SUPREME COURT

• Consumer Protection Laws

Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr & M.O.H Leathers Vs. United Commercial Bank (Decided on 19.08.2011) MANU/SC/0969/2011

Consumer - State Commission - Whether tribunal has the power to recall an ex-parte order

Held, on careful analysis of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, it is clear that the Tribunals are the creatures of the statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the Statute. The District forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex-parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been exercised by the Statute cannot be exercised. The legislature chose to give the National Commission power to review its ex-parte orders. Before the amendment of the Act against dismissal of any case by the Commission, the consumer had to rush to this Court. The amendment in Section 22 and introduction of Section 22-A were done for the convenience of the consumers. The legislative intention and the interpretation of the law has been done accordingly.

• SERVICE LAWS

Man Singh Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd and Anr (Decided on 26.08.2011) MANU/SC/0987/2011

Removal from service - Whether justified or not - In the instant case, relationship between the employer and the workman brought to an end in terms of a voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) - But it was alleged by the appellant that he was made to take voluntary retirement under duress and his removal was illegal and unjustified - Whether the termination of service through a VRS was justified and correct, if not what relief was the appellant entitled to

Held, the termination of services through a VRS was justified and correct since the appellant had received all the benefits he was entitled to receive under the same and after that challenged the same in the Labour Court. The High Court was correct in directing him to refund the amount. However, imposition of an interest rate of was harsh and unwarranted. Giving regard to the fact that the appellant was no longer in service the ends of justice would be met if the direction for refund was confined only to the principle amount and not to the interest.

V. Gopal vs. P. Ganaselvaudayakumari and Ors (Decided on 26.08.2011) MANU/SC/0986/2011

Appointment - Challenge thereof - Educational Qualifications - Requirement of - Notice issued inviting applications from persons working in the Social Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu for appointment to the post of P.G Assistant in M.A Political Science in the Government Higher Secondary School for the Blind - Last date for making such a submission was December 15, 1991- The educational qualifications required for the above post was a Masters Degree in Political Science and a Bachelors Degree in Education - Apart from the same the Government provided in the notice that the concerned person would be eligible for the said post only if he possessed the Government certificate of competency in teaching the blind - But a certain relaxation was made providing that in case the person does not possess the same certificate then he would have to obtain the same within a period of four years for appointment to the said post - The respondent possessing being eligible for the said post sent her application, though she did not send the same directly to the Director's office, Social Welfare Department and instead sent it to the Head Master of the said school on 12th December 2011 with whom it lay for some time and finally the application was sent to the Director's office which was received after 10 days of the last date of application - In the meanwhile appellant not possessing the requisite qualification was appointed and was told to acquire the same within four years of his appointment - Whether the challenge of the appointment of the appellant by the respondent was valid on the ground that she possessed the requisite qualifications

Held. the respondent's challenge to the appointment of the Appellant on the post of PG Assistant must, therefore fail for the simple reason that her own application in response to the appointment notice was submitted long after the last date of application, hence it could not be taken into consideration. The Court is not made aware of any rule or administrative instruction providing such a restriction. Therefore it cannot be said that the respondent was following any provision statutory or administrative providing such a restriction. If her application reached the Director's office late the respondent alone was responsible for it.

Appointment - Validity of - Appellant was appointed on the post of PG Assistant in M.A Political Science in the Government Higher Secondary School for the Blind - Appellant's date of appointment is mentioned as July 17, 2001,  but this appears to be not possible in the light of the fact that the notice inviting applications is itself December 5 1991- Whether the Appellant's appointment was valid or not

Held, the whole process of appointment and selection was quite irregular and unsatisfactory and in those circumstances the Court is unable to sustain the appointment of the appellant as well - Hence till a fresh appointment is made as per the rules the appellant working on the said post for 20 years would continue working till such an appointment is made.

State of Punjab and Ors Vs. Jagdish Kaur and State of Punjab and Anr Vs. Harjinder Singh (Decided on 26.08.2011) MANU/SC/0985/2011

Promotion - Eligibility - In the instant case, one of the Respondents was appointed as a Peon in a Government school in the year 1978 - At the time of the said appointment the Respondent had passed her matriculation examination - After joining service the respondent passed her senior secondary examination in the year 1992 - Thereafter becoming eligible for promotion to a Class III post and accordingly moved the concerned authorities for the same - Another petition filed in which the Respondent also sought promotion from the Class IV post of the peon to a Class III post on the ground that one of his juniors had been promoted by superceding him - Said Petition was allowed on the ground of the earlier petition being allowed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court - But the Respondent in the second petition was given promotion while the Respondent who had passed the senior secondary examination and was eligible for the said promotion the order had been stayed by the High Court - Whether the Respondent was entitled to promotion in Class III

Held, following the order passed by the High Court the respondent in the second petition has been working on the Class III post - The respondent who was eligible after passing the senior secondary examination had the order of the High Court in her favour - Hence, was eligible for promotion in the Class III post - But the promotions given to both the respondents would be subject to their qualifying in the typewriting test in Punjabi at a speed of 30 w.p.m within one year.

HIGH COURT

• SERVICE LAWS

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Salil Sabhlok Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors (Decided on 17.08.2011) MANU/PH/2214/2011

Appointment - Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commissions - Procedure adopted therein - Whether the procedure adopted by the Respondent was justifiable

Held, the Commission carries out the most important function of recruitment of posts under the State. In terms of sub-clause 3 of Article 320 the State Public Service Commission is to be consulted on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts, To ensure that the members of the Commission are not influenced in any manner, the constitution has provided security of tenure to the members and that they shall not be appointed in any other employment under the State. Article 316 of the Constitution deals with the appointment of such members. There is no prohibition in any of the precedents laid down regarding a prohibition to lay down the procedure for decision making to ensure fair, transparent and objective appointments so that they can carry out the duties of the State in a fair and reasonable manner. Further the State Governments have been impresses upon time to time with a duty to appoint persons of caliber, impeccable integrity and merit as Chairman and members of the Commission. To make such appointments the decision making process has to be fair and reasonable so that the best possible candidates are selected to carry out the coveted assignments. Moreover the jurisdiction of this Court has not been restricted to issue directions in exercise of powers of judicial review for maintaining transparency and probity in the administration. Such directions are to be issued on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. The guiding principle should be to choose a person of impeccable integrity and dignity and not that the person is a man belonging to a certain political group.

• RENT LAWS

DELHI HIGH COURT

Upper India Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shobha Asrani (Decided on 27.08.2011) MANU/DE/2962/2011

Second Eviction Petition - Maintainability - In the instant the first eviction petition was withdrawn on the request of the petitioner and a second eviction petition was filed on the same cause of action

Held, the procedure to deal with an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act which is on the ground of bonafide requirement contained in Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act - This is a complete Code in itself.- The contention that the second eviction petition filed is not maintainable could well have been taken by the tenant in his second eviction petition by incorporating the same in his application for leave to defend, ARC would then adjudicate the same - As a result the eviction petition is maintainable

• CRIMINAL LAWS

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Vijay Bahadur S/O Jai Shriram Jatav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Decided on 16.08.2011) MANU/MP/0306/2011

Appellant convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment, maximum of which is life imprisonment besides fine with default stipulation - Appeal against the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court

Held, it may not be safe to sustain the conviction appellant only on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the investigating officer - No credence can be given to the same - It was not the case of the investigating officer that when the missing report of the deceased was filed the appellant was also missing at the same time - Rather it has been stated by the investigating officer that at the time he visited the house of the appellant he was very much present there - If that was so there is no explanation on record why the appellant was not interrogated by the investigating officer then and there instead of waiting till recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the well - Does it not create a strong suspicion on the involvement of the Appellant in the crime, it does create his involvement in the complicity of the crime - Further there is also a very strong contradiction in the statement of the deceased's widow's statement regarding the purpose for which he had left his house - Moreover there is no cogent evidence to show that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant before the discovery of the deceased's dead body - Hence the appeal is allowed by the High Court

Patna High Court

Ramrang Dusadh Son of Ram Subhag Dusadh and Sheojee Dusadh Son of Rajdeo Dusadh Vs. State of Bihar (Decided on 17.08.2011) MANU/BH/0913/2011

Appellants convicted under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal against the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court

Held, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt - Further certain exhibits relating to an alleged counter case filed by the appellant had been looked into by the Trial Court but such documents were never formally approved - The Trial Court admitted them in the interest of justice without proof and leaves it to see its evidentiary value at the time of hearing - The High Court says that a document even if it is a public one requires proof - Evidence Act clearly states that evidence is of two types- documentary or oral - What can be relied by the Court-either civil or criminal, is evidence that is duly approved and not any evidence - Here the Trial Court itself noted that the exhibits were not proved - Thus they were inadmissible - The question of evidentiary value comes after the evidence has been admitted - Thus the Trial Court committed grave error in law in relying upon these exhibits - They are not evidence as part of the record of this case - Hence, the benefit of doubt must go the appellants and cannot be held guilty - Appeal is allowed by the High Court.