Review: Madras HC rules that State Ought to Conduct in Fair and Transparent Manner by Affording Opportunity to all Eligible Candidates for Securing a Government Job
In this edition of the court judgments review, we look at a Kerala HC order that used company fines to fund student’s rehabilitation, Chhattisgarh HC’s order that chain-pulling by a railway employee is not misconduct as it was to help the family board, Madras HC order that the state ought to conduct itself in a fair and transparent manner by affording opportunity to all the eligible candidates to fulfil aspirations of securing a Government job, among others.
Kerala HC used company fines to fund student’s rehabilitation
The proceedings originated as Other Tax Cases filed by the Rehabilitation Plantations Limited against the State of Kerala regarding an income tax order. The High Court agreed to overlook the delay in filing the tax appeals, but only on the mandatory condition that the company paid a cost of Rs. 10,000 in each case to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA). This penalty was specifically designated to fund the educational needs of deserving students.
The issue in the later hearing was the application of the collected cost fund. The Deputy Solicitor General confirmed that the National Council for Vocational Education and Training (NCVET) had extended the admission deadline, and the youngster had successfully secured a place in a vocational program. The main legal point was how to effectively use the court-ordered penalty money to pay the student’s tuition fees and ensure his successful rehabilitation.
According to Livelaw, the High Court’s focus was on the effective rehabilitation of a student suffering from a substance abuse disorder. Observing that the youngster had been admitted to the educational program, the Court directed KeLSA to immediately release the necessary tuition fees for the student from the cost fund. Payment was to be made through the Amicus Curiae, with instructions to reimburse any amount already paid by others. Additionally, the Amicus Curiae was tasked with interacting with the student every two months to ensure continued support. Recognising the cooperation of all legal parties in this rehabilitation effort, the Court recorded its appreciation and officially closed the writ petition, concluding the matter was resolved.
Chhattisgarh HC: Chain-pulling by a railway employee is not misconduct as it was to help the family board
The petitioner in Austin Hyde vs. Union of India, is a railway employee travelling as a passenger in July 2010, who pulled the Alarm Chain twice at Bilaspur station to allow family members with luggage to board. This caused a ten-minute delay. A departmental inquiry found him guilty of misconduct and penalised him with a reduction of two pay stages for two years. He challenged this order, but the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) upheld the punishment.
Mr. Hyde argued that chain-pulling is only an offence under the Railways Act, 1989, if done “without reasonable and sufficient cause.” He contended that the charge sheet was legally defective because it failed to explicitly allege this crucial element. Since the charge did not mention the lack of reasonable cause, he argued that no misconduct was technically committed, and the entire disciplinary process was therefore flawed.
The High Court agreed that pulling the chain is only punishable if the act lacks “reasonable and sufficient cause.” The Court found that the charge sheet, the inquiry report, and all subsequent orders from the Disciplinary Authority to the CAT failed to record a specific finding on this missing legal element. The Court concluded that if the charge is vague and misses this essential component, no misconduct can be legally established. Therefore, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the CAT’s order and cancelling the penalty imposed on the petitioner.
Chhattisgarh HC: Daughter is not entitled to a share in ancestral land when she has a brother, as per Mitakshara Law
In the case Smt. Ragmania (Dead) through LRs vs. Jagmet & Others, Ragmania sued her brother’s family for a declaration of title and partition, claiming a share in the ancestral suit property. She argued that she and her brother were co-sharers and governed by Hindu Law. The land was originally recorded in her grandfather Sudhin’s name. The defendants contended that Sudhin died in the year 1950-51, before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into effect, meaning the property was governed by the Old Hindu Law. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed Ragmania’s suit.
The plaintiff (Ragmania’s legal heir) contended that the lower courts were wrong to ignore the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and that the partition should be allowed since the family was in joint possession until the dispute arose in 2003. The defendants argued that since Sudhin died before 1956, the succession was governed by Mitakshara Law, under which a married daughter had no right to inherit the father’s property when a male heir (her brother, Baigadas) was present.
The High Court agreed with the lower courts, noting the undisputed fact that Sudhin (the original property owner) died in 1950-51. The Court ruled that because the death occurred before 1956, the inheritance was governed by the Mitakshara Law (the Old Hindu Law). As per Mitakshara Law, if a male Hindu died before 1956 and left a son, the son would inherit the entire property, and a daughter could only claim a right in the absence of a male child. The Court observed that the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 did not change this fundamental rule to favour the daughter. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the property was not partible as Ragmania had no legal share.
Madras HC: State ought to conduct itself in a fair and transparent manner by affording opportunity to all the eligible candidates to fulfil aspirations of securing a Government job
In the case of T. Gangeswari vs. State, the petitioner applied for the position of BT Assistant (Tamil). She had registered with the Employment Exchange in November 1992. When she was overlooked for the job, she found that M.K. Ravichandran (the 4th respondent), a junior candidate who had registered in April 1993, was appointed instead. The official respondents repeatedly provided conflicting justifications to the court, including claiming the petitioner had previously rejected a job offer and, later, falsely stating the 4th respondent’s registration date was in April 1992, making him senior.
The petitioner argued that the respondents deliberately manipulated the records to show the junior candidate as senior, thereby appointing him over her, violating the employment exchange seniority rules. She presented RTI information confirming the junior candidate’s true registration date was 1993. She sought to quash the rejection order and be appointed retroactively.
The High Court noted the multiple, contradictory stands taken by the respondents and their failure to provide evidence for their claims, particularly that the petitioner had rejected a previous job offer. The Court heavily criticised the Teachers Recruitment Board for lacking fairness and transparency, stating that altering the 4th respondent’s registration date to advance him by a year showed “undue favouritism.” The Court stressed that a state body must act fairly and transparently, concluding that altering the registration date to show favouritism was an unacceptable breach of trust against eligible candidates.
The petition was allowed, the rejection order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of BT Assistant with effect from the date the 4th respondent was appointed.
Delhi HC: “Physical relations” alone does not prove sexual assault
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of Rahul @ Bhupinder Verma under Section 376 IPC (Rape) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The victim, who was 16 years old at the time of the incident in 2014, alleged that the appellant, her cousin, established a “love affair” and maintained “physical relations” with her for over a year under a false promise of marriage. After the appellant refused to marry her, she consumed poison in November 2014, which resulted in her losing her voice and ability to walk. The FIR was lodged much later, in March 201,6 when she regained her voice and walking ability.
The appellant argued that there was an inordinate delay of one and a half years in filing the FIR, and, crucially, that the victim’s testimony was insufficient. His counsel contended that the phrase “physical relations” used by the victim did not automatically prove “penetrative sexual assault,” which is required for conviction under the charged sections, especially since internal medical examination was refused and there was no forensic evidence.
The Court noted the significant delay in reporting the incident and found no concrete evidence, such as medical reports, to support the claim that the victim was unable to speak during the delay period. Most importantly, the Court observed that the expression “physical relations” is not defined in the IPC or POCSO Act and, following precedent, cannot automatically be equated with penetrative sexual assault. The Court criticised the lower court for not questioning the victim further to clarify the exact nature of the act. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and released from jail immediately.
