Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. S.P. Satyanarayana - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of guilt held, where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused. section 3: circumstantial evidence murder - held, circumstances have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.section 3: murder circumstantial evidence held, conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, but it should be tested by touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by supreme court. indian penal code, 1890. sections 498-a & 300: cruelty and murder appellant husband allegedly committed murder of deceased - death took place within one year and four months of marriage - body was found in matrimonial home of deceased with injuries - injuries on dead body were noticed by several witnesses - plea of alibi set up by appellant not substantiated conduct of appellant in absconding after incident is an inculpating circumstances - doctor opined that death was due to asphyxia resulting from throttling held,..........accepted. the respondent had not challenged the validity of the test or the result. in his representation made to the corporation, he had merely asked for a re-test. he wanted one more chance for being considered for absorption in the appellant's service. the appellant was under no obligation to hold a special test for him. in view of these facts and circumstances, the high court should not have directed the corporation to appoint the respondent on a suitable post even though he had failed in the test.6. we, therefore, allow this appeal. set aside the judgment and order passed by the high court. but in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the corporation to give an opportunity to the respondent to appear again in a test to ascertain his eligibility. the appellant shall do so within a period of three months from today. if the respondent gets through the test, then the appellant shall appoint him as and when a vacancy becomes available.7. no order as to costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

Nanavati, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The respondent was earlier working as a Cleaner with a private bus operator. The said route was nationalised and, therefore, he became a displaced employee. Pursuant to the policy adopted by the appellant to absorb such displaced employes, subject to their eligibility, the respondent was also allowed to appear for a technical test to ascertain his eligibility. The respondent failed in that test and therefore he was not absorbed. He then made a representation to the appellant -Corporation to hold a re-test for him and to absorb him as a Cleaner. As his representation was not accepted, he filed Writ Petition No. 16818/92 in the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh.

4. His Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court on the ground that he has no other alternative employment and has to maintain his old parents, wife and children and, therefore, he deserved to be observed and appointed by the Corporation. The Corporation was directed to consider the case of the respondent and to pass an order within two months, appointing him on a suitable post.

5. The Corporation is challenging the order passed by the High Court on the ground that in absence of any justification no such direction could have been given by the High Court to the Corporation. It was not the case of the respondent that the action of the Corporation was arbitrary or otherwise violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the Corporation deserves to be accepted. The respondent had not challenged the validity of the test or the result. In his representation made to the Corporation, he had merely asked for a re-test. He wanted one more chance for being considered for absorption in the appellant's service. The appellant was under no obligation to hold a special test for him. In view of these facts and circumstances, the High Court should not have directed the Corporation to appoint the respondent on a suitable post even though he had failed in the test.

6. We, therefore, allow this appeal. set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court. But in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Corporation to give an opportunity to the respondent to appear again in a test to ascertain his eligibility. The appellant shall do so within a period of three months from today. If the respondent gets through the test, then the appellant shall appoint him as and when a vacancy becomes available.

7. No order as to costs.