Daily Legal Updates for Law Exams: 23rd December 2021

1. Candidate Cannot Alter Declaration Given About Correctness Of Details During Selection Process : Supreme Court

• During a selection process, a candidate cannot attempt to deviate from a declaration made regarding the correctness of the detail furnished by him, so as to affect the position of others, held the Supreme Court in a recent decision.

• A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed so while allowing an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission.

• The MP High Court had allowed a candidate to opt for his next preferred post, accepting his claim that he had given wrong particulars about his height.

• The bench in the judgement authored by Justice AS Bopanna considered that the advertisement indicated the requirement of the Rule that a candidate who had preferred the higher of the posts which had been advertised would be selected against such post depending on the merit in the examination.

Source: Bar & Bench

2. Article 14 Does Not Envisage Negative Equality; State Can't Be Forced To Perpetuate Same Mistake Committed With Respect To Others : Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court has observed that daily rated employees cannot as a matter of right claim the parity of pay scales with the Government employees.

• The Court further added that the petitioners could not invoke Article 14 of the Constitution to claim benefit on the ground of parity if they otherwise were not entitled to such benefit.

• "As per the settled proposition of law Article 14 of the Constitution embodies the concept of positive equality alone and not negative equality. It cannot be relied upon to perpetuate illegality and irregularity," Court said.

• The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah was considering an appeal against the order passed by the Gujarat High Court in which the High Court had held that the daily rated employees of the Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board ("Board") were not entitled to any benefit from the modified Government Resolutions dated May 1, 1991 and February 15, 1992 since the same were not adopted by the Board.

• The bench in the judgement authored by Justice MR Shah opined that since the board was an autonomous body created under the Act, it was ultimately for it to take a conscious decision which could be termed as a policy decision on the pay scales to be adopted and/or certain benefits which would have financial implications.

• "Everything depends upon its economic viability or financial capacity. As per the settled proposition of law the economic viability or the financial capacity of the employer is an important factor while fixing the wage structure, otherwise the unit itself may not be able to function and may have to close down inevitably and have disastrous consequences for the employees themselves. As per the settled proposition of law the employees cannot legitimately claim that their pay-scales should necessarily be revised and/or they must be granted certain additional benefits/benefits," the bench further observed in this regard.

Source: Bar & Bench

3. Dowry Death Shall Be Presumed If It Is Shown That Wife Was Harassed For Dowry Soon Before Death : Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court has observed that once the prosecution is able to establish that a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death, the Court shall proceed on a presumption that the persons who have subjected her to cruelty with demand for dowry have caused dowry death u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

• The bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli was considering the criminal appeals filed by the accused persons(deceased's husband and mother in law) assailing Jharkhand High Court's judgement dated May 1, 2007 ("impugned judgement").

• In the impugned judgement, the High Court had upheld the judgment of conviction dated 20th September 1999 u/s 304B and 201 r/w Section 34 IPC passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, sentencing them and Nema Mahto (deceased's father in law) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and three years respectively on each count with both the sentences running concurrently.

Source: Bar & Bench