(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Recruitment - Irregularities - Recruitment in question arose from a 2013 advertisement for 245 posts of Junior Assistant (Fire Service), comprising 122 unreserved, 78 OBC, 22 SC and 23 ST posts - After completion of selection process, only 158 candidates were appointed: all 122 unreserved posts were filled on merit, while only 10 OBC, 22 SC and 4 ST candidates were appointed - Appellant Authority prepared merit list by first selecting candidates for unreserved posts purely on merit, including reserved category candidates who had not availed any relaxation and had scored marks equal to or higher than unreserved candidates; such candidates were treated as selected against unreserved posts - Respondent, though qualified, scored less than last selected unreserved candidate and was therefore placed in waiting panel, not selected - High Court held that roster had been wrongly applied and directed appointment of respondent and compliance with the 1997 DoPT Office Memorandum - High Court misunderstood purpose of reservation roster, which operates after selection and is meant to regulate cadre strength and future vacancies, not to govern selection itself - Reserved category candidates selected on their own merit can be adjusted against unreserved posts - Since all 122 unreserved posts were filled strictly on merit and without any relaxation, selection was valid - Order of High Court upholding irregularity in recruitment process was set aside. (Para 27-31,33,34)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.14, Art.21, Art.41, Art.142 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (49 of 2016), S.3, S.2(ze) - Appointment - Right of reasonable accommodation - Post of Management Trainees under Visually Handicapped (VH) category - Appellant applied for post and was qualified for interview - Appellant's medical report revealed that she was suffering from 57% of disability - Appellant's disability exceeded benchmark disability i.e.40% rendering her eligible for appointment under reserved quota however, she was declared unfit on ground that she was not only suffering from visual disability but also from residuary partial hemiparesis - Appellant was denied appointment for no fault of her , only because notification advertising vacancies did not provide for "multiple disability" - Appellant cannot be denied employment due to technicalities such as expiry of panel for year or factum of interim order reserving vacancy having come to be passed after expiry of panel - Reasonable accommodation is gateway right for person with disabilities to enjoy all rights enshrined in Constitution and law - Without gateway right of reasonable accommodation, PwDs would be excluded from mainstream - Further, Rights of PwDs have to be viewed from prism of Corporate Social Responsibility to protect and further such rights - True equality at workplace could be achieved only with right impetus given to disability rights as facet of Corporate Social Responsibility - Consequently, Dept. was directed to provide suitable position to appellant as per universal design as defined under Act. (Para 7, 8, 23, 27, 29, 31)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 304 Part II - Murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Determination - There was commotion where anger-filled group of two rival parties attacked each other, and injuries were sustained by both sides - Therefore, no common object could be attributed to any individual - Accused hit lathi on head of deceased with single blow - Accused had also suffered grievous injuries on head, from free fight - The way as sequence of events happened and since offence by accused was committed in midst of commotion and group clash, it could be legitimately inferred that accused acted without any premeditation as such to cause death of deceased, although in eye of law, having regard to kind of weapon used and nature of injury inflicted, which corresponded to weapon used, knowledge could be inferred in law - Order of High court altering conviction u/S. 302 to S. 304 Part II was proper. (Para 5.3, 5.4, 5.5)

(B) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 386 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 304 Part II - Sentence - Modification of - Accused was convicted for offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Accused had suffered incarceration of six years and three months - Accused was more than 80 years of age - Since accused was old and aged person, and in December of his life, it would be harsh and inadvisable to send him behind bars again at the stage - In view of advanced age of accused and considering totality of facts and circumstances, while confirming conviction u/S. 304 of Penal Code, sentence was reduced to already undergone by him. (Para 6, 6.1)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482, S.2(s), S.2(o) - A. P. Reorganisation Act (6 of 2014), S.2(f), S.100 - Registration of FIR - Jurisdiction of Police Station - Effect of bifurcation of state - FIRs had been registered at the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central Investigation Unit, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada Police Station, between the years 2016 and 2020, for offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act - Plea of accused that Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central Investigation Unit, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada Police Station, is not notified as a police station under S.2(s) of CrPC and, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to register FIRs - Existing laws, prior to bifurcation, would continue to be in force in both States, unless altered, repealed or amended in accordance with law - Any construction to the contrary would defeat the very intent and purpose of Government Orders, which were given the status of 'law,' vide relevant Circular - G.O. declaring ACB offices as police stations constituted "law" and continued to operate after bifurcation - Order quashing FIR, was set aside. (Para 26, 27, 28)

(A) Contract Act (9 of 1872), S.126 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016), S.7 - Insolvency proceedings against guarantor - Rejection of application - Borrower had availed financial facility from creditor pursuant to sanction letter - Later, one of promotors of borrower company, executed Deed of Undertaking, warranty, and indemnity of undertaking whereby it undertook limited obligation to arrange for infusion of funds into borrower company - Subsequently, upon implementation of resolution plan against borrower, application was filed by creditor for initiation of insolvency proceedings against promoter on ground that it had furnished corporate guarantee for debt of borrower - Payment of amount by promoter to secured creditor was not made on account of any contractual obligation but it was made in its capacity as promotor of borrower - Such payment by itself does not give rise to any contract of guarantee, particularly when there is no contractual obligation of guarantee in Deed of Undertaking - Further, contemporaneous documents also reinforced conclusion that parties never intended to create contract of guarantee - S.126 mandates guarantor to 'perform a promise' or 'discharge the liability' of a third person which necessarily implies a direct performance or discharge - However, it does not include obligation to enable principal debtor to perform its own obligation - Deed of Undertaking does not constitute contract of guarantee and promoter cannot be treated as guarantor for financial facilities availed by borrower - Rejection of application was justified. (Para 17, 21, 22, 23, 25)