four months. [Paras 29-30]

Breach of Agreement for Apartment Possession – Appellants (Krishnamurthy and another) filed an appeal against the NCDRC order which directed the respondent (Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd.) to deliver possession of an apartment with certain conditions and offered an option for refund with deductions - The Supreme Court found the NCDRC's decision inconsistent with the contractual agreement and the right of the appellants to terminate the agreement - The NCDRC overstepped in rewriting the agreement's terms [Paras 1-3, 8, 13-15, 22].

Non-Delivery of Possession within Agreed Period – The respondent failed to deliver possession of the apartment by the agreed date (30.06.2017), including the grace period - The Supreme Court observed that the respondent could not unilaterally change the agreed terms of the contract and that the appellants' right to terminate the agreement was absolute under Clause 11.3 [Paras 8-12, 18-20].

Refund with Interest – The Court ordered the respondent to refund the deposited amount of ₹2,25,31,148 in twelve equal monthly installments with 12% p.a. interest, contrary to the NCDRC's modified terms - The first installment was directed to be payable on 5th April 2024 [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Quashing of Proceedings – The Supreme Court deliberated on whether the proceedings under the Gangsters Act should continue against the appellants, Farhana and Sadarul Islam, following the quashing of the predicate offences. The appellants were initially charged under the Gangsters Act based on their alleged involvement in certain IPC offences. [Para 3, 5, 8]

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Interpretation of Section 2(b)(i) – The Court examined the definition of 'gang' under Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, which requires involvement in specific IPC offences. The Court noted that the prosecution under the Gangsters Act must clearly establish the involvement in antisocial activities as defined in the section. [Para 12, 13]

Quashing of FIR and Subsequent Proceedings – The Court found that since the High Court had quashed the FIRs against the appellants for the predicate offences under the IPC, the foundation for their prosecution under the Gangsters Act was removed. As such, continuing their prosecution was deemed unjustified and an abuse of court process. [Para 14, 15]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings under Gangsters Act – The Supreme Court quashed the impugned orders of the High Court and the FIR against the appellants under the Gangsters Act. It held that the continued prosecution of the appellants was unjustified following the exoneration in the predicate offences. [Para 16, 17]