Civil Law – Termination of Contractual Employment – Stigmatic Termination Without Inquiry – The Supreme Court quashed the termination order of an Assistant Project Coordinator (APC) under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) by the State of Madhya Pradesh – The Court found that the termination, alleged to be based on unsatisfactory performance, was stigmatic in nature and issued without due inquiry, violating the principles of natural justice – The Court reinstated the appellant with 50% back wages and other consequential benefits – [Paras 1-37].

Contract Law – Service Conditions under Contract – Clause 4 of Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission’s General Service Conditions – The Supreme Court held that Clause 4, which allows for termination with one month's notice for inefficiency or immediate termination for "undesirable activities," was not properly followed – The termination was found to have been effected without the required notice or inquiry, making it invalid – [Paras 31-35].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Scope of Review in Contractual Employment – The Supreme Court reiterated that even in contractual employment, a termination order can be reviewed by the Court if it is found to be punitive in nature or issued in violation of statutory or contractual provisions – The Court emphasized that the form of the order is not decisive, but the substance and the circumstances leading to the termination are – [Paras 33-34].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The appeal is allowed, the termination order is set aside, and the appellant is entitled to reinstatement with partial back wages and other consequential benefits – The Court, however, denied liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings based on the same charges due to the passage of time – [Paras 36-37].

Criminal Law – Conviction under NDPS Act – Acquittal on Appeal – Appellant convicted under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for allegedly supplying a psychotropic substance, Fortwin injections, for illegal interstate transportation. High Court upheld the conviction; however, the Supreme Court found no admissible evidence linking the appellant to the conspiracy or the supply of the contraband. The appellant’s statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, relied upon by lower courts, was inadmissible based on the precedent set in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, and there was a lack of corroborating evidence. Appeal allowed, and appellant acquitted [Paras 1-14].

Evidence – Admissibility of Section 67 NDPS Act Statements – The Supreme Court reiterated that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as confessional statements for convicting an accused. The Court emphasized that without any other corroborating evidence or recovery of contraband from the appellant, the conviction could not be sustained. No proper charge of conspiracy under Section 29 was framed, and the essential elements of conspiracy were not proven [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Acquittal – Held – The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is acquitted of all charges. The lack of legal evidence and the inadmissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act led to the setting aside of the conviction. The appellant's bail bonds were canceled as a result of the acquittal [Paras 11-15].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act – Supreme Court remands matter to Division Bench of High Court – Challenge against Single Judge's decision quashing criminal proceedings arising from IPO fraud in Yes Bank and IDFC shares – CBI contends settlement with SEBI does not absolve criminal liability – Supreme Court finds procedural irregularity in hearing by Single Judge instead of Division Bench as per High Court rules – Proceedings ordered to be heard afresh by Division Bench [Paras 1-26].

Jurisdiction – Procedural Compliance in High Court – Supreme Court emphasizes proper jurisdiction under High Court rules – Single Judge's quashing of proceedings found to be irregular as per High Court's Part 1 Chapter I Rules – Case remanded for fresh hearing by Division Bench without influence from previous orders or observations – Interim stay on criminal proceedings granted pending High Court's decision [Paras 17-20, 23-26].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Supreme Court allows appeal, setting aside Single Judge’s order – Matter remanded to Division Bench for independent consideration on merits – Interim stay of trial court proceedings granted for four weeks – Direction issued for expeditious disposal within three months [Paras 24-26].

Service Law – Grant of Increment to Technical Personnel on Acquiring Ph.D. Qualification – Differentiation between Scientific and Technical Staff – Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s decision upholding the Tribunal’s order granting two advance increments to technical personnel upon acquiring a Ph.D. degree – Held, scientists and technical staff belong to different cadres governed by distinct service rules, with scientists being eligible for incentives under their specific pay package – Mere possession of a Ph.D. by technical staff does not entitle them to benefits reserved for scientists – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-11].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality before Law – Applicability to Service Benefits – Supreme Court clarifies that Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim equal benefits between differently classified service cadres with distinct roles and promotional avenues – Reiterates that differentiation based on job requirements and service rules does not violate the right to equality under Article 14 – Appeal allowed, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and High Court [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court dismissed the Original Applications filed by the respondents before the Tribunal, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court – Held, technical personnel are not entitled to the benefits of advance increments upon acquiring a Ph.D. degree, as those benefits are specific to scientists under their service rules [Para 11].

Service Law – Grant of Increment to Technical Personnel on Acquiring Ph.D. Qualification – Differentiation between Scientific and Technical Staff – Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s decision upholding the Tribunal’s order granting two advance increments to technical personnel upon acquiring a Ph.D. degree – Held, scientists and technical staff belong to different cadres governed by distinct service rules, with scientists being eligible for incentives under their specific pay package – Mere possession of a Ph.D. by technical staff does not entitle them to benefits reserved for scientists – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-11].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality before Law – Applicability to Service Benefits – Supreme Court clarifies that Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim equal benefits between differently classified service cadres with distinct roles and promotional avenues – Reiterates that differentiation based on job requirements and service rules does not violate the right to equality under Article 14 – Appeal allowed, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and High Court [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court dismissed the Original Applications filed by the respondents before the Tribunal, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court – Held, technical personnel are not entitled to the benefits of advance increments upon acquiring a Ph.D. degree, as those benefits are specific to scientists under their service rules [Para 11].

Constitutional Law – Horizontal and Vertical Reservations – Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination – Appeal concerning the methodology of reservation applied in the recruitment process for Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate posts in Rajasthan – Appellants challenged non-disclosure of cut-off marks for persons with benchmark disabilities, claiming violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution – Supreme Court upheld the respondent's decision, clarifying the distinction between Compartmentalised and Overall Horizontal Reservations – Held that the respondent's action of not fixing separate cut-off marks for persons with benchmark disabilities, who fall under Overall Horizontal Reservation, was neither arbitrary nor violative of constitutional rights [Paras 7-17].

Judicial Process – Participation in Selection Process – Estoppel – Appellants who participated in the selection process and were declared unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examination cannot challenge the methodology of selection post-result – Appeal dismissed as there was no violation of constitutional rights in the recruitment process – Held that appellants could not question the process after consciously participating in it [Para 16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – The appeal is dismissed, confirming that the reservation methodology applied by the respondents in the recruitment process was legally sound and did not infringe upon the appellants' constitutional rights [Para 17].

Civil Procedure – Requirement for Reasoned Judgments – The Supreme Court quashed the impugned judgment of the Division Bench for failing to provide reasons or consider the Government Orders brought to its notice. Citing the importance of reasoned judgments, the Court emphasized that the absence of reasoning introduces uncertainty and prevents a proper understanding of the basis for a decision, thereby frustrating the appeal process [Paras 1-4].

Remand – Liberty to Address Issues Afresh – The matter was remanded to the Division Bench with directions to rehear the parties, consider subsequent developments, and provide a reasoned judgment. The interim orders passed by the Supreme Court will remain in effect until the Division Bench disposes of the appeal [Paras 4-7].

Decision:

Appeal disposed of. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh consideration. The parties are to appear before the Roster Bench on 20th September 2024, and the High Court is requested to expedite the hearing.

Criminal Law – Child Custody – Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of natural guardian (father) – High Court’s denial of habeas corpus petition for custody of minor daughter set aside by the Supreme Court – The Court emphasized the paramount welfare of the child and the natural guardian’s right to custody – Allegations against the father were deemed afterthoughts, not sufficient to deny custody – Custody ordered to be handed over to the father immediately [Paras 1-17].

Legal Guardianship – Habeas Corpus Petition in Child Custody – Supreme Court clarified the maintainability of habeas corpus petitions under Article 226 in child custody matters, emphasizing that each case should be judged on its unique facts and circumstances – Reaffirmation that the welfare of the child remains the central consideration [Paras 9-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order and directed the immediate transfer of custody of the minor child to the appellant (father) – The Court allowed visitation rights to the respondents (sisters-in-law) but emphasized the child's welfare and the right of the natural guardian [Para 17].

Reservation Law – Horizontal Reservation and Unreserved Category – Misapplication of Reservation Rules for MBBS Admission – Challenge in Supreme Court – The appellants, who were meritorious reserved category students, challenged the allocation of MBBS seats in the Unreserved Category Government School (UR-GS) quota in Madhya Pradesh. The State had sub-classified the GS quota into further categories (UR-GS, SC-GS, ST-GS, OBC-GS, and EWS-GS) and erroneously denied the appellants admission in the UR-GS quota, despite their merit, by restricting their allocation to their respective reserved categories. The Supreme Court ruled that such compartmentalization was unsustainable and violated established legal principles on horizontal reservation. The appellants were entitled to seats in the UR-GS quota based on merit [Paras 1-7, 10-16].

Admissions – Relief for Denied MBBS Admission Due to Misapplication of Reservation Policy – Held: Admissions for Next Academic Session Directed – The appellants, having been deprived of admission due to the misapplication of the reservation policy, were granted admission for the next academic session. The Court emphasized the need to correct such errors by ensuring meritorious candidates receive their rightful place, even if it necessitates admission in the following academic year. The appellants were directed to be admitted to the 2024-25 academic session against seats reserved in the UR-GS category [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court Judgments Set Aside – Directed Admission in Next Academic Session – No Costs – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgments, and ordered the respondents to admit the appellants in the next academic session for the MBBS course against the UR-GS seats. Pending applications were disposed of, and no costs were imposed [Para 21].