Service Law – Regularization of Appointment – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Denial of Confirmation in Lien Vacancy – High Court's Dismissal Reversed – Challenge to the High Court’s decision upholding the resolution of the Executive Council of Tripura University not to confirm the appellant in the post of Assistant Professor in Law despite the vacation of the lien vacancy – The Supreme Court held that the University’s action was arbitrary and violative of the appellant's legitimate expectation, as there was no adverse performance record against the appellant and the lien had been vacated – Judgment of the Single Judge and the Division Bench set aside – Writ of mandamus issued directing the University to reconsider the appellant’s case for confirmation within four weeks [Paras 1-37].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Application in Employment – University’s Discretion in Regularization – Supreme Court emphasized that the doctrine of legitimate expectation requires that public authorities exercise their powers fairly and without arbitrariness – In this case, the appellant’s legitimate expectation to be confirmed in her post after the lien was vacated was not outweighed by any larger public interest – University’s failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for denial of confirmation amounted to arbitrary exercise of power [Paras 27-35].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The appeal is allowed, and the decisions of the Single Judge and Division Bench are set aside – The University’s resolution not to confirm the appellant and to re-advertise the post was quashed – A writ of mandamus was issued directing the University to reconsider the appellant’s case for confirmation within four weeks, with all consequential benefits to be provided [Paras 36-37].

Criminal Law – Consolidation of Sureties – Petitioner unable to furnish separate sureties for 11 FIRs across multiple states – Supreme Court orders consolidation of sureties, permitting the use of a single set of sureties in all cases within each state – Court emphasizes balance between the need for sureties and the protection of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 1-33].

Excessive Bail Conditions – Proportionality and Reasonableness – Court rules that imposing excessive or onerous conditions for bail, which a petitioner cannot reasonably fulfill, effectively denies bail – Reaffirms principle that excessive bail is no bail at all [Paras 23-27].

Local Surety Requirements – Judicial Discretion – Court relieves petitioner from the requirement to provide local sureties, highlighting that such conditions could unjustly restrict liberty and noting that sureties from other states should suffice if they meet the required legal criteria [Para 27].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 – Court underscores the need to protect the fundamental rights of the petitioner while ensuring the due process of law, advocating for reasonable and proportionate bail conditions [Para 24].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Petitioner permitted to use consolidated sureties for bail in all FIRs within each respective state – Court sets aside the requirement for local sureties, allowing the same sureties to be used across all FIRs in the concerned states​.

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].

Service Law – Entitlement to Pensionary Benefits – Appellants classified as temporary employees of the Special Frontier Force (SFF) under the Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund challenged the denial of pensionary benefits under the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) – Tribunal and High Court rejected claims on the ground that the appellants were not government servants – Supreme Court set aside the judgments, holding that the appellants, despite being termed as temporary employees, demonstrated characteristics of regular government servants – Appellants were granted the same benefits as regular government employees, including pensionary benefits under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008 [Paras 1-37].

Temporary Employment – Regularization and Benefits – The Court held that continuous service for over three decades under the government’s financial structure, receipt of increments, promotions, and alignment with government pay scales strongly indicated a formalized employee-employer relationship akin to permanent government employees – Denial of pensionary benefits solely based on the temporary status was held to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India – Directed respondents to extend the benefits of the 6th CPC to the appellants [Paras 22-34].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment – Respondents directed to extend the benefits of the 6th CPC and pensionary benefits to the appellants as provided to their peers in the SFF Accounts Section [Paras 35-37].

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].

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].

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.