Facts:

The appellants, doctors serving under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, challenged the decision regarding eligibility criteria for appearing in the West Bengal Post Graduate Medical Admission Test for 2015.

A notification issued on 24.03.2015 stated that in-service candidates who obtained diplomas between 2012-2014 would not be considered for the degree course, favoring pre-2012 diploma holders instead.

The appellants contended that this change was arbitrary and discriminatory, as it was implemented after they were selected and called for giving sponsorship certificates.

The respondents argued that the decision was made to prioritize doctors who completed their diploma courses much earlier than the appellants, given the shortage of doctors in the state and plans to open new super-specialty hospitals.

Issues:

Whether the change in eligibility criteria for the medical admission test was arbitrary and discriminatory.

Whether the appellants' merit should take precedence over seniority in determining eligibility.

Held:

The court dismissed the appeals, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the decision. However, the respondents' counsel assured that the appellants would be given sponsorship for the following year, 2016-17. The court noted that the placement of doctors was at the discretion of the government, and while the appellants were allowed to appear in the examination and secured a place in the select list, there was no justification to prioritize them over their seniors. The court emphasized that seniority was a relevant factor, especially in the context of the shortage of doctors in the state and plans for new super-specialty hospitals.

Facts:

Various writ petitions were filed by teachers of Sanskrit Institutes in Patiala and Nabha, concerning the status of the institutes and their entitlement to salary scales.

The institutes had a historical background dating back to the 19th century and had been affiliated with universities.

Disputes arose over whether the institutes should be treated as colleges or schools, and whether the teachers were qualified for salary scales equivalent to college lecturers.

Issues:

Whether the institutes should be treated as colleges.

Whether the teachers were entitled to salary scales equivalent to college lecturers.

Held:

The Court observed that the institutes had been treated as colleges by various authorities over the years and had been affiliated with universities. The teachers had been teaching college-level courses and possessed the necessary qualifications.

The Court disagreed with the High Court's decision and ruled that the teachers were entitled to salary scales at par with college teachers.

However, the Court clarified that its decision was specific to the circumstances of this case and should not be seen as setting a precedent for similar cases.

Facts:

Gopal Shukla, a conductor with the U.P. State Transport Corporation, allowed 25 passengers to travel without tickets on a bus he was conducting.

This led to disciplinary proceedings against him, resulting in his dismissal.

Issues:

Whether the punishment imposed on Gopal Shukla for allowing passengers to travel without tickets was appropriate.

Held :

The Supreme Court held that leniency in cases of corruption or misconduct is against public interest and undermines institutional trust.

The Court criticized the Labour Court's reasoning for not adequately considering the breach of duty and trust involved.

The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Labour Court and the High Court, reinstating the Corporation's decision to dismiss Gopal Shukla.

Facts:

Indra Vijay Alok, the appellant, served as the Patwari of the Halka area during the relevant period. The prosecution alleged that he demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 1000 from the complainant, PW-3 Ram Singh, to facilitate the mutation of land records.

A trap was laid, during which marked currency notes were recovered from Alok's possession. Despite the lack of support from one of the panch witnesses, the prosecution's case relied on credible testimony from other witnesses.

Issues:

The credibility of witness testimony, the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the demand for a bribe was directly linked to official duties.

Held:

The Division Bench rejected the appellant's appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. They found the prosecution witnesses' testimony, especially that of PW-3 Ram Singh and PW-4 B.L. Vashist, to be credible.

Despite the lack of support from one witness, the court emphasized that the overall credibility of the prosecution's case remained intact. They noted that the presumption of motive under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not rebutted.

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that there was no illegality in the appreciation of evidence. The appellant's request to reduce the sentence was also denied.

Facts:

The Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Medical College applied for permission from the Central Government to increase the number of seats for the MBBS course for the academic session 2015-16. However, the application was rejected as the 'Essentiality Certificate' was not filed along with the application within the specified time frame. The applicant sought condonation of the delay, which was denied.

Issues:

Whether the applicant's failure to submit the essentiality certificate along with the application within the specified time frame warranted rejection of the application?

Whether the court should issue any direction for considering the applicant's case for the ongoing academic session 2015-16 despite the delay?

Held:The court held that the applicant's failure to submit the essentiality certificate along with the application within the specified time frame warranted rejection of the application (para 15).

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory time schedule provided under the Regulations of 1999, which is designed to ensure uniformity in the commencement of academic sessions (para 6, 7, 14).

Since all dates in the time schedule for the ongoing academic session were already over, the court declined to issue any direction for considering the applicant's case for that session (para 20).

The court directed that the application be considered for the next academic session (2016-17) provided that all requisite formalities are fulfilled. The Medical Council of India (MCI) was instructed to conduct an inspection in a timely manner as per the schedule fixed under the Regulations of 1999 (para 23).

Decision:In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition and directed that the application submitted by the college for the academic session 2015-16 be considered for the next academic session, subject to fulfilment of other requisite formalities, as may be necessary (para 23).

Facts:

The appellant, Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), filed a suit against Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. (ABFSL) seeking the recovery of the principal amount paid for the purchase of NPCL bonds. SCB later sought an amendment to include Hiten P. Dalal and Canara Bank Mutual Fund (CMF) as party respondents. The Special Court found SCB had purchased the bonds, but declined relief on grounds of limitation.

Issues:

The interpretation of the term "first learns" as provided under Article 91(a) of the Limitation Act.

Additionally, the court addresses whether SCB's claim is time-barred and if interest should be awarded.

Held:

The period of limitation starts running from the date when the person 'first learns' about the conversion of the movable property, as stipulated under Article 91(a) of the Limitation Act.

The knowledge requirement necessitates identifying a specific person in possession of the property and the possession constituting wrongful conversion .

SCB first learned about the misappropriation of the bonds and their transfer to CMF during a meeting on 07.11.1992. Thus, the limitation period started on this date.

SCB is entitled to interest pendente lite and future interest at 6% per annum from 10.01.1996 till realization, as per Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Decision: The finding that the suit was barred by limitation is set aside. SCB is entitled to the principal amount along with interest and costs from respondents 2-10.

Facts:

The case involves the promotion and determination of seniority of reserved category accelerated promotees in the Tamil Nadu Engineering Service. Reserved category Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers were promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineers much earlier than general category candidates due to their accelerated promotion following the rule of reservation (Para 25-26).

Issues:

The applicability of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution regarding consequential seniority for reserved category accelerated promotees in the absence of specific provisions or policy decisions by the State.

Held:

The Court clarified that Article 16(4A) of the Constitution is an enabling provision and does not automatically apply without specific provisions or policy decisions by the State .

In the absence of rules conferring consequential seniority, the 'catch-up rule' is applicable, where reserved category promotees cannot count seniority from the date of promotion, and senior general candidates regain their seniority if they later reach the promotional level .

Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Engineering Service Special Rules does not provide for consequential seniority for reserved category promotees, and hence, the 'catch-up rule' should be applied .

Rule 35(aa) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service (General) Rules is not applicable to reserved category promotions and does not provide for consequential seniority to accelerated promotees .

The Court directed the State Government to revise the seniority list applying the 'catch-up rule' .

Decision:The Court allowed the appeals and directed the State Government to revise the seniority list of Assistant Divisional Engineers applying the 'catch-up rule' .

Facts:

The original suit for permanent injunction was filed on March 9, 1990.

In the original written statement filed on May 16, 1990, the defendant denied the plaintiff's title to the property.

The plaintiff sought an amendment to the plaint to include a declaration of title to the suit property, which was allowed by the court's order dated March 28, 2002.

The defendant raised a plea in an additional written statement that the plea for declaration of title was time-barred.

Issues:

Whether Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to the amended plaint seeking a declaration of title.

Whether the amendment to the plaint was time-barred.

Whether the doctrine of relation back applied to the amendment.

Held:

Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the amended plaint as it sought to add the relief of declaration of title to the existing relief for permanent injunction.

The right to sue for declaration of title arose on May 16, 1990, when the defendant first denied the plaintiff's title in the written statement. Therefore, any amendment done after May 16, 1993, would be time-barred.

The doctrine of relation back does not apply in this case as the court allowed the amendment subject to the plea of limitation, indicating no extraordinary circumstances to warrant its application.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the amended plea for declaration of title was time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.