Facts:

The case involves recruitment for the post of Technician Grade-II in Uttar Pradesh. The qualification requirement initially included a CCC certificate issued by DOEACC and was later amended to include CCC certificate or its equivalent computer qualification.

Issues:

Validity of qualifications and equivalence of CCC certificate.

Scrutiny process for verifying candidates' computer qualifications.

Deletion of names from the select list.

Held:

The CCC certificate is a well-known certificate issued under the Government of India, and there is no evidence of it being granted by any other body. The CCC certificate mentioned in the advertisement refers to CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.( Para 42)

The advertisement did not permit candidates to self-certify or declare equivalence of their computer qualification to CCC. Scrutiny of qualification is the responsibility of the recruiting agency/employer.( Para 52)

In the absence of guidelines or criteria for equivalence, the recruitment process without scrutiny of candidates' qualifications is an abdication of duty by the Corporation and the Commission.( Para 60)

The Division Bench erroneously restored the select list without considering cases where deletions were upheld by an earlier Division Bench.( Para 65)

Impleadment of every candidate is unnecessary when the challenge is based on an arbitrary or illegal process. Few selected candidates were impleaded in the writ petitions.( Para 75)

Facts:

The appellant, accused No. 3, sought exemption from personal appearance before the Trial Court due to business commitments and the inconvenience of traveling from Delhi to Hyderabad every Friday. The application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. was opposed by the CBI.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's grounds for dispensation with personal appearance were valid, considering the seriousness of the charges.

Held:

The Court, referring to Bhaskar Industries Ltd. case, allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court and Trial Court orders. The appellant was granted exemption with conditions:

An undertaking that the appellant won't dispute his identity, his counsel will appear on each hearing, no objection to evidence recording in his absence, and no adjournments requested.

The appellant to appear for framing charges and when the Trial Court insists on his presence.

Failure of counsel to appear or adjournment requests may lead to the Trial Court exercising powers under Section 205(2) Cr.P.C.

Facts:

The complainants, respondents 1 to 3, filed a complaint of medical negligence against appellant No. 1 (hospital) and appellant Nos. 2 to 4 (pediatricians and ophthalmologist) and respondent No. 4 (gynecologist). The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held appellant No. 1 guilty of medical negligence, leading to the total blindness of respondent No. 1, a pre-term baby. The NCDRC awarded compensation of Rs. 64,00,000.

Issues:

Whether the appellants owed a legal duty of care to the complainants?

Whether the failure to inform the mother of respondent No. 1 about the necessity of the ROP test and the high risks involved constituted a breach of duty?

Whether the failure to carry out the mandatory ROP test amounted to gross negligence and deficiency of service?

Whether the inordinate delay in providing medical records constituted professional misconduct?

Held:

The inordinate delay of over 2 years in making the Medical Records of Respondent No.1 available to the Respondent No.2 constituted a grave professional misconduct under Regulation 7. Regulation 7 holds that the refusal or failure to provide medical records within 72 hours is professional misconduct, rendering the doctor/hospital liable for disciplinary action and punishment under Regulation 8. Withholding the medical records for over 2 years was a gross deficiency in service by the Appellant No.1-Hospital and its management.

The ROP was not advised or carried out by the hospital or the senior ophthalmologist throughout the period of hospitalization of the baby, leading to a breach of duty. The lack of justification for not conducting the mandatory ROP screening during the baby's stay under direct care and supervision amounted to negligence.

Medical negligence comprises a legal duty, failure to inform about risks, resulting damage, and breach of duty. The cause of action for negligence arises when damage occurs. Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are liable for medical negligence, as they failed to advise or guide the parents about the possibility of ROP in a premature baby, leading to total blindness.

Decision: The Court affirmed the findings of the NCDRC, holding Appellant No.1-Hospital, Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 (pediatricians), and Appellant No.4 (ophthalmologist) jointly liable. Compensation of Rs. 76,00,000 was awarded to respondent No. 1.

FACTS:

The minor daughter was born on 21.08.2007 and was over 12 years old.

The father filed a Guardianship Petition, seeking custody, citing the mother's Paranoid Schizophrenia and cruelty towards the child.

The mother resisted, accusing the father of sexual abuse, making it unsafe for the child to be in his custody.

Various counsellors' reports indicated the child's comfort with the father, and the mother's video clippings did not support her allegations.

ISSUES:

Custody determination based on the welfare and well-being of the child.

Validity of the allegations of sexual abuse by the mother against the father.

HELD:

The Court, considering parens patriae jurisdiction, emphasized the welfare of the child. After individual interviews, the minor girl, over 12 years old, expressed a definite desire to reside with her father. The Court affirmed the Family Court's Order granting custody to the father and specified visitation rights for the mother.

In Nil Ratan Kundu & Anr. vs. Abhijit Kundu (2008) 9 SCC 413, the Court established that while exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. The Court is not bound by statutes, rules of evidence, procedure, or precedent.

The Order is prima facie in nature and made at an intermediate stage of the proceedings.

This Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Referred C:ases

Nil Ratan Kundu & Anr. vs. Abhijit Kundu (2008) 9 SCC 413 : 2008 (11) SCALE 437

Facts:

The case pertains to the Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge conducted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Out of 1195 candidates, only 9 cleared the exam. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the entire selection process, alleging discriminatory and malafide practices, and sought the quashing of the result.

Issues:

Whether there were discriminatory or malafide practices in the selection process and evaluation method.

The appropriateness of disclosing Main Exam marks before viva-voce.

The validity of the plea for re-evaluation by an Independent Expert Committee.

Held:

Justice Sikri critically examined the selection process and evaluation method, concluding that the procedure was 'uniform.' The method of evaluation, with one evaluator examining and marking one question in all answer scripts, ensured uniformity. Adequate security measures were in place, and no discriminatory or malafide practices occurred.

Considering the strict marking but non-discriminatory nature, the court discusses the remedy of moderation. The court distinguishes the use of scaling and moderation, favoring the latter to remove the effect of examiner variability. It refers to Sanjay Singh's case, where scaling was considered inappropriate for Judicial Services Examinations.

Justice Sikri's report suggests alternatives for awarding grace marks. The court adopts Alternative II, awarding 20 marks in Civil Law–I and 10 marks in Civil Law–II. The court rejects the plea for 50 grace marks, emphasizing the need for reasonableness.

The court acknowledges the need for viva–voce and rejects the alternative plea for re-evaluation by an Independent Expert Committee. It cites the delay in filling vacant posts and the absence of provisions for re-evaluation in the Recruitment Rules.

Regarding the plea to disclose Main Exam marks before viva–voce, the court rejects the practice, stating it may invite bias or favoritism, affecting impartial evaluation during the viva–voce.

The court directs the respondents to award 20 grace marks in Civil Law–I and 10 grace marks in Civil Law–II to all candidates, prepare fresh results of the Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge, and complete the selection process within a stipulated period.

Facts:

Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a pharmaceutical supplier, participated in a tender process initiated by the State of U.P. to supply pharmaceutical products to various hospitals. Despite winning the bid, the State, on the basis of a criminal case against the former director, Mr. Surender Chaudhary, issued an order directing a halt to local purchases from Daffodills.

Issues:

Legality of the State's decision to stop local purchases from Daffodills.

Violation of principles of natural justice in not providing Daffodills with an opportunity to be heard before the decision.

Held:

The court identified the impugned order as a debarring and preventing directive against Daffodills for an indefinite duration, surpassing the typical finite lifespan of blacklisting orders.( Paragraph 13)

Citing precedents, the Court emphasized the necessity of providing an opportunity of hearing before proposing drastic adverse actions like debarring or blacklisting.( Paragraph 14)

The Court criticized the State's assumption of complicity by Daffodills and stressed that unilateral action without giving an opportunity of hearing was a violation of principles of natural justice.( Paragraph 15)

The Court acknowledged the limited scope of judicial review in public contract matters but highlighted the flagrant violation of natural justice by the state's action.( Paragraph 16)

Considering the time elapsed since the impugned order, the Court quashed the directive and set aside the High Court's judgment in the overall interest of justice.( Paragraph 17)

Facts:

Appellants were appointed on an ad-hoc basis in the Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship.

Initial appointment for a period of three months extended from time to time.

Advertisement for direct recruitment in 2001 led to writ petitions and a subsequent selection process.

Selection process canceled, appellants continued in service on an ad-hoc basis.

Committee recommended regularization in 2012, and the District Judge regularized appellants' services.

Successor District Judge annulled regularization orders in 2014, leading to termination in 2017.

Issues:

Validity of the regularization of ad-hoc appointments.

Cancellation of regularization orders by the successor District Judge.

Violation of principles of natural justice.

Applicability of amended Rules in 2016 with a cut-off date of 31.12.2001.

Held:

The appellants are entitled to regularization under the exception carved out in the Umadevi case.

The cancellation of regularization orders without giving an opportunity of being heard violates principles of natural justice.

The amended Rules in 2016 with a cut-off date of 31.12.2001 should have been considered by the High Court.

The appellants are entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service, but not entitled to back wages.

Facts:

The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notifications for acquiring land for the Hubli Ankola Broad Gauge Railway Line. The Land Acquisition Officer's initial award was contested by the appellant(s), leading to a Reference Court enhancing compensation. The High Court later reduced the compensation, citing the nature of the acquired land as 'dry land' and applying an annual depreciation of 15%.

Issues:

Validity of the High Court's decision reducing compensation.

Delay in filing the appeal by the present appellant(s).

Entitlement to interest during the period of delay.

Held:

The Court, relying on prior judgments, held that identically situated appellants should not be treated differently due to delays in filing appeals. It emphasized a pragmatic approach in compensation matters, condoning the delay in filing and restoring parity in compensation. The appellant(s) were entitled to the same compensation awarded by the Reference Court, but not to interest for the period of delay.

The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the High Court's decision, restoring the Reference Court's award, but denying interest for the delay in filing the appeal.

Facts:

The appellant purchased a fire and special perils policy, including coverage for spontaneous combustion.

The factory was closed, and upon reopening, the appellant reported damage due to spontaneous combustion.

The respondent-insurer repudiated the claim, citing non-occurrence of fire as stipulated in the policy.

The appellant filed a complaint with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

Issues:

Whether the insurer waived the condition of delayed intimation by appointing a surveyor.

Whether the insurer, having not mentioned delay in intimation in the repudiation letter, can raise it as a defense.

Held:

The appointment of a surveyor does not automatically waive the conditions of the insurance policy, as per the decision in Sonnel Clocks.

The insurer cannot introduce new grounds, such as delayed intimation, at the consumer complaint stage if not mentioned in the repudiation letter.

The NCDRC erred in rejecting the claim based on delayed intimation.

The appeal is allowed, directing the respondent-insurer to pay the assessed amount with interest.