Civil Appeal – Recruitment to Ministerial Group “C” Posts – Appellants aggrieved by denial of promotion despite seniority – Case revolves around the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group “C” Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001. [Para 1-3]

Promotion Criteria – Rule 5 of the said Rules – Specifies that 20% of vacancies shall be filled by promotion from Group “D” employees, with 15% from those who have passed High School and 5% from those who have passed Intermediate examinations. [Para 2, 4]

High Court’s Decision – Dismissal of writ petition – High Court held that Rule 5 only prescribes the source of recruitment, and those who obtained higher marks were promoted. [Para 3]

Supreme Court’s Observation – Lack of promotions since 2015 – Despite vacancies, no promotions conducted in line with Rule 5 of the said Rules, affecting appellants and others similarly situated. [Para 6-8]

Article 142 – Special Direction – Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 142 to direct promotion of four candidates immediately below those promoted in 2014, specifying that this shall not be treated as a precedent. [Para 9-11]

Time Frame – State of Uttar Pradesh directed to take necessary action within two months. [Para 10]

Writ Petition – Petitioner seeks the setting aside of the termination order that removed him from the strength of the respondent-BSF after a post-recruitment medical diagnosis of bone tuberculosis (TB). [Para 1]

Medical Examination – Conflict between the petitioner’s fitness assessment by PGI, Chandigarh, and the respondent’s medical board, with the latter declaring the petitioner unfit for basic training. [Para 2-4]

Recruitment Eligibility – Respondents concede that the petitioner did not suffer from the diagnosed ailment at the time of recruitment, but contracted it after joining service. [Para 6]

Legal Precedents – Petitioner relies on various Supreme Court judgments to argue against the unfairness of being terminated for a condition contracted after joining service. [Para 3, 7]

Unfair Treatment – Court finds it unjust to terminate an employee who met all the recruitment criteria but contracted a disease after joining service. [Para 7]

Direction – Court orders the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s employment for a post other than that of Constable and to issue a speaking order after an opportunity for a hearing is provided – The court directs the reconsideration process to be completed within 06 months from the date of judgment.   [Para 8]

Mitakshara Coparcenary – Succession – Examination of the intricate issue of inheritance of Mitakshara coparcenary property – Parties Involved – Kesar Bai's demand for partition – Appellant, Derha Ram, succeeding to her estate – Civil Suit No. 146A of 1991 initiated. [Para 3-4]

Court Findings – Trial Court decreeing 1/3rd share for appellant in agricultural land and house properties – Appeal dismissed by Appellate Court. [Para 4-5]

High Court Decision – Reduction of appellant's share to 1/6th – Special leave appeal filed. [Para 6]

Arguments Rejected – Appellant's claim that properties are not coparcenary properties dismissed – Stand inconsistent with original plaintiff’s pleadings. Legal Framework – Application of Section 6 and Section 8 of the Act of 1956 to determine succession – Provisions and their implications detailed. [Para 8, 9, 10]

Final Determination – Share division consistent with legal provisions and High Court directions – Civil appeal devoid of merit. [Para 13-14]

Reversal of Acquittal – Conviction under Section 302 and 307 IPC: The acquittal of respondent no.2 by the Trial Court and High Court was overturned, leading to his conviction under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC. [Para 1]

Virtual Appearance – Health Conditions: Due to health conditions and an ongoing life sentence in another case, permission was granted for respondent no.2 to appear virtually. [Para 2]

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment and Fines: Given the facts and age of the case, life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 7 years under Section 307 IPC were awarded, along with fines. [Para 4]

Distribution of Fine – Section 357 CrPC: Fine to be used for compensating the victim’s family and the legal heirs of the deceased, as per clause (c) of Section 357 of the CrPC. [Para 6]

Additional Compensation – Section 357-A CrPC: Due to the State’s inadequate prosecution and the victim family’s trauma, additional compensation is mandated. [Para 7]

Compliance and Time Frame: Fine and compensation must be deposited within two months, with a compliance report due in four months. [Para 8-9]

Appeal Disposed: The appeal was disposed of as per the guidelines. [Para 8]

Writ Petition – Eligibility for admission to a Post Graduate medical seat – Petitioner aggrieved by the rejection of candidature – Challenging the change of her status from OCI candidate to Indian national – Relief sought under Article 32 of the Constitution – Judgment addressing the issue of eligibility based on OCI status. [Para 1-18]

Notification – Ministry of Home Affairs Notification dated 04.03.2021 – Withdrawal of eligibility or privileges conferred upon OCI Card holders – Notification altering the rights of OCI Card holders regarding parity with Indian nationals for appearing in All India entrance tests such as NEET. [Para 13-14]

Retroactivity – Analysis of whether the notification had retroactive application – Court concluding that the notification retroactively withdrew the rights which were available – Examination of the fairness and application of mind in implementing the notification. [Para 15-16]

Anushka Rengunthwar Case – Reference to the judgment in Anushka Rengunthwar & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. – Court’s interpretation of the effect of the notification and its retroactive application – Ruling on the notification’s applicability to OCI Card holders born prior to its issuance date. [Para 10-16]

Eligibility Criteria – Examination of the petitioner’s eligibility based on her OCI status – OCI Card holder’s entitlement to participate in NEET examination – Change of petitioner’s status to Indian national after initially being treated as an OCI candidate. [Para 2-8, 17-18]

Unfair Treatment – Petitioner’s contention of unfair and arbitrary treatment by AIIMS – Change of her status affecting her chances of admission in PG Medical Course – Examination of whether the change of status was justified and based on valid reasons. [Para 6-8]

Consideration of Eligibility – Directive to consider the petitioner’s eligibility for remaining counselling rounds for PG Medical seats – Clarification that consideration should include unfilled seats reserved for various categories and special candidates – Inclusion of candidates issued OCI cards prior to 04.03.2021. [Para 17-18]

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) – Delay Condonation and Permission – The Supreme Court granted permission to file a special leave petition without a certified/plain copy of the impugned order and condoned the delay in refiling. [Para 1]

Time to Surrender – Regular Bail – Petitioner granted four weeks to surrender and apply for regular bail, which will be considered in accordance with the law. [Para 2]

Serious Irregularity – Unavailability of Order – Court noted a serious irregularity regarding the non-availability of the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 to the aggrieved party. The issue was attributed to technical glitches and administrative issues at the High Court of Patna. [Para 3-4]

Directive to High Court – Investigation – The Supreme Court directed the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court to investigate the matter and take necessary steps to rectify the issue related to the unavailability of orders. [Para 5-6]

Disposition – Petition Disposed of – All pending applications, including the special leave petition, were disposed of in accordance with the directives issued. [Para 7]

Challenge to High Court’s directions in Writ Petition (C) No. 7080 of 2005 – Appellants challenge validity of High Court’s directions issued superseding CAT’s order – Respondent seeking promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme – Original application before CAT disposed with direction to clarify promotion guidelines – Appellants aggrieved by High Court’s judgment, contest its validity. [Para 1-2]

Validity of Rule 4(b) of Ministry of Information Technology (In-situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules, 1998 – Rule 4(b) challenged as ultra vires – Respondent’s pleading lacks grounds to challenge rule’s validity – High Court’s declaration of Rule 4(b) as ultra vires not justified – Proper pleading and relief needed to challenge rule’s validity. [Para 8-9]

Challenge to denial of promotion – Rule 4(b)’s validity set aside – Denial of promotion based on rule’s validity – Respondent’s grievance about promotion denial doesn’t hold – No unjustified denial of promotion for respondent – Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme in place – Respondent’s promotion during writ petition and superannuation rendered issue moot – Validity of promotion of juniors also not relevant. [Para 10-11]

Intervenors impleaded – Allowed to support High Court’s order – Lack of challenge and appropriate pleading – Impleaded parties’ grounds not considered – Parties have liberty to pursue their claims through appropriate proceedings – No express view on validity of Rules. [Para 12]

Appeal allowed – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 13]

Constitutional Validity – Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16, which legitimizes children born from void and voidable marriages, stating that it serves the purpose of social justice and protects the rights of innocent parties. [Para 1-10]

Legitimacy and Property Rights – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Clarification on the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in relation to property rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Children born from such marriages are legitimate but have property rights only with respect to their parents and not any other person. [Para 54(iii)]

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonization of Laws – The Court emphasized the need to harmonize the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly in relation to the legitimacy and property rights of children born from void or voidable marriages. [Para 54(x)]

Constitutional Principles – Individual Dignity – The Court highlighted that the interpretation of laws should be guided by the constitutional principle of individual dignity. While the relationship between parents may not be sanctioned by law, the birth of a child in such a relationship must be viewed independently. [Para 52(xi)]

Gender Equality – Hindu Undivided Family – The Court noted that amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, have been made to facilitate gender equality within the institution of Hindu Undivided Family, particularly by recognizing the rights of daughters as coparceners. [Para 54(v)]

Judicial Precedents – Overruling – The Court overruled previous narrow interpretations of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, stating that such interpretations were not in line with the legislative intent or constitutional principles. [Para 52(i)]

Coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family – The Court clarified that the concept of a coparcener postulates the acquisition of an interest by birth. Children born from void or voidable marriages, although legitimate, do not automatically become coparceners in the Hindu Mitakshara Joint Family. [Para 50]

Historical Context – Evolution of Hindu Law – The Court provided a detailed historical context, tracing the evolution of Hindu law and how it has adapted to changing social norms, particularly with respect to legitimacy and property rights. [Para 51]

Decision and Directions – The Court concluded by answering the reference, affirming the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and clarifying the property rights of children born from void or voidable marriages. The Court directed that the individual cases be listed before a two-Judge Bench for disposal in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment. It also directed that the judgment be circulated to all High Courts and subordinate courts for quick disposal of pending cases involving the issues decided. The Court further emphasized the need for judicial education on the harmonization of laws and constitutional principles, and called for immediate action to be taken to ensure the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages are protected. [Para 54-60]

Special Leave to Appeal – False Statement by Counsel  Counsel for the petitioner alleged that the High Court’s reasoned order was not uploaded, prompting the Supreme Court to call for a status report from the Registrar General of the High Court of Bombay. The statement was subsequently found to be false.

High Court Procedures – Status Report  The Registrar General of the High Court of Bombay clarified that the reasoned order was digitally signed and uploaded on time, contrary to the counsel’s statement.

Constitutional Jurisdiction – Article 136  The Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, dismissed the Special Leave Petitions due to the false statement made by the petitioner’s counsel.

Misrepresentation – Counsel’s Misconduct  The Court expressed its discontent towards the petitioner’s counsel for providing a false statement, which required the Court to unnecessarily summon a status report from the Registrar General.

Applications – Disposed Of   All pending applications related to the case were dismissed.