Facts:

The appellant was appointed on an ad-hoc basis as a Junior Engineer in 1987. The appointment was made after a selection process and without the concurrence of the U.P. Public Service Commission. The appellant possessed the required degree, and despite various representations seeking promotion, the promotion was denied. The issue revolved around the relaxation of the service condition and the appellant's entitlement to promotion.

Issues:

Validity of the appellant's appointment without the concurrence of the U.P. Public Service Commission.

Entitlement of the appellant to promotion based on the relaxation of the service condition and possession of the required degree.

Held:

The Court held that the appellant's appointment, while irregular, was not illegal. It emphasized the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments. The irregularity did not bar the appellant from being considered for promotion. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment, stating that continuous officiation after appointment must be considered for determining seniority. The relaxation provided in the office memorandum dated 11.03.1994 was crucial, and the appellant was entitled to promotion immediately after its issuance. The Court declared the appellant's entitlement to promotion from the date his junior with the required degree was promoted.

Provides the final order allowing the appeal and quashing the previous orders.

Facts:

The Respondent, a Grade II Police Constable, tendered her resignation on 1 June 2017, accepted on 12 June 2017.

The Respondent attempted to withdraw the resignation on 13 July 2017.

The Director General of Police rejected the withdrawal, relying on Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services.

High Court allowed a writ appeal, setting aside the dismissal of the writ petition, directing the State to reinstate the Respondent with continuity.

Issues:

Validity of the acceptance of resignation.

Interpretation of Rule 35A regarding the withdrawal of resignation after acceptance.

Applicability of the provisions of Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.

Held:

Rule 35A clearly outlines that resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance. Once accepted, withdrawal is not permitted. The appointing authority can accept the resignation from a date before the expiry of the notice period.( Para 8)

The acceptance of the resignation on 12 June 2017 was valid. The withdrawal attempt on 13 July 2017, a month later, was legally inconsequential.( Para 9)

The High Court's conclusion allowing withdrawal within the notice period was contrary to Rule 35A.( Para 10)

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment. No costs were awarded.( Para 11)

The Respondent was allowed to apply afresh for appointment in the future, subject to selection and in accordance with the law.( Para 12)

Facts:

The appellant sought reservation in the sports and game category for admission into the MBBS course. Despite submitting the necessary material, the appellant was denied due priority in admission. The appellant promptly approached the High Court.

Issues:

Whether a meritorious candidate, who diligently pursued their legal right without delay, could be denied admission due to the cut-off date of 30th September being passed.

Held:

Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds no fault on the candidate's part and the fault lies with the authorities, the court can, in rare cases, direct admission in the same year by increasing seats. However, this should not exceed one or two seats and must occur within one month from the cut-off date. No admission should be ordered beyond 30th October. The court may cancel the admission of a candidate at the bottom of the merit list after giving an opportunity for a hearing. If no admission relief can be granted in the same year, the court can direct admission in the next academic year, possibly by increasing the number of seats.

Decision: The right to equal and fair treatment, a component of Article 14, is crucial. Denial of admission to a meritorious candidate, even without fault on their part, violates fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21. The court rejected the view that compensation is the only remedy and affirmed the possibility of admission relief in exceptional circumstances. The court emphasized the importance of prioritizing and expeditiously disposing of such cases.

Facts:

The appellant poured kerosene on his wife, subsequently setting her ablaze.

Accused questioned her fidelity without provocation, leading to the brutal act.

Accused claimed being under the influence of liquor during the incident.

Issues:

Whether the accused's act qualifies as culpable homicide under Section 300 IPC.

The role of intoxication as a defense and the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Held:

The Court rejected the defense of intoxication, emphasizing the accused's conscious and deliberate actions. The act of pouring kerosene, followed by setting the victim ablaze, was held as a conscious act intending to cause death. Even if the accused lacked specific intent, the act fell under Section 300 fourthly, as it caused injuries imminently dangerous to life. The subsequent act of pouring water was deemed an attempt to cloak guilt, not a mitigating factor. Dismissal of the appeal based on the above analysis.

Facts:

Appellants are defendants in the suit T.S. 10 of 2000.

Plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mesne profits.

Trial Court dismissed the suit on 19.08.2002.

First Appellate Court allowed the appeal on 30.06.2006.

Defendants challenged the judgment before the Guwahati High Court in R.S.A No. 45 of 2006.

The appeal was listed for hearing on 21.01.2015, but the counsel for the appellants was absent.

Issues:

Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing the second appeal on merits in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellants?

Held:

Order 41 Rule 17(1) read with its explanation clarifies that the Court cannot dismiss the appeal on merits when the appellant remains absent on the date fixed for hearing.

The Explanation to sub-rule (1) of Rule 17 was added in 1976 to eliminate conflicting views among different High Courts regarding the court's power to dismiss an appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant.

The High Court cannot go into the merits of the case when there is non-appearance of the appellant.

The Court set aside the impugned judgment, remitting the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

The opportunity for the appellant to convince the appellate court of sufficient cause for non-appearance is lost if the appeal is decided on merits without representation.

Facts:

The case involves a matrimonial dispute where the husband, a U.S. citizen practicing as a Dentist, filed for custody of the children after the wife, also a U.S. citizen and a Dentist, refused to return to the U.S. with the children from India.

Issues:

The jurisdiction of Indian courts in guardianship matters, the habitual residence of the children, and the best interests of the children.

Held:

The Family Court held that the Indian Courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Guardianship Petition due to the parties being U.S. citizens, and the children residing in India in breach of immigration laws.( Paragraph 4.7)

The High Court, in Habeas Corpus proceedings, directed the wife to return to the U.S. with the children, emphasizing the children's right to be brought up by both parents in the U.S.( Paragraph 5.1)

The parties agreed to the following directions, including joint application for U.S. passports, the wife's return to the U.S., shared parenting, and financial support by the husband.( Paragraph 7)

FACTS:

Written and oral tests conducted for the post of Junior Lecturer in Mathematics.

Results published by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (Appellant).

Last selected candidate (Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar) chose not to join the post.

Respondent No. 1 filed a claim for appointment after a delay of four years.

Original Application dismissed on grounds of delay by A.P. Administrative Tribunal.

Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 1 before the High Court.

ISSUES:

Interpretation of Rule 6 (amended) and Rule 7 of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules.

Validity of the claim for appointment by Respondent No. 1 after the delay.

HELD:

The amended Rule 6 specifies that the list of candidates approved/selected shall be equal to the number of vacancies.

Fallout vacancies due to relinquishment and non-joining shall be notified in the next recruitment.

The waiting list provision for one year has been eliminated after the amendment.

Rule 7 emphasizes that selection must adhere to the existing Rules.

Respondent No. 1, being a non-selected candidate, cannot claim selection based on the unamended Rule 6.

The High Court was not justified in granting relief to Respondent No. 1, ignoring the amended Rule 6.

The appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.

Facts:

The case involved the calculation of Premium FSI charges for a construction project in Chennai. The initial planning permission was granted on 01.07.2009. The government introduced the "Premium FSI Scheme," and the developer submitted a revised plan seeking additional FSI under this scheme on 04.05.2011. The application was returned for defects on 10.02.2012, and after rectification, the government granted approval on 29.05.2012. The dispute arose regarding the calculation of Premium FSI charges based on the guideline value.

Issues:

Whether the Premium FSI charges should be calculated based on the guideline value as of the application date (04.05.2011) or the approval date (29.05.2012).

Held:

The court held that no right accrued to the builder until approval was granted. Regulation 36 mandated approval from the government for Premium FSI, and the crucial date for determining charges was the approval date. The court set aside the Division Bench's decision and allowed the appeal, stating that the charges should be based on the revised guideline value in force from 01.04.2012.

Conclusion: The judgment clarified the importance of the approval date in determining Premium FSI charges, emphasizing that no legal right accrues until the government sanctions the revised plan. The court upheld the authority's right to calculate charges based on the guideline value in force at the time of approval.

Facts:

The prosecution alleged that six heavily armed individuals (A-1 to A-6) killed the victim in broad daylight. The incident occurred between 12 and 12:30 p.m. Eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-2 were present at the scene, and a written complaint was prepared by PW-1 and scribed by PW-4, leading to the registration of an FIR.

Issues:

The trial court acquitted all accused, but during the appeal in the High Court, three accused (A-1, A-3, and A-6) passed away, and the appeal abated concerning them.

The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment, finding A-2, A-4, and A-5 guilty of offenses under various sections of the IPC.

Held:

The primary question was the reliability of eyewitness statements (PW-1 and PW-2). Both witnesses provided nearly identical accounts with no major contradictions. The complaint was immediately dictated by PW-1 to PW-4, who confirmed its authenticity. The medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's narrative.

Medical evidence supported the eyewitness accounts, with corresponding firearm entry wounds and a time of death aligning with the incident. The injuries mentioned by the doctor were consistent with the weapons carried by the accused. The medical evidence fully supported the eyewitnesses' version.

The court addressed minor variations and contradictions in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2. However, these did not significantly impact the core of their evidence. The strained relationship between the parties was acknowledged, but the immediate recording of the complaint minimized the possibility of false implication.