Poor academics no bar to jobs for high-rankers: HC

Poor academics no bar to jobs for high-rankers: HC 

18.04.2026

Cuttack : The Orissa high court observed that high ranking candidates in a recruitment exam cannot be disqualified on the basis of their poor academic records. The HC ruling came on Thursday while it was hearing a batch of 242 petitions challenging the Odisha Subordinate Staff Selection Commission’s (OSSSC) Oct 10, 2025 order, that denied candidates a place in the merit list for recruitment to the posts of livestock inspector, forester and forest guard, reports Lalmohan Patnaik . OSSSC had rejected the petitioners’ claim for appointment on grounds that they had adopted unfair means during the written exam. HC noted that the commission had not received report of illegality or irregularity in the conduct of the written exam from any of the 94 centres. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy directed OSSSC to recommend the 242 petitioners for appointment within three weeks. The state govt was to ensure timely appointments.

Employees hired without advertisement or interview cannot be regularised:

Employees hired without advertisement or interview cannot be regularised:

Supreme Court The claim of being engaged sans an advertisement itself gives rise to doubts as regards the manner of engagement, the Court said.

Supreme Court of India. 18.06.2026

Ritu Yadav Published on: 17 Apr 2026, 8:33 pm

The Supreme Court has ruled that government employees hired on a contractual or ad hoc basis without any public advertisement or interview cannot be made permanent under a State policy [Madan Singh v State of Haryana]

A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar passed the ruling on April 16 while striking down two notifications issued by Haryana government in 2014 to regularise services of a certain category of employees who had or were about to complete ten years’ of service.

The Court said that the Haryana government failed to justify why services of such ad hoc employees, who had not been engaged on the basis of any advertisement or interview, were sought to be regularised.

“The claim of being engaged sans an advertisement itself gives rise to doubts as regards the manner of engagement. Absence of any record whatsoever of the manner of engagement does not inspire any confidence in such a process,” the Bench said.

Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar However, at the same time, the Court acknowledged the practical reality that many of these employees had been working for years.

"A period of almost twelve years has elapsed since the issuance of these two Notifications. It is the specific stand of the State Government that even after excluding the ad hoc employees from Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’, who seek benefit of these two Notifications, none of the posts advertised would be aLected. Further, it is informed that such appointees have now gained sufficient experience and are likely to have settled in life with the passage of time," the Court noted.

It therefore invoked its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and allowed the employees to continue in service. However, it directed that they would be placed at the lowest pay scale applicable to their posts.

In 2018, the High Court in 2018 had struck down a set of Haryana government notifications aimed at regularising Group B, C and D employees. The decision was then challenged before the top court, which ordered a status quo during the pendency of the matter.

In the judgment passed on April 16, the top court modified the High Court ruling. While it struck down two of the notifications issued in July 2014, it upheld the validity of two similar notifications issued in June 2014.

The policies notified in June 2014 were aimed at extending the benefit of an older 1996 regularisation scheme to employees who had been left out earlier, it noted.

The Court found that the criteria prescribed was very much in tune with the criteria that would have otherwise been prescribed for regular recruitment

"The criteria prescribed was not in any manner watered down or deviated from the criteria required to be satisfied while seeking regular appointment. What is most relevant, in our view, is that such engagement should have been initially made on a sanctioned post and such engagement on the sanctioned post ought to be continuing even on the date of regularisation of service. This would clearly indicate that when such engagement on ad hoc basis was initially made, sanctioned posts were available and this position continued for a number of years so as to enable regularisation of services of the incumbents holding such posts," it said.

After pronouncing the judgment, Justice Narasimha remarked that the issue may require consideration by a larger Bench.

“We have gone through your suggestions. We had a particular difficulty being a combination of a two-judge bench. It would have created yet another problem of two conflicting two-judge benches. We have kept everything ready. We will ask you to do a repeat performance at a time, perhaps when we get this matter taken up at a three-judge bench, which is necessary, and we are going to do that because we have seen that it cannot continue like this. You know.,” Justice Narasimha said.

The Court placed on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by amicus curiae Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta and advocates Japneet Kaur, Jhanvi Dubey, Ashok Mathur, Vriti Gujral, M Bikram Dwivedi and Jimut Mohopatra.

Can't have different DA hikes for staff and pensioners: Supreme Court

Can't have different DA hikes for staff and pensioners: Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court has ruled that differential dearness benefit increases for serving employees and pensioners are arbitrary. Inflation impacts both equally, making a 14% DA hike for serving staff and only 11% DR for retirees discriminatory. The court stated that while financial constraints can justify implementation delays, unequal benefit rates violate the right to equality.

Amit Anand ChoudharyTNN

Apr 11, 2026, 3:59 IST

NEW DELHI: Observing that inflationary pressures do not discriminate between a serving employee and a pensioner, hitting the two equally, Supreme Court Friday held that fixing differential rates of enhancement of inflation-linked dearness benefits for the two categories is arbitrary and cannot be allowed. 

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Prasanna B Varale disapproved of Kerala govt's decision to raise dearness allowance (DA) by 14% for state road transport corporation employees when the dearness relief (DR) for its retired employees was raised by just 11%. "...The Govt Order in question increases the rate of DA by 14% and DR by 11% even though the increase is to serve a common object, which is to mitigate the hardship faced by the serving employees and pensioners on account of inflation.

 Indisputably, inflation hits both serving and retired employees with equal force... Differentiating the two qua the rate of increase of DA and DR, in our view, has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved," Justice Misra said, accepting the plea of senior advocates V Chitambaresh and Vipin Nair. The state had contended that serving and retired employees belonged to different categories and differential rates for them did not violate the right to equality. Financial reasons alone could justify the same, it said. The bench said, "No doubt a financial crunch might be a guiding factor to defer disbursement of certain benefits or may justify separate dates for implementation of beneficial schemes. 

But once a decision is taken to provide certain allowances, as also to increase them ...fixing a higher rate of increase for the ones who are serving than the ones who have retired, would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."

Consider service period of regularised PG doctors for super-specialty admissions’: Madras HC

Consider service period of regularised PG doctors for super-specialty admissions’: Madras HC

Justice M Dhandapani issued the direction on a petition by Dr G Arulvel, who was appointed as assistant surgeon on a temporary basis in 2021.

Madras High Court.

Express News Service

Updated on:

15 Apr 2026, 8:46 am

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the Selection Committee of the state health department to consider the applications of those post-graduate doctors, who were appointed in regular posts on temporary basis and subsequently regularised, for admission to super-specialty courses in medicine under the in-service quota by considering their entire service period as qualifying service.

Justice M Dhandapani issued the direction on a petition by Dr G Arulvel, who was appointed as assistant surgeon on a temporary basis in 2021 in the regular sanctioned post and was regularised on March 6, 2026, after clearing the special qualifying examination for regularisation.

The petitioner approached the court seeking the issuance of directions to consider his application for the super-specialty course for the 2025-26 academic year as in-service candidate in the Round-II counselling.

“There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner and the other similarly placed persons for admission to super-specialty courses for 2025-26 as in-service candidates by considering the period of service rendered by them in the temporary post, which is borne out of the cadre in the time scale of pay, as qualifying service for the purpose of fulfilment of the conditions laid down under clause 7 and 8 of the prospectus,” the judge in a recent order said.

The judge also directed the authorities to receive the applications from all the eligible temporary assistant surgeons who have been under temporary appointment on a post borne out of cadre, and process their application for selection to the super-specialty courses which are yet to be filled under the in-service quota and admit them on the basis of their inter se merit in the relevant courses for 2025-26.

Wife reneges on divorce by consent, SC invokes Art 142

Wife reneges on divorce by consent, SC invokes Art 142

 AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesofindia.com 14.04.2026

New Delhi : In a classic case of how court proceedings are misused in matrimonial disputes-a woman agreed for a divorce and signed a financial settlement agreement for separation but she not only reneged from the promise after getting a substantial part of the money from her husband, but she also filed a criminal case against him and his family members. 

The Supreme Court on Monday invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and also quashed the domestic violence case, brushing aside her opposition. The court dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay the final installment of Rs 70 lakh to her and also quashed all civil and criminal cases lodged by the couple against each other.

Judge breaks nib of pen after signing Sathankulam verdict

Judge breaks nib of pen after signing Sathankulam verdict 

TIMES OF INDIA  CHENNAI EDITION 07.04.2026

The convicts include the then inspector S Sridhar, sub-inspectors K Balakrishnan, P Raghu Ganesh, head constables S Murugan and A Samadurai, and four constables—M Muthuraja, S Chelladurai, X Thomas Francis and S Vailmuthu. 

A total fine of over ₹1 crore has been imposed on them. The 10th suspect, the then special sub-inspector Paldurai, who too had been arrested, died of Covid in Aug 2020. 

After signing judgment on Monday, judge Muthukumaran broke the nib of his pen. 

Jeyaraj and Beniks were taken to the Sathankulam police in Tuticorin district in south Tamil Nadu late in the evening of June 19, 2020, on charges of having kept their shop open beyond the deadline during the Covid-19 lockdown. They were brutally assaulted by the policemen at night and were lodged in Kovilpatti sub-jail the next day. 

Beniks died of injuries at the Kovilpatti govt hospital on June 22, 2020, while his father Jeyaraj died on June 23, 2020. Their deaths sent shock waves and triggered public outcry across the state, and Justice P N Prakash of Madras high court took note of the killings and ordered the transfer of probe to the CBI. 

Recalling the HC intervention, judge Muthukumaran said, “ If not for the HC, truth regarding the incident would have been buried along with mortal remains of the duo.” “It was an act of vengeance by the police. Jeyaraj was tortured since there was an altercation with the police and Beniks was tortured since he questioned the illegal detention of his father. 

The act was committed by the policemen with the deliberate intent to instill fear among the public as two traders had lost their lives,” the judge said. “Where there is power, there should be responsibility. The incident was an attack on human rights,” the judge observed and added that custodial death is a social evil. 

The judge observed that this is not the first case of custodial death and it is also not going to be the last case either. “Such incidents are occurring everywhere,” the judge said, referring to the George Floyd incident reported in the US and the recent incident where B Ajith Kumar, a temple security guard, died due to custodial torture in Thiruppuvanam in Sivaganga. 

“Those who should protect the public have misused their power. This was a case of fencing eating the crops,” he said. Earlier, the state govt asserted that custodial deaths could not be tolerated and the Centre stated that maximum punishment should be awarded to the convicts. 

All nine Sathankulam case convicts get death sentence 

Judge: This Is To Prevent More Such Incidents 

Madurai : All nine police personnel arrested in connection with the custodial deaths of P Jeyaraj and his son J Beniks who were tortured in Sathankulam police station in 2020, were sentenced to death on Monday. Mere life sentences would not be sufficient, as the policemen would have no fear and would, instead, get emboldened, said the first additional district and sessions court in Madurai, G Muthukumaran on Monday. 

“It would send a false message to society. The punishment imposed on the police personnel in this case should be stringent one in order to prevent the recurrence of such incidents in the future. All the nine convicted police personnel in the case were equally involved in the attack on the father-son duo which resulted in their death,” the judge said. “The justice we got today is justice for all common people,” Jeyaraj’s daughter, J Persis, told reporters. “No family should face the trauma we underwent. We believe judgment in this case will prevent such incidents of custodial deaths in the future.”

Pay Commission Benefits Can't Be Denied By Creating Additional Conditions:

Pay Commission Benefits Can't Be Denied By Creating Additional Conditions:

 Supreme Court Yash Mittal 3 Apr 2026 4:22 PM

The Supreme Court on April 1 observed that the Central Pay Commission's recommendation cannot be loosely construed to deny a benefit to an employee by creating an additional condition to deny the benefit of the pay commission.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti heard the matter concerning the respondents, who had initially joined the Border Roads Organisation in subordinate engineering cadres and were later redesignated as Junior Engineers following cadre merger. After completing 4 years of continuous service at Level 8 with Grade Pay of ₹4,800, they became eligible for Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Level 9 (Grade Pay ₹5,400) as per Seventh Central Pay Commission recommendation. 

However, the Government denied the benefit on the ground that only direct recruitees to Level 8 were entitled to NFU, despite the Pay Commission neither prescribing such a restriction nor mandating that the benefit be confined to direct recruits.

The Delhi High Court allowed the Respondents' plea and directed the extension of Level 9 benefit to them, leading to the Union's appeal before the Supreme Court.

Dismissing the Union's appeal, the judgment authored by Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed that the Government had unjustifiably withheld the NFU benefit from the respondents by introducing an additional condition, namely, that only direct recruits to Level 8 would be eligible. The Court held that such a requirement finds no place in the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations and could not be imposed to deny the benefit.

“The denial of NFU on the ground that the Writ Petitioners have not joined the service with grade pay of Rs. 4,800/-, thus, introducing entry-level into the subject paragraphs of Seventh Central Pay Recommendations, may amount to adding additional conditions for extending the benefit of NFU.”, the court observed.

“The requirement appears to be from the plain reading that upon completion of four years of service in Level 8 and on the seniority-cumsuitability, a Junior Engineer is entitled to NFU. The insistence on the option with an entry-level Junior Grade at Rs. 4,800/- would deny a benefit recommended by the Seventh Central Pay Commission to the Writ Petitioners.”, the court added.

 “The denial is not for valid reasons. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the Order under appeal. The Civil Appeal stands dismissed.”, the court ordered.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VERSUS SUNIL KUMAR RAI & OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 323

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G.(argued by) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Ms. Ankita Choudhary Rathi, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.(argued by) Mr. Anas Tanwir, AOR Mr. Ganesh A Khemka, Adv. Mr. Shreenath A Khemka, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Chandratanay Chaube, Adv.

Tags

OBC quota based on birth, not marriage or migration: HC

OBC quota based on birth, not marriage or migration: HC 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 02.04.2026

Bhopal : Madhya Pradesh high court has said that OBC reservation benefits cannot be claimed in the state on the basis of a caste certificate issued elsewhere, and that such benefits are determined by birth, not by marriage or change of residence. 

Dismissing a petition, the court upheld the cancellation of a candidate’s candidature during verification.The court also ruled that a woman cannot claim reservation benefits on the basis of her husband’s caste after marriage. The case pertains to Archana Dangi, a native of Jalaun in Uttar Pradesh, who had cleared the Higher Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test, 2018. Her candidature was cancelled during document verification as her OBC certificate had been issued in Uttar Pradesh. She argued that the Dangi caste is listed under the OBC category in both Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. 

She also submitted that after marriage she became a resident of Madhya Pradesh and should be eligible for reservation benefits in the state. Opposing the plea, the state govt told the court that caste is determined by birth and not by marriage or change of residence. It also said that a caste certificate issued in another state is not valid for claiming reservation in Madhya Pradesh. 

The court further noted that while a woman may socially be part of her husband’s caste after marriage, reservation benefits are based on social and educational backwardness linked to birth, not marital status

HC: Daughter-in-law is not legally bound to maintain parents-in-law

 

HC: Daughter-in-law is not legally bound to maintain parents-in-law

Mar 29, 2026, 22:10 IST

Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has ruled that a daughter-in-law is not legally bound to maintain her parents-in-law under Section 125 of CrPC (now Section 144 of BNSS), stating that moral obligations do not translate to legal ones without statutory backing.

The court observed that the right to claim maintenance is a statutory right and is confined only to the categories of persons expressly mentioned therein. Parents-in-law do not fall within the ambit of this provision, Justice Madan Pal Singh said in his recent order.Dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by an elderly couple — Rakesh Kumar and his wife against their daughter-in-law, he observed, "The legislature, in its wisdom, has not included parents-in-law within the ambit of the said provision. 

In other words, it is not the scheme of the legislature to fasten liability of maintenance upon a daughter-in-law towards her parents-in-law under this provision."An elderly couple had challenged an Aug 2025 order passed by the principal judge, family court, Agra, which rejected their application seeking maintenance under Section 144 of BNSS. The parents submitted that they were old, illiterate, indigent and wholly dependent on their deceased son during his lifetime.They contended that their daughter-in-law, who is employed as a constable in the Uttar Pradesh police, has sufficient independent income and has also received all service benefits of their deceased son. 

They also contended that the daughter-in-law's moral obligation to maintain her aged parents-in-law should be treated as a legal obligation.The court, however, rejected this contention, noting that there was nothing on record to indicate that the daughter-in-law's police employment was secured on compassionate grounds.The court also clarified that submissions regarding succession to the deceased son's property do not fall for consideration in these maintenance proceedings.

Married Persons Cannot Enter Into Live-In Relationship Without Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad HC Refuses Protection

Married Persons Cannot Enter Into Live-In Relationship Without Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad HC Refuses Protection 

Sparsh Upadhyay 28 Mar 2026 12:25 PM

A single judge of the Allahabad High Court on March 20 observed that an individual who is already married and has a living spouse cannot legally be permitted to enter into a live-in relationship with a third person without seeking a divorce from the earlier spouse.

A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh made this observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by a couple (both married to different partners) seeking mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful life and to provide protection.

Also Read - Section 144 BNSS | Daughter-In-Law Not Legally Obligated To Maintain Parents-In-Law : Allahabad High Court

It was the case of the petitioners that they were living together as husband and wife and had an apprehension of a life threat from the respondents.

The State, however, opposed the plea, as it was argued that both petitioners were already married and their act was illegal as they had not obtained a decree of divorce from a competent court.

Taking into account the facts of the case, the Court, at the outset, noted that in a marriage or live-in relationship, there must be two consenting adult human beings, and the concepts of gotra, caste, and religion are left behind. The Court observed that no one, not even parents, has the right to interfere in the personal liberty of two adults.

Justice Singh, however, explicitly clarified that the Right to Freedom or Right to Personal Liberty is not an absolute or unfettered right and that the freedom of one person ceases where another person's statutory right begins.

Importantly, the single judge stressed that a spouse has a statutory right to the company of their counterpart, and that right cannot be deprived for the sake of personal liberty. The HC added that the freedom of one person cannot encroach on or outweigh the legal right of another person.

Also Read - No Offence If Married Man Stays In Live-In Relationship With Adult Woman: Allahabad High Court 

"If the petitioners are already married and have their spouse alive, he/she cannot be legally permitted to enter into live-in relationship with a third person without seeking divorce from the earlier spouse. He/she first has to obtain the decree of divorce from the court of competent jurisdiction before solemnizing marriage or entering into living in a relationship out of their legal marriage," the bench further remarked. 

Ruling On the question of relief to the petitioners, the bench observed that a mandamus can be issued only if the petitioner has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought, and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition.

However, the Court opined that the petitioners have no legal right to protection on the facts of the present case inasmuch as the protection sought may amount to protection against the commission of an offence under Section 494/495 IPC.

"It is well settled law that writ of mandamus can not be issued contrary to law or to defeat a statutory provision including penal provision. The petitioners do not have legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus...this Court is not inclined to issue any writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for protection to the petitioners who are in a live-in relationship without obtaining decree of divorce from competent court as mentioned above" the bench noted. 

Thus, refusing to issue the writ, the Court disposed of the petition with the observation that if the petitioners are subjected to violence, they may approach the Superintendent of Police with a detailed application.

Significantly, a perusal of various orders passed by Justice Singh reveals a consistent approach. Relying on this exact legal reasoning, his bench has repeatedly denied police protection to live-in couples where either one or both partners are already married to someone else.

Interestingly, in stark contrast to this Single Judge order, a Division Bench of the High Court, just five days after passing of this particular order, observed that there is no offence if a married man lives with an adult in a live-in relationship with the other person's consent.

Stressing that morality and law must remain separate, the Division Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena stated that social opinions and moral views will not dictate the Court's actions when protecting citizens' rights.

This contrasting observation was made while the Division Bench was hearing a separate petition seeking protection for a live-in couple allegedly facing threats from the woman's family.

Finding that a prima facie case was made out, the Court admitted the petition and issued notices to the respondents. It granted the state counsel two weeks' time to file a counter-affidavit.

The bench also granted immediate relief to the couple (an 18-year-old woman and a married man) and directed that, until further orders, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the criminal case registered under Section 87 of the BNS at Police Station Jaitipur in Shahjahanpur district.

To ensure their absolute protection, the Division Bench restrained the informant and all members of the woman's family from causing any harm to the parties in life or limb.

The bench further directed that the family members shall not enter the parties' matrimonial home or contact them directly, through any electronic means of communication, or through the agency of others.

The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, shall be personally responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the petitioners, the bench added.

Read more about the division bench order here : No Offence If Married Man Stays In Live-In Relationship With Adult Woman: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Anju And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145

Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145

Madras HC rules against action on IOB staff beyond limitation period

Madras HC rules against action on IOB staff beyond limitation period

The petitions were filed b y N Sai Prasad seeking to set aside the charge memos served on him by the authorities concerned and confirmed by the appellate authorities.

Madras High Court(File photo | Express)

R Sivakumar

Updated on:

21 Mar 2026, 8:21 am

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held that disciplinary action against an employee cannot be taken beyond the limitation period of four years as per the policy of the Indian Overseas Bank (IOB).

The ruling was given by Justice T Vinod Kumar on the petitions filed by an assistant general manager who was handed three charge memos and given punishment of reduction in scale and grade just before he was to retire. The petitions were filed by N Sai Prasad seeking to set aside the charge memos served on him by the authorities concerned and confirmed by the appellate authorities.

Advocate Balan Haridas, representing the petitioner, submitted that Prasad had worked in different branches of IOB in Hyderabad and Mumbai cities from 2007 to 2012. During his service in the aforesaid branches, he did not face any charges. However, charge memos were served on him before his retirement.On the eve of his retirement on January 31, 2020, he was handed the punishments and penalties on charges of recommending granting of loans to two firms without doing proper verification that resulted in the accounts turning into non-performing assets.

The judge, in a recent order, held the entire action and awarding of the punishment “are contrary to regulations and policy of the respondents and thus cannot be sustained”.

He said the embargo, on initiating disciplinary proceedings beyond the four-year limitation period, would stand attracted since the charge memos were issued to the lapses which did not occur within the four-year period.“… since ‘lapse’ for which the petitioner is issued with charge sheet/charge memos resulting in passing the impugned orders by which, he is visited with separate penalties relate to the period, the same are beyond the period of four years and is hit by the restriction imposed in clause 14 of the policy.”

Man gets 7-yr jail for holding two govt jobs Continued To Draw Pay From Health, Edu Depts

Man gets 7-yr jail for holding two govt jobs Continued To Draw Pay From Health, Edu Depts 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 11.03.2022

Lucknow : A local court in Barabanki sentenced a man to seven years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 for fraudulently securing and continuing two govt jobs simultaneously in the health and education departments using the same educational certificate. 

Delivering the verdict on Tuesday, Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Sudha Singh held convict Jaiprakash Singh guilty under the charges of IPC sections 420 (cheating), 467 read with Section 471 (forgery of valuable security and using forged documents as genuine), and Section 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating). 

The court noted that Jaiprakash Singh deliberately concealed facts and continued to draw salaries from two govt departments for years. The court also observed that the state govt is free to recover the salary and allowances received by the accused from both posts, as he illegally benefited from public funds. 

According to prosecution officials, Jaiprakash, a resident of Narauli village in the Satrikh police station area, was initially appointed as an NMA (non-medical assistant) at the primary health centre (PHC), Sangipur in Pratapgarh district on Dec 26, 1979. Later, using the same educational marksheet and certificates, he secured another govt job as an assistant teacher under the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) in Barabanki on June 19, 1993. 

Despite holding the post in the health department, Jaiprakash allegedly continued working as teacher in Barabanki while simultaneously drawing salary from both the departments. The case revealed that he remained associated with the primary school at Narauli in Harkh block of Barabanki for nearly 16 years, even while his records in the health department showed him as an employee at the Sangipur PHC in Pratapgarh. Times of India ePaper lucknow - Read Today’s Eng

K’taka HC upholds mom’s right to give child her surname

K’taka HC upholds mom’s right to give child her surname

 Vasantha.Kumar@timesofindia.com  27.02.2026

Bengaluru : Karnataka HC has ruled that inclusion of the mother’s family name in the birth certificate of a child does not dilute or extinguish the substantive legal rights of any person, including that of the biological father. Granting relief to a nineyear-old girl and her mother, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “The biological and legal relationship between the child and the father, including the child’s rights of inheritance, succession, and maintenance, remains unaltered. The change sought by the mother was merely one of nome-nclature reflecting the real family environment in which the child is being raised.” 

The case arose from a livein relationship between two Nepalese nationals in Bengaluru. Their daughter was born in Feb 2017, and a birth certificate was issued in March 2017. The child’s father later ended the relationship and returned to Nepal. When the mother approached local authorities at Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to delete the father’s name and substitute it with her own, the request was rejected citing Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. She then moved the HC. After examining the statutory provisions, the court held that the registrar had the authority to carry out corrections and the refusal amounted to a failure to exercise statutory power. 

Invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the HC directed the issuance of a fresh birth certificate within four weeks. Stressing the “best interest of the child”, the judge noted that children abandoned by a parent were particularly vulnerable.

HC overturns order for third valuation of answer scripts

HC overturns order for third valuation of answer scripts 

MBBS STUDENTS 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 23.02.2026

Bengaluru : The high court set aside a single bench order that required a third valuation of answer scripts of certain MBBS students, providing relief to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS). A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha held that the ordinance or notification governing the central assessment programme (CAP) for theory paper assessment of all undergraduate health science courses of the university benefits students. CAP provides for two valuations and considers the higher marks awarded between the two. On July 30,2025, a single bench issued two directions. Firstly, the RGUHS syndicate and academic council were directed to reconsider the matter afresh, specifically with regard to providing essential key answers or model answers for descriptive questions, in order to prevent anomalies or ambiguities during initial evaluations.

 Secondly, RGUHS was told to forward the answer scripts of petitioners to an additional evaluator for fresh assessment, in light of the significant discrepancy between the marks awarded by the evaluators.

 RGUHS challenged the order. The division bench noted that National Medical Commission (NMC) seemed to have altered its stand and that subjective answers could not be evaluated on the basis of key phrases or terms used in the answers. RGUHS argued that answers to medical science questions were evaluated based on students’ understanding and knowledge. “In our view, it would not be appropriate for this court to examine how answers to questions in a particular subject are required to be evaluated. 

The university is at liberty to take an appropriate decision uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order,” the bench said. “We are unable to accept that referring the answer scripts to a third valuer would, in any manner, mitigate this element of subjectivity in the evaluation of answer scripts,” the division bench  observed.

 “If the third evaluator awards higher marks – that is, higher than the marks awarded by the two evaluators – the question would arise as to which of the marks is required to be accepted. There is no provision to declare the results on the basis of the highest marks awarded by three evaluators,” it observed while allowing the appeals filed by RGUHS.

HC: Administrative delay cannot defeat employee rights

HC: Administrative delay cannot defeat employee rights

Sureshkumar.K@timesofindia.com 18.02.2026

Chennai : Madras high court made it clear that administrative delay by a municipal corporation or govt cannot defeat employee rights and, similarly, subsequent GOs cannot nullify earlier accrued rights. Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observation while allowing a plea moved by 35 employees of the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) who were recruited on a temporary basis as malaria assistants, tax assistants, office assistants, junior assistants, storm water drain workers, and road workers. 

In 1999, the govt brought in a scheme through a GO dated May 27, under which employees who were working as of May 4, 1999, were declared eligible for regularization. As per the scheme, they were appointed in entry-level regular posts and paid a consolidated salary of ₹2,000 per month for one year. They would be brought under a regular time scale of pay after one year and regularised after completion of that one-year period. Thus, as per the scheme, the employees were eligible for regularization by May 27, 2000. However, the scheme was not implemented immediately; instead, the govt issued a GO dated Feb 23, 2006, regularising the employees only from 2006. Aggrieved, the employees moved the court. 

Opposing the plea, the govt contended that an employee appointed temporarily cannot claim regularization from an earlier date as a matter of right. Refusing to concur, the court held that, through the 1999 GO, the govt granted entitlement to regularisation after one year. Through the GO, employees in service as of May 4, 1999, acquired the right to regularization, the court said.

The court made the findings based on the orders passed by a full bench of the court in S Dhanasekaran Vs Govt of Tamil Nadu. Since the order was under appeal before the Supreme Court, the judge directed the GCC to absorb the employees with effect from 2000, subject to the final outcome of the appeal pending before the SC.

Unmarried, widowed & divorced daughters of govt staff eligible for pension

Unmarried, widowed & divorced daughters of govt staff eligible for pension

 TIMES NEWS NETWORK 11.02.2026. BHOPAL 

Bhopal : In a major decision, the state cabinet headed by chief minister Mohan Yadav on Tuesday approved a new rule in the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules whereby unmarried, widowed and divorced daughters of state govt employees were made eligible for family pension. Briefing the media after the cabinet meeting, minister for MSME Chaitanya Kashyap said, “Cabinet approved the provision made for divorced daughters of employees to now claim family pension.” 

So far, only the spouse, dependent parents and dependent children up to the age of 25 were eligible to draw family pension of the deceased govt employee. A state govt release further clarified, “Under Rule 44 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2026, unmarried, widowed and divorced daughters were included among the members eligible for family pension.”

‘Will divide society’: SC stays new UGC equity regulations

‘Will divide society’: SC stays new UGC equity regulations 

‘Dangerous Impact On Goal Of Castelessness’ 

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesofindia.com 30.01.2026

New Delhi : Supreme Court put on hold on Thursday the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, taking serious exception to several of its provisions and saying that these could fuel societal division and have a dangerous impact on the goal of a casteless society. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard three petitions and said that while implementation of the 2026 regulations would be on hold till further orders, the 2012 regulations would continue to be in force to address grievances relating to caste-based discrimination against students on campuses of educational institutions.

 “We are sorry to say, the Regulations, prima facie, the language is completely vague, the provisions are capable of being misused, and the language needs to be re-modulated and redesigned,” the bench said and asked for the setting up of an expert panel. The CJI said, “In the country, after 75 years, whatever we have gained to move towards the goal of casteless society, are we enacting a regressive policy?” The justices said that while they were all for regulations for creation of “a free, inclusive and an equitable atmosphere in universities… there are 4-5 serious concerns. If those are not addressed, the regulations will otherwise have sweeping consequences...” 

The CJI flagged another provision in the regulations as problematic, pointing out that it proposed separate hostels based on the caste of students.

Should not go to a stage that has segregated schools: SC 

For God’s sake, please do not do that. In hostels, students from every community live together. There are inter-caste marriages also. We should move towards a casteless society by assimilating students of all regions and (students of) all castes must have equal rights and live harmoniously in universities. We cannot go backwards. There must not be any segregation.” The hearing took place amid agitation by sections of upper-caste students against the regulations for allegedly being discriminatory and exclusionary and for being oblivious to the changed socioeconomic milieu where newly empowered OBCs have also been accused of discriminating against others, including those from upper castes. Significantly, OBCs are not under purview of 2012 regulations, which snap back in action after SC’s order Thursday. 

Leading the arguments for petitioners, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain said the regulations presume that only a certain category of students belonging to certain castes face discrimination in universities. They keep general category candidates outside their purview, leaving such students without remedies for discrimination faced by them. Asking Centre and UGC to respond to petitions by March 19, SC said, “We want to examine constitutional validity and legality of 2026 Regulations. We would like Union govt, with concurrence and approval of court, to constitute apanel of experts comprising eminent academicians and scholars who understand our social conditions to study regulations & its possible impacts.”

Physiotherapists entitled to use ‘Dr’ prefix: Kerala HC

Physiotherapists entitled to use ‘Dr’ prefix: Kerala HC 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 28.01.2026

Kochi : The Kerala high court has ruled that not only medical professionals, but physiotherapists and occupational therapists, too, are entitled to use the prefix ‘Dr’ with their names.

Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by the state chapter of Indian Medical Association and others, which had challenged the use of the prefix by physiotherapists and occupational therapists, Justice V G Arun said there was no legal bar on such professionals prefixing ‘Dr’ to their name. The petitioners contended that while specialist medical professionals in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation are qualified doctors, physiotherapists and occupational therapists merely provide supportive services. They argued that such professionals do not possess the qualification to function as first-contact healthcare providers, and that their qualifications, at best, enable them to administer physiotherapy under the instructions of a qualified medical practitioner. 

The petitioners also challenged the Competency-Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, which permits the use of the prefix ‘Dr’ with the suffix ‘PT’/‘OT’, contending that this equates them with modern medical practitioners. 

The HC, however, noted that the term ‘doctor’ originates from the Latin word doctor, meaning teacher or instructor, and that neither the National Medical Commission (NMC) Act nor allied statutes provide for the exclusive use of the prefix ‘Dr’ by qualified medical professionals. 

In the absence of such statutory provisions, the petitioners could not claim an exclusive right to use the prefix ‘Dr’, the bench said.

HC: No addl certificate needed for MD anaesthesiology docs

HC: No addl certificate needed for MD anaesthesiology docs

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 21.01.2026

Bengaluru : The high court has held that a medical doctor with a three-year MD degree in anaesthesiology qualifies as a registered medical practitioner under Rule 2(iv) (ib) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Rules and could thus be nominated as a designated doctor. The ruling came while allowing a joint petition filed by the Mangaluru branch of Indian Society of Anaesthesiologists, the Nursing Home and Hospital Management Association, Mangaluru, and Mangala Hospital and Mangala Kidney Foundation, Mangaluru. 

Mangala Hospital had challenged a June 27, 2025 communication from the assistant drugs controller of Mangaluru, refusing to renew its licence on grounds that the designated doctor — though an MD in anaesthesiology — lacked a certificate in pain relief and palliative care for opioid-dependence treatment. The official had indicated that the licence would be renewed if such a certificate was produced. The hospital claimed that MD anaesthesiology training inherently includes structured instruction in pain management, palliative care, and opioid-based therapy, including clinical use of narcotic analgesics, as mandated in the curriculum. It added that there was no statutory or regulatory requirement under the governing medical or narcotics control framework mandating the acquisition of any separate or additional certificate for a medical practitioner so qualified to provide pain relief, palliative care, or opioid-based treatment. 

On the other hand, the state govt defended its action, contending that the rules mandated possession of such training as a prerequisite. However, deputy solicitor general H Shanthi Bhushan, appearing for the central govt, submitted that a degree in MD anaesthesiology was a recognised postgraduate qualification under National Medical Commission (NMC) and inherently satisfied the requirement under Rule 52N of the NDPS Rules, 1985, for registered medical practitioners to possess, prescribe, and dispense  essential narcotic drugs for pain relief and palliative care. He also submitted that no additional training was required for MD anaesthesiology holders to obtain an additional certificate or training in terms of Form 3F of the NDPS Rules. 

He also placed on record the opinion of subject expert Dr Atul Ambekar, professor, National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre, and department of psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. After perusing the materials on record, Justice Suraj Govindaraj pointed out that the central govt itself had categorically come to the conclusion that a registered medical practitioner holding an MD (anaesthesiology) degree does not require supplementary training in order to prescribe essential narcotic drugs for palliative care and pain management. Allowing the petition, the judge directed the assistant drugs controller, Mangaluru, to consider the qualification of the nominated doctor as sufficient and issue the necessary certificate of licence renewal to Mangala Hospital. 

9 years is enough punishment! Supreme Court tells university to consider apology of doctor penalised for wearing digital watch in exam

9 years is enough punishment! Supreme Court tells university to consider apology of doctor penalised for wearing digital watch in exam 

Written By : Barsha Misra

Published On 17 Jan 2026 1:27 PM 

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi: After considering the appeal of a young doctor's father, the Supreme Court has allowed the medico to tender an unconditional apology to the medical college for wearing a digital watch in an exam.

Further, the top court bench has also requested the university to consider his representation with "utmost sympathy" and an endeavour to save the young professional's career.

While considering the plea by the father, the Apex Court observed that the son's nine-year professional exile was "a more than sufficient punishment having regard to the nature of the misdemeanours", and also noted that any further blockage of his career would be "too harsh and disproportionate".

"At the end of the day, there is a father standing in court with folded hands, trying to save the academic career of his son, in whose MBBS degree, it appears that the University has made some adverse remarks based upon the history of adopting unfair means. The sheer frustration caused due to the inability of his son to pursue higher studies, is seemingly prompting the first petitioner, seemingly has brought negativity and is instigating the first petitioner to file complaints here and there. While we do not find any merit in those complaints, within the scope of interference under Article 137 of the Constitution, and consequently, we see no ground to interfere with the imprinted order passed by the Bar Council of India..." ordered the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

The matter goes back to February 2017, when at Chennai-based Sri Ramachandra Medical College, the petitioner's son was found wearing a digital wristwatch during an examination. Under the University's strict "unfair means" policy, the student's exam was cancelled. Despite clearing the papers later, the shadow of the incident continued to follow the student. This resulted in the family getting engaged in a relentless legal crusade, losing in the High Court and the Supreme Court, dismissing their Review and Curative petitions.

As per the latest media report by Verdictum, the student's father appeared in person, alleging a conspiracy involving "polluted counsels" and "fabricated documents". He also argued that the Bar Council of India failed to investigate his claims of fraud by legal representatives who allegedly withdrew the petitions without consent.

After considering the matter, the Court observed,

"We are conscious of the fact that Ramchandra Medical College and Research Institute, Purur, Chennai, has not been called or heard at this stage. It is so only to avoid them to be burdened with litigation expenses, especially when we are not passing an order of irreversible adverse impact on the functioning of the college. So, all that we observe is that Petition No. 2, for that matter, even his father, Dr. ***, Petition No. 1, to tender an unconditional apology to the university along with an application for expunsion of the adverse marks said to have been recorded in the marksheet of MBBS degree. We request the medical college to consider such a representation with utmost sympathy and with an endeavour to save the professional career of a young doctor. The amendments in favour of the petitioners, it shall be highly appreciated if a favourable order is passed at the earliest and preferably within one month from the date of submission of the representation." While refusing to reopen the merits of the original 2017 disqualification or the dismissed curative petition, the Court pivoted toward a humanitarian solution. The Court observed that the sheer duration of the struggle- a nine-year block on a medical career- had become a punishment far exceeding the gravity of the original offence.

The Court did not entertain further litigation against legal professionals or the university and directed the petitioners to offer an unconditional apology to the institution. Also, the Court requested the University to act with "utmost sympathy" to expunge the adverse remarks, prioritising the future of young professionals over the technicalities of past misconduct.

"However, it seems to us that the first petitioner, as well as his son, have suffered enough on account of the misdemeanours committed by Petitioner No. 2 while he was appearing in the examination held on 23rd February 2017. The multiple rounds of unsuccessful litigation, coupled with the fact that Petition No. 2 has not been able to seek admission to higher specialised courses for almost nine years, is a more than sufficient punishment having regard to the nature of the misdemeanours attributed to him, his son, attributed to the second petitioner. If his professional career as a doctor is permanently blocked, which is bound to happen if there are adverse marks in his degree issued by the medical college, such a punishment will become too harsh and disproportionate to the proven misconduct," ordered the Court. With this observation, the Court disposed of the matter.