Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2520 of 2003 This is a Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., challenging the concurrent conviction of the revision petitioner, Baiju P.T., for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arising from a cheque for Rs 50,000 dishonoured on presentation. The trial court, in CC No.1337/1998 (Mobile, Kottayam-Changanassery), convicted the accused on 18-07-2002 and sentenced him to three months’ simple imprisonment. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam, by judgment dated 24-06-2003, confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to one month and directed payment of Rs 35,000 as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., with a default sentence of one month. The revision petition, lodged on 30-09-2003, contends the conviction and seeks relief from the severity of the sentence. The court notes that during pendency the accused paid Rs 15,000, and there was contested claim of settlement; the trial and appellate courts concurrently found theCheque-issuance and dishonour established. The High Court cites Supreme Court principles from Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H and Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Rookishore, interpreting the NI Act as a civil wrong with criminal overtones and endorsing compensation to meet ends of justice rather than harsh imprisonment. Ultimately, the court sustains the conviction, enhances compensation to Rs 70,000, converts the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court, grants four months to pay, and defers coercive steps until 17-02-2018, with release of any deposits to the complainant.
CRL.A. No. 751 of 2012 & CRL.A. No. 1453 of 2012 The case concerns Accused Nos. 1 and 3 (the 2nd accused having died during pendency) who were convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC, attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, and other offences under Section 342 read with 34 IPC, and Section 323 IPC read with 34 IPC, in SC No. 398/2010. The prosecution sought to establish a confrontation on 13 July 2008 on a road near Kolencherry, where the deceased Chandran and injured PW1–PW3 sustained multiple stab and blunt-force injuries after liquor was reportedly being consumed on the road. The witnesses, including PW1–PW3 and others, testified that the accused assaulted them and stabbed Chandran, who subsequently died. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, and though A1 faced separate considerations for certain offences, A1 did not appeal after serving his sentence, while A3’s appeal and the co-appeal were heard together. The appellants argued lack of involvement, no motive, improper genesis, absence of identification parade, and defects in the recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, claiming the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The respondents urged reliance on eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the manner of assault; they contended that the victims’ testimony is credible, and the injuries were fatal. The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the trial court’s convictions and sentences. A suo moto correction later modified certain portions of the judgment without altering the core outcome.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.MC No. 2519 of 2013) before the High Court of Kerala, arising from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by Senil A.K. Rajan against Sreekala W/o A.K. Rajan, who is accused No.2 in C.C No. 381/12 before Neyyattinkara Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. The petitioner contends that she is not a drawer of the dishonoured cheque; Annexure A3 shows only one signature and the cheque does not pertain to a bank account maintained by her; consequently there is no liability under Sec. 138 NI Act. The respondents argue for the validity of the complaint and cognizance against the accused. The High Court relies on Devi v. Haridas to emphasize that a person who has not signed the cheque cannot be held liable under Sec. 138 NI Act, even if they are joint account holders, unless the cheque is drawn by the accused on an account maintained by him. It also cites Aparna A. Shah v. Sheth Developers Pvt Ltd for the proposition that joint account holders cannot be prosecuted unless the cheque is signed by all holders, with an exception under Sec. 141 NI Act, which is not applicable here. The Court concludes that cognizance against both accused was illegal, quashes it, and remits the matter to the trial court for a fresh inquiry under Cr.P.C. sections 200 and 202 to determine the proper respondents and grounds for cognizance. The trial court may summon bank records and documents to determine whether the cheque was drawn from a single or joint account and whether liability attaches to the petitioner, with a view to a possible cognizance order under Sec. 204, if warranted. The process should be completed within 2–3 months from certified copy of the judgment.
This Kerala High Court judgment, authored by Justice K. Babu, concerns Rajan, who was convicted under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for allegedly possessing liquor recovered from a bus on 24-06-2003. The trial court sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. On appeal, the court re-examines the prosecution’s case, focusing on possession as the core element and whether the accused had dominion, control, or knowledge of the contraband. The prosecution’s case rested on the Excise Inspector’s seizure of two cartons containing 24 bottles of Doctor No.1 Grape brandy found near the third seat from the rear, with the accused sitting nearby and allegedly identified by the conductor (PW3) as the person who carried the contraband. The conductor, however, denied providing such a statement, and crucial issues are whether the accused actually possessed the contraband, and whether the sample and the laboratory report are properly linked to the seized substance. The judgment cites several authorities on possession (including constructive possession) and the necessity of a reliable chain of evidence, such as the sample’s seal, the timing and manner of laboratory analysis, and link evidence between the seized article and the analysed sample. Ultimately, the High Court acquits Rajan, holding the prosecution failed to establish possession or a proper link to the sample, and allows the appeal.
OP (CAT) No.131 of 2017 (Z) This appeal arises under OP(CAT) No.131 of 2017 challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order that dismissed the Original Application seeking promotion of the petitioner from Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) to Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS). The petitioner contends the Tribunal erred by focusing only on the marks scored by students, ignoring other factors used to grade teachers in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the 2002-03 to 2005-06 period. He argues that his overall performance and results across subjects warranted higher grading, and that several adverse entries in the ACRs were not communicated, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents defend the process, asserting that the reporting and reviewing authorities evaluated performance via student pass percentages and the written test, and that any downgrades were justified. They request dismissal of the petition. The High Court cites Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India to emphasize transparency in ACRs and the obligation to communicate all entries for natural justice. It ultimately allows the petition with directions: set aside Annexure A1 for lack of speaking reasons; treat 2002-03 and 2004-05 as ‘good’; direct the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider 2003-04 and 2005-06 gradings using specified Annexures A6 and A8, and complete within a month; if gradings improve, a review DPC shall be constituted for 2006-07 to 2008-09.
This writ petition concerns a land-right dispute in Wayanad, Kerala. The petitioners—Sreemandara Varma Jain and family members—claim title and possession over about 184.01 acres of land in Muttil North and Kottathara villages, supported by partition deeds (Exhibits P1, P3, P4) and basic tax records up to 2014. They contend this land, partly coffee plantation, was exempted from the Kerala Land Reforms Act (1963) and the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act (1971). A Special Officer (GO MS 161/2013/RD) began proceedings to resume the land (Exhibit P7), raising doubts about their title. The petitioners rely on the principle of a bona fide title and on case law (notably Harrison Malayalam) to argue that a Special Officer cannot adjudicate bona fide title disputes. The government and respondents argue that title disputes must be adjudicated by the Special Officer and that the government may acquire or contest title through appropriate civil proceedings; basic tax and possession could be withheld pending proceedings. The court ultimately finds that the petitioners have a bona fide title, and that the Special Officer cannot adjudicate title; basic tax should be accepted and a possession certificate issued, with steps to be taken within two months, while reserving any contrary government claims for appropriate proceedings.
OP (CAT).No.62/2015; OP (CAT).No.72/2015; OP (CAT).No.73/2015 These petitions challenge orders directing Lakshadweep island employees to choose between Special Compensatory Allowance (SCA) and Hard Area Allowance (HAA) and to forgo the other. SCA was payable to all employees in Lakshadweep and Nicobar; HAA was extended to Lakshadweep Minicoy via Annexure A4 (2008) without an explicit option clause. Annexure A3 (2004) permitted an option where more than one allowance was admissible, a clause absent in Annexure A4. An order dated 03.06.2013 (Ext.R1(A)) directed employees to exercise an option for disbursement of either SCA or HAA. The CAT tribunal held that only one allowance could be drawn, directing the exercise of option, and ordered recovery if both were paid. The petitioners argued that both allowances had been paid under earlier orders and that recovery would cause hardship, seeking relief. The Kerala High Court held that there was no illegality in directing an option and, applying the Supreme Court’s Rafiq Masih doctrine, found that recovery would cause undue hardship; thus no recovery would be ordered against petitioners. However, those who had drawn both allowances after an interim order would refund one according to the option exercised. The petitions are disposed of without costs.
This writ petition challenges the registration of a rectification deed intended to correct clerical errors in a sale deed (Ext. P-1) concerning survey numbers and extent of land in Mundur Village, Palakkad. The petitioners, Ramachandran and Balan, contend they own 13.45 ares (0.1345 ha) and purchased the property via Ext. P-1 dated 13-03-1995 from the vendor (2nd petitioner). After registration, mutation was effected and taxes paid (Ext. P-2). The disputed issue arises from a discrepancy between old survey numbers (234/1, 234/2 etc. or 469/5, 469/6, 469/7 as per Ext. P-1) and the corrected re-survey numbers (469/1, 469/3, 469/4) shown in Ext. P-3 certificate issued by the Village Officer. The petition seeks to register Ext. P-4, a rectification deed, to align survey numbers, arguing registration fee under the Registration Act Sec. 78, particularly Clause 1(s) of Ext. P6, should apply (maximum Rs. 500) since it does not create/transfers rights. The respondents oppose registering Ext. P-4, suggesting stamp duty as conveyance. The court considers that rectification deeds correcting clerical mistakes may be treated as such if the old and new numbers tally with the officer’s certificate; directs verification by the Village Officer, attested copy of Ext. P-1, and a fresh report/sketch, with the writ petition finally disposed of.
WP(C).No. 15760 of 2013 (T) Santosh.K., a Palakkad resident, seeks a caste certificate under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Issuance of Community Certificate Act, 1996, claiming membership in Arunthathiyar, a recognised Scheduled Caste in Kerala. The respondents—State of Kerala, the Taluk Office/Tahsildar Palakkad, and the Director of KIRTADS—oppose issuance, relying on Exhibit P7, a report by the Vigilance Officer of KIRTADS, which states that the petitioner does not belong to Arunthathiyar. The petitioner contends Exhibit P7 is an improper, unsubstantiated opinion lacking a proper anthropological basis and that his appeal (Exhibit P9) before the Scrutiny Committee was wrongly dismissed (Exhibit P12) for lack of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the vigilant inquiry did not follow due process or the required anthropological/ethnological methodology. The Special Government Pleader asserts that Exhibit P7 reflects a considered enquiry. Relying on Kum. Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane, AIR 1997 SC 2581, the court emphasizes that vigilance and verification must adhere to established procedures, including anthropological study. The court finds Exhibit P7 inadequate and sets it aside, directing KIRTADS to conduct a proper anthropological study or detailed enquiry and furnish a copy of the report within four months. The petitioner may respond to the report thereafter; the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arising from an award of Rs. 4,03,520 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, in OP(MV) No.1679/2010 for the death of C.J. Francis in July 2010. The insurer, National Insurance Co. Ltd., challenges several heads of compensation, contending miscalculation of notional income and overall excessiveness of awards. The Tribunal held the bus driver negligent and held the insurer liable to indemnify the owner; it fixed the deceased’s notional monthly income at Rs.4,000 (though he had claimed Rs.10,000 per month) and applied a 1/3 deduction with a multiplier of 5, yielding a loss of earnings of Rs.1,60,000. Funeral expenses were Rs.25,000; transport Rs.5,000; damages to clothing Rs.1,000; pain and suffering Rs.10,000; loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000; love and affection Rs.1,00,000; and loss of estate Rs.2,500. The High Court scales down several heads, citing Ramachandrappa, Rajesh, and Jyni, and reduces the total to Rs.3,71,020. It directs the insurer to deposit the balance within two months; notes that liability to pay costs is modified accordingly; interlocutory applications are closed. The appeal is thus disposed of in part with a reduced compensation.
The petitioners, nine individuals who purchased a running coffee plantation from respondent No.5 and his mother, challenge Ext. P8 dated 23.3.2015, issued by the District Collector under subsection (2) of Section 83A of the Registration Act, 1908, recommending cancellation of nine sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. The deeds were executed on 31.8.2006, long before the 83A amendments brought into force on 13.9.2013, and the petitioners contend that cancellation cannot be resorted to for pre‑amendment transactions; the only remedy is to challenge the registration and its validity in a civil suit. They also allege that 110 acres had vested in the State under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 and that they were deprived of a meaningful opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice. The respondents submit that Ext. P8 is only a preliminary step in a statutory process and that a final adverse order by the Inspector General of Registration is required before any cancellation. The High Court holds that Sec.83A(2) and Sec.71(3) (as amended) operate prospectively and that Ext. P8 was issued in flagrant violation of natural justice without hearing. It quashes Ext. P8 to the extent of exercising 83A(2) and remits the matter to the District Collector for fresh consideration on jurisdiction after due hearing, with directions for timely action and legal opinion.
The Kerala High Court deals with the pensionary benefits and service counting of petitioners who served in private aided colleges prior to their entry into government service. The core issue is whether such prior service can be counted towards pension and increments, and under what statutory framework. The petitioners urge that their non-continuous spells in aided private colleges be reckoned for pensionary benefits and increments, relying on historical government orders and a Division Bench decision in Jayasree P. v. State of Kerala (W.A.No.2157/2015). The court emphasizes Rule 14E of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR), which has two clauses: (a) governing aided school service and (b) governing aided private college service, with specific conditions for pension accrual. The Single Judge’s conclusion against relief is upheld, noting that Rule 14E (b) supersedes earlier orders and that the field has been settled by 14E (b) since 30.07.1979, with subsequent clarifications not altering the statutory framework. The Bench distinguishes the Jayasree P. decision, clarifying that it was not based on Rule 14E and cannot control the current interpretation. It is held that the earlier government orders do not override Rule 14E (b). The court ultimately dismisses the appeals, confirming the learned Single Judge and clarifying that aided school service may be counted under Rule 14E(a). The decision is framed to ensure that any aided school service prior to joining government service is reckoned strictly under Rule 14E (a).
This writ petition challenges interference by activists allied to rival unions at the petitioner's establishment, Modern Enterprises, run as a supplier of building and hardware materials in Thiruvananthapuram. Sudheer, the petitioner, alleges that respondents 6 and 7 and their members obstruct the loading and unloading operations, threatening life and property, and seeks mandamus relief and police protection to ensure uninterrupted business and to restrain the rival unions from entering the premises. The 5th respondent Board contends the place is not a scheme-covered area. The private respondents deny wrongdoing, claiming that workers and their unions have long carried out loading/unloading duties at the establishment and that any action taken would be lawful if warranted. The court directed scrutiny of whether the location is within a scheme-covered area and ultimately held that it is not, allowing the petitioner to engage workers of his choice in a non-scheme area. Relying on two Full Bench judgments—Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police (1998 (2) KLT 732) and Karunakara Kurup v. State of Kerala (2004 (1) KLT 215)—the court emphasized non-scheme area rights and the primacy of police intervention to prevent threats to law and order. The matter is disposed of with directions for police to act if threats arise, upholding the petitioner’s rights while maintaining public order.
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges two government actions concerning a Convention Centre construction at Paloramala in Kozhikode district: Ext. P7 (dated 21-02-2019) issued by the District Collector recalling a prior directive to halt construction, and Ext. P13 (dated 26-11-2018) granting consent to establish issued by the Environmental Engineer. The petitioners seek quashing Ext. P7 and Ext. P13 and pray for a mandamus to stop the construction until expert studies are submitted. The court traces the interplay between writ jurisdiction and statutory redress under environmental laws, noting that Ext. P13 falls within the statutory remedy framework (appeal under Water Act sections 31 and 28 plus under Air Act). It cites several foundational constitutional and statutory authorities emphasizing that High Courts should generally refrain from bypassing statutory remedies when an efficacious remedy exists, citing Chhabil Das Agarwal, Mathew K.C., Thansingh Nathmal, Titaghur, Pavithran, and related cases. The court ultimately finds Ext. P7 cannot be sustained as recalled, and directs the first respondent to reconsider the matter with notice to petitioners and other stakeholders, taking into account the expert reports (Exhibits R1(a)–R1(c)) and disaster-management considerations. An interim stay remains in force until further orders, and a two-month time frame is prescribed for the re-evaluation.
WP(C).No.13979 OF 2020(V) Aravindan C., a retired Operator (Higher Grade) of the Kerala Water Authority, filed WP(C) No.13979 of 2020 challenging Ext.P1, a pension fixation objection issued by the Accounts Officer. He contends that the option date for pay revision was altered from 01.05.1998 to 01.03.1997 by an order dated 17.04.2006, and that the extended benefit of reckoning CLR service was provided only for Time Bound Higher Grades. The KWA invoked rules that options once exercised are final (Annexure IV, Rule 16 of GO(P)46/2007/WRD) and sought to adjust or recover excess pay; They argued that refunds and re-option are not permitted except in specified scenarios. The petitioner argues that applying audit objections after retirement to deny pension would be unjust and contrary to law; He relies on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 SCC 334, which holds that no recovery at this stage is possible. The court notes that fixation of pay occurred in 1997/1998 and benefits were drawn until retirement; It finds that the audit objection in 2019 cannot justify detention of the DCRG or pension. Accordingly, Ext.P1 is set aside and the KWA is directed to pay the differential pension and arrears within six months, along with terminal benefits.
The Kerala High Court hears MACA No.2198 of 2016, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur award for the death of Saji, a 31-year-old building contractor, in a 16 July 2011 accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,74,000, while the claimants sought Rs. 20,00,000. The court, noting lack of evidence on the deceased’s income, adopts precedents from Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to justify re-evaluating the monthly income, and then applies the Pranay Sethi formula for future prospects, given the deceased’s age and bachelor status. The judge finds the Tribunal’s Rs. 8,000 monthly income plausible and, using 40% future prospects and the 16-multiplier, computes loss of dependency at Rs. 10,75,200. The tribunal’s award under this head (Rs. 6,40,000) is thus inadequate, warranting an additional Rs. 4,35,200. Additional standard heads—pain and suffering, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and love-and-affection—are re-assessed: Rs. 15,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate, and Rs. 40,000 each to the father and siblings for loss of love and affection (total adjustment to Rs. 1,00,000 under that head). Overall, the court grants Rs. 5,10,200 more as compensation, with interest at 7.5%, and directs deposit/disbursal arrangements; prior directions remain in force. The appeal is allowed in part, with enhanced compensation.
WP(C).No.10743 OF 2020(P) This writ petition concerns the correction of the mother’s name in the birth certificate of a minor child Angad Amogh Warhadpande. The petitioner, Swapna Jambhekar, wife of an Indian Navy officer, contends that the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Death (Cochin) erroneously records the mother’s name as Swapna Warhadpande instead of Swapna Jambhekar. The petitioner filed Ext. P-1 on 21 May 2020 seeking a correction under the statutory regime governing birth registrations, and the petition explains the practical necessity for timely correction to enable schooling in Bangalore and to align the records with identity documents (Aadhaar, voter ID). The respondents defend the process, noting that Ext. P-1 must be received with adequate documentation and then considered on merits after due notice and opportunity. The court situates the relief within a broad line of Kerala high court decisions recognizing that Registrars possess powers to rectify entries beyond explicit provisions when the correction is bona fide, just, and not tainted by ulterior motives, and that natural justice must guide discretionary action. The judgment ultimately directs the Registrar to examine Ext. P-1 in light of cited precedents, conduct appropriate enquiry, provide reasons to the petitioner, hear her personally or via counsel, and issue fresh birth certificates within a two‑month window, disposing of the petition with directions.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges Annexure-A complaint in CC No.2485/2011 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thrissur, seeking quashing and cancellation of proceedings. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are VP Iswardas (Managing Director & CEO, Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.), Sijo Varghese (Secretary, Catholic Syrian Bank Staff Federation), and Jacob J. Arackal (Anugraha). The complaint, lodged by the Labour Enforcement Officer, invokes offences under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on account of the bank’s alleged failure to implement an award dated 6.7.2007 (IID 268/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal that directed the bank to consider special allowances and not to ignore their post-permanent duties in the pay fitment process. The petition contends the complaint lacks essential facts to constitute the offense and that the bank has already complied with the award. The matter has featured in earlier petitions (Crl.M.C. No.1998 of 2012) and has seen references to orders of the Industrial Tribunal and a Supreme Court SLP (8954 of 2015) dismissed in limine. The High Court notes that the question of breach is ordinarily for the trial court to determine and dismisses the petition as an abuse of process since there are no changed circumstances. The judge ultimately holds that no ground to quash the complaint exists and dismisses the petition.
This writ appeal arises from Ext.P11, an order of the Joint Registrar (General) rescinding a resolution passed by the appellant Co-operative Society’s special general body on 25-11-2012 to expel a member (the second respondent) from membership. The expulsion followed a notice and a hearing process under Rule 18 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, and was intended to be executed under Section 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The Joint Registrar’s order (Ext.P11) concluded that the special general body meeting was not validly convened for want of a requisition from 1/5th of the total members, thus invalidating the expulsion resolution. The appellant challenged this, contending that the meeting was legally convened by the Managing Committee under the Act, Rules, and bye-laws, and that Rule 18 sets out the expulsion procedure independent of a 1/5th requisition. The single judge dismissed the writ petition, and the Division Bench considered whether Rule 36 of the Rules must be read with Section 30 of the Act. It held that Rule 36 is to be read in light of Section 30 and that the requisition requirement is not a blanket precondition for convening a special general body meeting when called by the managing committee for expulsion proceedings. The court ultimately allowed the appeal, quashed Ext.P11, and directed the Joint Registrar to decide Ext.P7 afresh after hearing both sides, with a three-month outer limit. The decision emphasizes that expulsion of members is governed by Rule 18 and Section 17, and that convening powers under Section 30 and Rule 36 must be interpreted in light of these provisions and the relevant bye-laws.
WA No. 1498 of 2022 (lead case) and connected matters This batch of writ appeals and writ petitions arises from challenges to the Staff Selection Commission’s recruitment process for constables (GD) in CAPFs, NIA, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in AR, announced by SSC in 2018. The court traverses the sequence of litigation beginning with a 2018 notification for 60,210 vacancies and multiple rounds of medical, physical and written examinations, plus interim orders that kept apart a substantial number of posts (243 and odd posts) from reckoning, thereby limiting the pool for Kerala. The key issue is whether the High Court can direct SSC to fill all available vacancies under the 2018 notification, including unfilled posts, or whether the employer’s discretion, subject to constitutional guarantees (notably Article 14), and recruitment rules, permits leaving some vacancies unfilled. The court discusses the constitutional and jurisprudential framework: a candidate’s lack of indefeasible right to appointment, the need for bona fide decision-making, and the balancing of fair opportunity with completed selection processes. The judgment cites classic precedents on the right to fair consideration, the non-arbitrariness of decision-making, and the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. Ultimately, the bench modulates the earlier directive, holding that the SSC should complete recruitment for the short-listed 73–83 candidates within eight weeks and permit the balance unfilled vacancies to be carried forward to the next round, preserving the integrity of the already concluded recruitment while addressing injustice to those awaiting consideration.
