Facts:

The Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) conducted the 53rd to 55th Combined (Mains) Competitive Examinations, 2011. The appellants challenged the results, alleging that the BPSC had moderated marks instead of scaling them down, contrary to directives from the High Court in a previous order. They argued that this moderation method was inappropriate because the examinations included optional papers in different subjects.

Issues:

Whether the BPSC's methodology for evaluating the examination answer-scripts was appropriate.

Whether the High Court's directives and the precedent case of Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another, governed the evaluation process.

Held:

The Court held that the BPSC's methodology for evaluating the answer-scripts was within its discretion and did not warrant judicial intervention. It emphasized that the choice between moderation and scaling should depend on various factors and be left to expert bodies like public service commissions.

The Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the BPSC had acted diligently and without malice. It also noted that there was no gross or palpable unreasonableness in the BPSC's decision. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

Facts:

The petitioner, a police officer, filed a writ petition seeking the transfer of investigation to either the CBI or an SIT outside the control of the Chief Minister of Gujarat. Allegations included involvement of the then Chief Minister of Gujarat in the 2002 riots, and claims of retaliation through a criminal case against the petitioner. The petitioner remained silent for nine years regarding a critical meeting on February 27, 2002, and failed to disclose relevant emails. The petitioner's conduct raised questions, especially regarding the withholding of crucial information.

Issues:

The petitioner's conduct, allegations of leaking sensitive information by the SIT, and the scope of inquiry concerning specific allegations against the petitioner.

The court also addresses the issue of criminal contempt in relation to the petitioner's actions.

Held:

The petitioner's failure to disclose information about the critical meeting and relevant emails demonstrates a lack of clean hands. The petitioner's explanation for the omission is not credible.

The petitioner's failure to disclose relevant emails at the appropriate time indicates questionable conduct. The explanation offered for the delay in disclosure is not satisfactory.

The scope of inquiry is limited to specific allegations, and the issues raised by the petitioner do not warrant the involvement of an SIT. Investigation into affidavit preparation and email hacking is not justified.

The SIT's investigation concluded that the petitioner was not present at the critical meeting on February 27, 2002. There is no basis for constituting a new SIT to revisit this aspect.

Allegations of leaking sensitive information by the SIT are baseless. The petitioner's attempt to mislead the court and suppress relevant information is condemned.

The scope of the case does not warrant an SIT investigation. The chargesheet has been filed, and the investigation has been thorough. The petitioner's attempts to widen the scope of the case are unfounded.

The court reiterates that the accused does not have the right to choose the investigating machinery. The allegations raised by the petitioner do not justify the involvement of the SIT or the CBI.

The petitioner's conduct does not merit special treatment, and investigation must proceed according to the law. No monitoring of the case is deemed necessary.

The petitioner's submission regarding the transfer of investigation after the chargesheet is filed is untenable. The court emphasizes the need for adherence to legal procedures.

Consulting knowledgeable individuals before filing court documents does not constitute criminal conspiracy. The petitioner's allegations of criminal contempt are not substantiated.

The petitioner's actions do not amount to criminal contempt or interference with the administration of justice. Sharing information with an advocate-politician does not constitute contempt. The petitioner's conduct regarding the sharing of information does not constitute criminal contempt. The court emphasizes the need for evidence of intent to aid the accused.

The exchange of emails between the parties does not interfere with the administration of justice or constitute contempt.

The applications for criminal contempt are barred by limitation and lack merit.

As a chargesheet has been filed, the trial court is directed to proceed accordingly. The investigation into email hacking should be expedited.

Facts:

The case involved the acquisition of land by the State of Haryana for Haryana Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC). The Manesar Industries Welfare Association, an association of beneficiaries of the land acquisition, contested the compensation enhancement based on a sale deed allegedly involving inflated prices by two companies.

Issues:

The maintainability of the curative petition filed by the Manesar Industries Welfare Association.

Held:

The Court found the curative petition to be misconceived and vexatious. It upheld the objections raised by the Registry regarding the non-maintainability of the petition. Additionally, costs of Rs. One lac were imposed on the Applicant, payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority. These costs were suspended but would become immediately payable if further litigation on the same subject matter was initiated by the Applicant or any of its members.

Facts:

Notifications issued in 1992 and 1993 by the State Government for land acquisition.

Award determining compensation made in 1995, but compensation not paid to the Appellant.

Compensation deposited in the Government Treasury, not in the Reference Court.

Appellant challenged acquisition in High Court, which was dismissed.

Appeal made to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapses under Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Compliance with provisions regarding compensation payment or deposit.

Held:

The Court concluded that acquisition proceedings concerning the Appellant's land lapsed with the enactment of the Act. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and it was held that the acquisition proceedings initiated through the notifications in 1992 and 1993, followed by the award in 1995, lapsed only concerning the Appellant.

The Court referred to previous judgments, including Pune Municipal Corporation case, where it was held that the mere deposit of compensation in the Treasury does not suffice.

Facts:

The case involves an employee who resigned after completing 23 years and 7 months of service with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) at the age of 50. Subsequently, the LIC notified the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, with retrospective effect. The employee sought pension benefits as per these rules, which was denied by the employer and lower courts.

Issues:

Whether the employee is entitled to pension benefits despite resigning from service.

The interpretation of resignation versus retirement under the relevant rules and regulations.

The application of beneficial legislation in favor of employees' entitlement to pension benefits.

Held:

The court held that the employee should not be deprived of pension benefits merely because he resigned instead of retiring.

It was established that resignation and retirement have distinct connotations, with retirement requiring completion of qualifying service and adherence to extant rules and regulations.

Despite the absence of a provision for voluntary retirement at the relevant time, the employee's resignation could be construed as voluntary retirement under Rule 31 of the Pension Rules, 1995.

The court emphasized the need to interpret the rules in a manner that extends benefits to employees, in line with the objectives of beneficial legislation (Para 6).

Delay in claiming pension benefits would not thwart the claim, as long as it does not adversely affect settled third-party rights. However, relief regarding arrears of pension would be restricted to three years prior to the filing of the case.

The employee is entitled to pension benefits, subject to refunding the entire amount of the corporation's contribution to the Provident Fund along with accrued interest, as per the Pension Rules of 1995.

Facts:

Dulu Devi appealed against an order passed by the Gauhati High Court, seeking continuation of her service as Headmistress in-charge of the Dhemaji Rastrabhasha Hindi Lower Primary School, regularization of her service, and payment of regular salary. She had been serving as a teacher since 1989 and faced issues with salary payment initially.

Issues:

The termination of Dulu Devi's service and the legality of her appointment.

Held:

The Court ruled in favor of Dulu Devi, emphasizing that the mere passing of an order of dismissal or termination would not be effective unless it is published and communicated to the officer concerned. Since there was no formal communication of termination to Dulu Devi, her service could not be assumed to have been terminated.

Therefore, she was entitled to continue in service and receive all arrears of salary in accordance with the law. This appeal is allowed.

Facts:

The plaintiffs jointly filed a suit seeking rectification of the revenue record to include their names as owners and possessors of a disputed land, alleging it was wrongly recorded as Government property. Despite presenting documentary evidence, the Revenue failed to justify the change in records. The appeal proceeded in the High Court, where one of the appellants passed away. The question of abatement arose due to non-substitution of the deceased appellant.

Issues:

Whether the mutation sought was justified based on the evidence presented?

Whether the appeal would abate due to the death of one of the appellants?

Whether the High Court's jurisdiction and procedure were correctly followed?

Held:

The court found that the plaintiffs provided substantial documentary evidence supporting their claim of ownership. The failure of the Revenue to justify the change in records raised doubts about the validity of the mutation.

The court ruled that the appeal would not entirely abate due to the death of one appellant. The remaining sharers, representing the deceased appellant's estate, could continue the appeal as they substantially represented the ownership of the suit property.

The court clarified that the High Court's procedure followed Clause 36 of the Letters Patent of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Therefore, the High Court's judgment was not vitiated by any non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appeal being C.A. No. 2964 of 2013 filed by the Corporation is also dismissed.

Facts:

Property initially purchased by Jagannath Joshi, but registered in the name of his wife, Moni Debi.

Plaintiff claimed to be the widow of Sitaram Joshi, allegedly adopted by Jagannath and Moni Debi.

Plaintiff claimed ownership of the property upon deaths of Jagannath and Moni Debi.

Defendant claimed to be the adopted son of Gomati Debi (Moni Debi's daughter) and contested plaintiff's claim.

Issues:

Ownership of the property (Jagannath vs. Moni Debi)

Validity of Sitaram's adoption

Validity of defendant's adoption by Gomati Debi and related gift deed.

Held:

Ownership of Property: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision that the property belonged to Moni Debi based on various circumstances and evidence.

Sitaram's Adoption: The evidence provided by the plaintiff regarding Sitaram's adoption was deemed insufficient and unreliable. The Court emphasized the need for clear and unambiguous evidence in cases of adoption, which was lacking here.

Defendant's Adoption by Gomati Debi: Since the plaintiff's claim of ownership failed, the issue of the defendant's adoption became irrelevant. The Court held that even if the defendant's adoption was challenged, the plaintiff was not the proper legal heir to contest it, as there were others with superior claims who did not challenge the adoption. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, dismissing the plaintiff's appeals.

Facts:

The case involved a review petition seeking a limited review of a previous judgment.

Interlocutory applications were filed, including one requesting the court to restrain the respondents from carrying out any development or construction during the pendency of the appeal.

The petitioners contended that their prayer for ad-interim relief was not considered and decided by the court.

Issues:

Whether the court should grant ad-interim relief as requested by the petitioners.

The status of the Notice of Motion pending before the High Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court declined to pass the ad-interim relief requested by the petitioners since it had already been declined by the High Court .

However, the court granted liberty to the petitioners to move their Notice of Motion pending before the High Court, directing that it would be heard while deciding the preliminary issue as per Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure .

The review petition and interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly .

Additionally, Interlocutory Application No. 7 of 2014 seeking proceedings under the provisions of Section 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed considering the facts of the case and the order passed.