Constitution of India, Article 226 -- M.P. Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979 -- Part time sweeper – Regular pay scale -- Appellants were appointed on the ground of recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted by Collector, against the vacant posts as part time sweepers at Collector’s prescribed rates -- Appellants were appointed for posts reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes under Special Recruitment Drive -- They are covered under Clause 6 of the Circular dated 10.05.1984 since they have completed three years and fulfil all the conditions stipulated in the Circular to grant revised pay-scale -- Designation as ‘part-time’ sweepers does not affect the validity of their appointment since they were appointed against sanctioned posts nevertheless -- Appellants fighting this battle for regular pay-scale since 2016 and they have extended their service to the State for substantial years -- But more importantly they have proven that their situation is covered under the State issued Circular and Rules – Held, it confers upon them a legal right to avail regular pay-scale.

(Para 13-18)

Constitution of India Article 14, 16, 309 – Appointment of teachers -- Change in eligibility criteria – Permissibility of -- Advertisement was issued on 19.07.2023 and the eligibility criteria was set out as per 2022 Recruitment Rules -- By which the candidates must have passed Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by the State of Jharkhand – By notice dated 10.01.2024, applications were called from the residents of Jharkhand possessing CTET and STET qualification between 19.01.2024 to 23.01.2024 -- Amendments in 2022 Recruitment Rules were brought on 29.01.2024 with intent to give statutory backing for changing the eligibility in the on-going recruitment process -- Later, the amendment in the advertisement was made --  Held, this amount to change the rules of game after the game has begun – Therefore, the entire action on the part of the State Government is arbitrary and contrary to the law -- Revised eligibility criteria introduced cannot be applied to the ongoing recruitment process.

(Para 57, 58)

Constitution of India, Article 141 -- Domestic worker – Rights of –  Despite their growing demand, this indispensable workforce has also been the most vulnerable to exploitation and abuse -- Direction given to the Ministry of Labour and Employment in tandem with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, and the Ministry of Law and Justice, to jointly constitute a Committee comprising subject experts to consider the desirability of recommending a legal framework for the benefit, protection and regulation of the rights of domestic workers -- The composition of the Expert Committee is left to the wisdom of the Government of India and its concerned Ministries -- It will be appreciated if the Committee submits a Report within a period of 6 months, whereupon the Government of India may consider the necessity of introducing a legal framework which may effectively address the cause and concern of domestic workers.

(Para 39, 55 (iv, v))

A. Constitution of India, Article 12, 226 – Writ jurisdiction -- Instrumentality of State -- For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental.

-- A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.

(Para 10 (1)(2))

B. Constitution of India, Article 12, 226 – Non-Banking Companies – Writ jurisdiction -- Although a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot Finance Ltd. with which we are concerned is duty bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company -- Writ petition rejected on the ground of maintainability .

(Para 10-12)

A. Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006), Section 18 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34, 80 – Order/ Award of Micro and Smal enterprises Facilitation (MSEFC) – Challenge to – Alternative remedy of arbitration – Writ jurisdiction :

Following questions referred to a larger Bench of five Judges, namely:

(i) Whether the ratio in M/s India Glycols Limited (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1852) that a writ petition could never be entertained against any order/award of the MSEFC, completely bars or prohibits maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court?

(ii) If the bar/prohibition is not absolute, when and under what circumstances will the principle/restriction of adequate alternative remedy not apply?

(iii) Whether the members of MSEFC who undertake conciliation proceedings, upon failure, can themselves act as arbitrators of the arbitral tribunal in terms of Section 18 of the MSMED Act read with Section 80 of the A&C Act?

The first and second question will subsume the question of when and in what situation a writ petition can be entertained against an order/award passed by MSEFC acting as an arbitral tribunal or conciliator.

(Para 2, 19)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Alternative remedy -- Existence of the statutory remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ -- The writ jurisdiction being discretionary by policy, the writ courts generally insist that the parties adhere to alternative statutory remedies, as this reinforces the rule of law -- However, in exceptional cases, writ jurisdiction can still be exercised as a power to access the court for justice and relief.

(Para 15)

Constitution of India, Article 14 – Promotion to Tracer -- Negative equality – Permissibility of – As per Rules, the post of Tracer is to be filled up to 100% by way of direct recruitment -- While referring to two communications appointing two as Tracer on promotion, the petitioner is claiming violation of Article 14, namely the discrimination – Held, Court cannot put a stamp on the illegalities committed by the department while perpetuating the same -- A litigant coming to the Court cannot claim negative discrimination seeking direction from the Court to the department to act in violation of the law or statutory Rules -- It is a settled proposition of law that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality.

(Para 30, 31)

Constitution of India, Article 32, 136 – Judgment of High Court – Whether can be declared illegal -- Writ jurisdiction -- Judgment of the High Court cannot be declared as illegal -- If the petitioners have not been heard and are affected by the said judgment, the remedy available to them is to either file a petition/application for recall of the said order/judgment or to challenge the same by way of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(Para 3)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Dismissal of judicial officer – Probation -- Opportunity of hearing -- Foundation of the order dispensing with petitioner's service is the complaint filed by his former wife and the report submitted by the Administrative Judge --  Committee relied upon the report of the Administrative Judge -- Petitioner was never issued any charge sheet – Petitioner claims that he was not even supplied copy of the complaint or the statement of his former wife recorded by the Registrar General, he was called in the office of the Registrar General and was asked to give his response there and then -- In the Annual Confidential Reports with respect to years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, he was rated as 'Good Officer' -- District Judge also rated the petitioner as a 'Good Officer' -- Report of Administrative Judge with regard to work and conduct of the petitioner is also without granting him an opportunity of being heard --  Substantially, it can be concluded, the report of the Administrative Judge is based on the complaint filed by the petitioner's former wife – Petitioner ordered to be reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and seniority -- However, the respondent shall have the liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

(Para 4.1)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Transfer of prisoner from one jail to another – Challenge to -- It is lucid that transfer of convict prisoner from one prison to another is purely an administrative decision and hence, the same cannot be interfered with by the court unless it is arbitrary and contrary to law.

(Para 15)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Right of prisoner – Dignify life -- It is imperative on the part of the prison authorities to rehabilitate the prisoners into law abiding citizen, besides maintaining security and rule of law in the prison -- Prison administration needs to be reformed for creating a better environment and prison culture to ensure the prisoners enjoy their right to dignified life under Article 21 -- It is essential to continuously monitor the physical conditions prevailing in the prison, compliance with basic and fundamental rights of the prisoners, etc. -- State recognizes that a prisoner loses his right to liberty but still maintains his right to be treated as a human being and as person -- His human dignity shall be maintained and all basic amenities should be made available to him -- Discipline and order shall be maintained with firmness, but with no more restriction than is necessary for safe custody and well-ordered community life, with due regard to the maintenance of the rights of prisoners -- Thus, the objective of reforms and rehabilitation of the prisoners has to be pursued diligently.

(Para 3, 17.2)

Constitution of India, Article 309(2) – Appointment based upon Executive orders -- Law is settled that in the absence of rules, recourse to recruitment based on executive orders could be taken.

(Para 12, 13)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 2(12A), 162, 164B – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Hit and run case – Golden hour treatment -- It is the obligation of the Central Government under Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 to make a scheme for cashless treatment of accident victims during the golden hour -- Such a scheme may contain provisions for creating a fund for such treatment.

-- Provision made in Section 162 for framing a scheme for providing cashless treatment in the golden hour seeks to uphold and protect the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

-- It is a statutory obligation of the Central Government to frame the scheme.

Central Government directed to make a scheme in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 of the MV Act as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, by 14th March 2025.

(Paara 4-8)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Money claim – Writ jurisdiction -- It is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction -- Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie – Writ petition restored for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

(Para 8, 10)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Maintainability of writ – Availability of alternative remedy – Ground of -- Throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence -- Writ petition restored for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

(Para 8, 10)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326 – Compromise after conviction – Compounding of offence -- Recalling of order of SLP – Trial court convicted the appellant u/s 326/ 34 IPC, sentencing R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- -- High Court reduced the sentence to 1 year R.I., while enhancing the fine to Rs. 2,00,000/- -- Special Leave Petition dismissed -- Subsequently, the applicant/ petitioner compromised, Miscellaneous Application filed seeking relief for compounding the offense --  Order dismissing the SLP in limine recalled -- Leave granted, appeal partly allowed -- Conviction confirmed, however, the sentence of one year R.I. reduced to the period already undergone.

(Para 2-8)

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 21 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Objection to jurisdiction -- Objections regarding the place of suing shall not be allowed unless such objection is taken in the Court/ tribunal of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity – High Court, while exercising its discretion, overlooked the provisions of Section 21 of CPC -- Order passed by High Court set aside -- Proceedings under the IBC will continue in accordance with the law.

(Para 4, 7, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 21, 136 – Right to access court -- Right to access the courts is a cornerstone of our democracy -- However, this right is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly -- When litigants engage in forum shopping, file repetitive and meritless pleas, and deliberately delay proceedings, they erode the very foundation of our legal system -- Petitioner’s repeated and frivolous litigation has wasted the court’s valuable time and resources -- These types of litigants are choking the system of the court, which is resulting in delays in decision of other cases -- It is also the duty of the Courts at different levels to curb such type of litigation so that more time is available for dealing with genuine litigation – SLP dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-

(Para 3, 18-23)

Constitution of India, Article 320 -- Selection process – Increase in number of vacancies -- Public Service Commission – Role of -- Primary role of the KPSC is to aid and facilitate the selection process for ensuring transparency and merit-based recruitment -- Determination of the number of vacancies and the requisition for employees remain the prerogative of the State Government, which is the employer -- Government’s needs evolved, and additional vacancies arose -- It is unreasonable for the KPSC to deny the Government’s request to expand the rank list to include these vacancies, particularly when the process remains within the bounds of the original notification -- Argument that such an expansion would undermine the autonomy of the KPSC is misplaced -- KPSC directed to expand the rank list under the 2014 notification to include the additional vacancies identified by the State Government.

(Para 17-21)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Constitution of India, Article 142 – Transfer petition -- Rape – Quashing of FIR -- Contents of the FIR clearly suggest that both the parties being adult had consensual relations for years before the complaint was filed alleging that there was backing out of promise to marry -- No case is made out u/s 376 IPC -- FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto quashed.

(Para 2, 6, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged In Black-Marketing Of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (LV of 1981), Section 3(2) -- Detention order -- Pubic disorder -- Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder -- When a person can be dealt with in exercise of powers to maintain the law and order, unless the acts of the proposed detainee are the ones which have the tendency of disturbing the public order a resort to preventive detention which is a harsh measure would not be permissible -- Six cases are registered for selling illicit liquor, the Excise Authority did not find it necessary to arrest the appellant even on a single occasion -- It would have been a different matter after releasing on bail, appellant continued with his activities -- Statements of witnesses do not show that the said witnesses were threatened by the appellant in the presence of the villagers which would create a perception in the mind of the villagers that the appellant herein is a threat to the public order -- Detention order set aside.

(Para 13-20)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 239, 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quashing of FIR – Scope of -- Framing of charge -- Effect of -- High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous without considering the case on merits -- Appellants can apply for discharge, however, the scope of application for discharge is completely different from the scope of a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings -- While arguing a case for discharge, the appellants will not be in a position to rely upon any document which is not the part of charge sheet, ground of abuse of process of law will not be available -- However, in a petition for quashing either u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a wider challenge is available including a challenge on the ground of abuse of process of law -- Impugned order set aside, writ petition restored.

(Para 5-9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Retail and Wholesale Drug License  -- Delay in submission of application beyond time granted by High court – Rejection on that ground – Justification of -- Ends of justice would be well served in case the applications that were filed by the petitioner beyond the time prescribed by High Court, are treated as being in compliance of order passed by High Court and adjudication thereof is done by the concerned Authority on merits of the same, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties – Petition allowed.

(Para 1-7)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 309 – 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana -- Compassionate appointment – Right of -- Said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness --  Three years from the date of death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of majority cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is not a vested right -- Appellant attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father -- Claim rightly rejected by the respondent State.

(Para 15, 16)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Equality – Conferred some rights upon others, wrongfully -- Effect of -- No direction can be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable -- Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea -- The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again -- Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification.

(Para 11)

Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (II of 1916), Section 3, 4, 5 – Constitution of India, Article 243-Q – Inclusion in transitional area of Nagar Panchayat – Opportunity of hearing to effected partes -- Notification u/s 3 visits the persons living in the area notified with several civil consequences that may include taxation on properties, deprivation of benefits from government programs and schemes for village areas, etc. – Opportunity of making objections and /or suggestions after publication of draft notification and due consideration of the same by the Governor, are vital and mandatory requirements of the statute -- Each person resident of such area which is subject to such notification, is a stakeholder and is conferred a right by the Act, 1916 to make suggestions and objections -- Such suggestions and objections, when duly filed, have to be accorded due consideration by the Governor, and the State Government cannot brush aside an objection by means of a general denial on the ground that it was not received within the time provided in the draft notification where it has been demonstrated by the petitioner that the objection was duly dispatched and the delivery report of the postal department reflects its delivery to the addressee -- Objections of the petitioners were never considered – Impugned notification / order quashed.

(Para 11, 19, 20)

Constitution of India, Article 30(1) – Minority educational Institution – Legislative/ Administrative Power to change -- Article 30(1) can be classified as both an anti-discrimination provision and a special rights provision -- A legislation or an executive action which discriminates against religious or linguistic minorities in establishing or administering educational institutions is ultra vires Article 30(1).

-- Religious or linguistic minorities must prove that they established  the educational institution for the community to be a minority educational institution for the purposes of Article 30(1);

-- The right guaranteed by Article 30(1) is applicable to universities established before the commencement of the Constitution;

-- The right under Article 30(1) is guaranteed to minorities as defined upon the commencement of the Constitution. A different right-bearing group cannot be identified for institutions established before the adoption of the Constitution;

-- The incorporation of the University would not ipso facto lead to surrendering of the minority character of the institution. The circumstances surrounding the conversion of a teaching college to a teaching university must be viewed to identify if the minority character of the institution was surrendered upon the conversion. The Court may on a holistic reading of the statutory provisions relating to the administrative set-up of the educational institution deduce if the minority character or the purpose of establishment was relinquished upon incorporation; and

The following are the factors which must be used to determine if a minority ‘established’ an educational institution:

i. The indicia of ideation, purpose and implementation must be satisfied. First, the idea for establishing an educational institution must have stemmed from a person or group belonging to the minority community; second, the educational institution must be established predominantly for the benefit of the minority community; and third, steps for the implementation of the idea must have been taken by the member(s) of the minority community; and

ii. The administrative-set up of the educational institution must elucidate and affirm (I) the minority character of the educational institution; and (II) that it was established to protect and promote the interests of the minority community.

The view taken in Azeez Basha’ case AIR 1968 SC 662 that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute, is overruled -- The question of whether AMU is a minority educational institution must be decided based on the principles laid down in the judgment.

(Para 160, 161)

Reference answered with majority opinion

A. Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Recruitment process -- Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies.

(Para 42(1))

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 -- Eligibility criteria – Change in midway – Permissibility of -- Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit -- Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness.

(Para 42(2))

C. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Select list – Right to be appointed -- Decision in K. Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512 lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220  -- Subash Chander Marwaha deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree deals with the right to be placed in the Select List -- The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues.

(Para 42(3))

D. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 – Recruitment rules/ procedure – Deviation from – Permissibility of -- Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/ nonarbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved -- Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility -- However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps.

(Para 42(4(5))

E. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 –  Select list – Right to be appointment -- Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment -- State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies -- However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.

(Para 42(6)

Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (VI of 1978), Section 8 – Preventive Detention order -- Probable that Senior Superintendent of Police was fully aware of the fact that the petitioner had applied for his bail before a criminal court of law in connection with his arrest by reference to FIR which was likely to be granted to him and, therefore, in order to pre-empt the release of the petitioner on bail, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), planned to generate a dossier against the petitioner in order to somehow chain him in confinement in order to frustrate his prospective release on bail by a criminal court of law -- Preventive detention order quashed.

(Para 22-24)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47, Order 21 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 – Expeditious disposal of execution petition -- Warrants of possession not executed -- Despite the Decree Holder (DH) being present, none came for execution of the warrants of possession -- Objections filed by the judgment debtor dismissed, however, second objections have been filed – Revision petition disposed off with a request to the Executing Court not to grant any unnecessary adjournments and to decide the execution application pending before it expeditiously and in accordance with law.

(Para 2, 3)

Constitution of India, Article 14 – Contractual employee -- Regularization of service -- Petitioner was appointed as a Driver in 2005 on contract basis -- Service of the petitioner was regularized in the year, 2012 -- Petitioner held entitled to regularization from the date of completion of one year contractual service after initial appointment, with all consequential benefits from the due date. Covered matter, Vikram Singh’s case 2023 :HHC: 13114 = (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19595.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR/ Complaint – Duty of High Court -- Beyond holding that there are specific allegations, there is no other analysis by High Court -- Duty of the High Court, when its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked on the ground that the Complaint/ FIR is manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, to examine the allegations with care and caution.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 – Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Husband not accused in criminal case -- While the husband institutes the civil suit, his wife has chosen to initiate criminal proceedings -- Interestingly, there is no reference of one proceeding in the other -- On 27.02.2013, the husband filed the Special Civil Suit against the three appellants, i.e. his father, stepmother and stepbrother seeking for a declaration that the property is ancestral in nature and that the father has no right to alienate or dispose of the property and also sought a declaration that he is entitled to use the trademark of the family business – Complainant/ wife filed the criminal complaint on 01.03.2013 alleging demand of dowry and threat by appellants that she and her husband will be denied a share in the property -- Provocation for the Complaint/ FIR is essentially the property dispute between father and son – FIR and Chargesheet quashed.

(Para 9, 18)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 – Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Husband not accused in criminal case -- Allegations are vague, lacking in basic details -- The essence of the complaint is in the alleged threat to deprive the husband any share in the property with respect to which the husband has already filed the suit for declaration – In DV complaint identical allegations were examined in detail, subjected to strict scrutiny, and rejected as being false and untenable – The case is instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and just to subject the appellants to the entire criminal law process – FIR and charge-sheet quashed.

(Para 9-18)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR – Charge-sheet filed -- There is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.

(Para 16)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Promotion during pendency of criminal case -- DPC – Charge-sheet thereafter – Putting the result in sealed cover – Legality of -- Disciplinary/ criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court -- Sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/ charge-sheet -- Pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.

-- Charge sheet was filed by CBI, after completion of investigation on 25th October, 2008, whereas the DPC to consider the promotion of Additional Commissioners of Income Tax was convened on 22nd February, 2007, wherein the sealed cover procedure was adopted qua the respondent.

-- It is thus clear that the charge sheet against the respondent was filed well after the meeting of the DPC was convened.

Hence, it could not be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge was pending against the respondent when the DPC was convened -- Therefore, the move on the part of DPC to resort to the sealed cover procedure was unjustified and unsustainable on facts and in law -- The ‘Sealed Cover’ wherein the assessment of the respondent was considered by the DPC was opened in court -- Letter shows that the DPC assessed the respondent to be ‘FIT’ for promotion -- Consequential steps in light of the above recommendations shall follow.

(Para 24-29)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ petition – Suppression of facts -- Deliberate suppression of relevant particulars, which were adverse to the claim -- The filing of the writ petition was, therefore, nothing short of an abuse of process and did not warrant examination on merits and liable to be non-suited on this short ground -- If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition should be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. K.D. Sharma’s case (2008) 12 SCC 481 relied.

(Para 12)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ petition – Delay and laches -- Cause of action arose in the year 1973, when the Union of India and the Defence department allegedly stopped paying rental compensation – Writ petition in the year 2006 -- A writ petition should be preferred within reasonable time -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 13-18)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 21B – Long pendency of Divorce petition – Speedy disposal – Mandate of -- Suit of year 2020 -- Direction issued to the Principal Judge, Family Court to decided case in accordance with law maximum within a period three months in light of Section 21-B of Act, 1955 after providing opportunity of hearing to opposite party and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

(Para 2-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Mutation entry – Inaction of authority – Direction sought for respondent No.2 to take immediate decision on the mutation application moved by petitioner -- NOCs of other legal heirs have already been submitted by the petitioner in the year 2013 – Direction issued to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the mutation application by a reasoned and speaking order not later than three months.

(Para 3-6)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Suit of year 2014 – Early decision of case – Petition to issue a direction to Court to decide Original Suit within a stipulated time – Direction issued to Civil Judge (Senior Division) to decide the suit in accordance with law, if possible within a period of nine months after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment.

(Para 2-4)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Regularization of employee – Retrospective regularisation at par with junior -- Merely because High Court or the Supreme Court had not fixed any date for grant of benefit of regularization to the petitioners, the State Government is not absolved from its duty to grant the petitioner benefits at par with similarly situated persons -- State Cabinet has taken a decision to grant benefit of regularization to the petitioners prospectively, the same cannot be a valid reason to discriminate the petitioners.

(Para 20)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Regularization of Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT) -- Intelligible differentia – All the Incumbents under the PAT, GVU and Para Teachers Schemes formed a single class, keeping in view the object behind their appointments and treatment given to them by the State Government -- Exclusion of petitioners by not conferring upon them the benefit of regularization on completion of 8/10 years of service, as has been done in the case of GVU and Para Teachers, amounts to creation of a class without there being any intelligible differentia -- Since, the respondents have already granted such benefit to the Para Teachers w.e.f. 18.12.2014, the respondents directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits from that date i.e. 18.12.2014.

(Para 21, 22)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 294, 114, 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Obscene act – Abettor – Employee/ Waiter of Bar -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Petitioner in the present case was a mere employee of the owner of Bar and he is found to be discharging his duty of serving the customers food and drink as per his employment profile -- No offense made out qua the Petitioner -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1, 8-11.1)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Younger in age – Non-consideration of other factors – Effect of -- Petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by Collector, only on the ground that she is younger than the other candidates; whereas, the other factors, as envisaged under Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, have not been taken into consideration – Commissioner remanded back the case, which order was upheld by the Financial Commissioner --  Case requires a fresh look at the level of District Collector is correct and does not call for any interference.

(Para 8.1-9)

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra Act No. XXXVII of 1966), Section 2, 126(1) -- Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991, Regulation 3(7), 33, 34 -- Constitution of India, Article 300A – Compensation for surrendering land and developing amenities -- Abandonment of claim -- Delay and laches – Writ petitioners constructed Development Plan Roads at their own cost and voluntarily surrendered the reserved lands to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation – Writ petitioners were granted Floor Space Index (FSI) and/or Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) in the form of Development Rights Certificates (DRC) equal to the gross area of the plots surrendered by them – Writ dismissed on delay and laches by High Court.

-- Held, once the compensation is determined in the form of FSI/TDR, the same is payable even in the absence of there being any representation or request being made -- In fact, a duty is cast on the State to pay compensation to the land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution -- Neither the doctrine of delay and laches nor the principle of abandonment of claim or waiver would apply in these cases.

(Para 2, 4.13, 18)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Cancellation of tender – Defaulter/ Blacklisted was not ground for cancellation -- It being so, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to contest the claim of the petitioner by terming him as black listed, when such ground was not the reason for cancellation of tender -- Even otherwise, the respondents have not been able to substantiate their plea that the petitioner had been black listed – Communication did not mention any reason adverse to the petitioner – Writ petition allowed, period for which the bids were invited has already elapsed – Respondent burdened with costs of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) to be paid to the petitioner for compensating him for the loss caused to him without justifiable reason.

(Para 10-13)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309 -- Feeder cadre – Promotional cadre – Whether PayScale can be same -- Sub Inspector is a promotion post from the feeder post of Panchayat Secretary – By revision, the pay scale of Panchayat Secretary was brought at par with the pay scale available to the post of Sub Inspector w.e.f. 01.01.2006 -- No revision of pay was given to the Sub Inspectors -- It is more than settled that the pay scale of promotional post has to be higher than the feeder post – Finance department rejected the proposal consecutively made by the administrative department without assigning any reason – Writ petition allowed, the respondents directed to revise the pay scale and to pay them entire arrears along with interest @ 6% per annum, failing which the arrears shall entail interest @ 9% per annum.

(Para 9-18)

Constitution of India, Article 22(5) – Detention order – Opportunity to represent – Supply of material – Right of -- Detention record reveals that the petitioner has been provided copies of detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves), dossier of detention (Nil), copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other relevant documents (01 leaf), (total 06 leaves) -- It was incumbent upon respondents to furnish not only the copy of the FIR but also the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation of the said FIR and other material on the basis of which petitioner’s involvement therein FIR is shown -- Even the copy of the dossier of detention has not been supplied – Petitioner has been hampered by non-supply of these vital documents in making an effective representation before the Advisory Board -- Preventive detention unsustainable in law -- Detention quashed.

(Para 7-9)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 300A, 309 – Leave encashment – Akin to property -- Merger of U.P. Basic Education Board to State of Uttarakhand -- Leave encashment is akin to a salary, which is property -- Depriving a person of his property without any valid statutory provision would violate Article 300-A of the Constitution of India -- Leave encashment paid on account of unutilized leave is not a bounty -- If an employee has earned it and the employee has chosen to accumulate his Earned Leave to his credit, then encashment becomes his right -- Writ allowed, a mandamus issued commanding the respondents to pay Leave Encashment of Earned Leave to the petitioners immediately, in accordance with law.

(Para 9-12)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Personal Assistant Cadre Employees’ Service Rules 2018, Rule 20 --  Procedure for Appointment by Direct Recruitment on Group ‘C’ Post Rules, 2008, Rule 5(4) – Appointment of Personal Assistant/ Stenographer -- Carry forward of posts – Procedure of -- Total 152 vacancies were advertised and only 110 candidates were selected -- 42 vacancies are still available – Respondent/ Commission has list of 1830 candidates in order of merit -- By applying the ratio of 1:4 i.e. 42 x 4=168 candidates can still be called for typing and shorthand test from the said list – Writ allowed, respondent-Commission directed to call the candidates, who fall in the list of 1830 candidates in the ratio of 1:4 whose names are there in the list after 648th candidate for supplying 42 vacancies on the post of Stenographer/Personal Assistant in the order of merit till the entire remaining 42 vacancies are filled or list of 1830 candidates is exhausted, whichever is earlier.

(Para 2, 3, 12-14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for more than 5 years -- An accused or an under trial has a fundamental right to speedy trial -- When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-under trial on the ground that the charges are very serious -- Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude -- Out of 48 witnesses, only about 16 to 18 witnesses have been examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Bail – Right of -- “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception” – Objective behind detention of a person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory -- Right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person -- Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, “the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 307, 160, 323, 325, 201 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Though the petitioner was named in the FIR but no specific role attributed to him -- Weapon recovered from the petitioner is yet to be co-related with the injury suffered by the injured before the learned trial court -- Incarceration of about one year and the trial is yet to begin as no charges have been framed -- 27 prosecution witnesses cited in challan -- Trial would take a long time -- Victim is now hale and hearty -- Bail allowed.

(Para 17, 18)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ – Delay and laches – Seniority list challenged after 13 years – Petitioner is seeking entitlement to agitate his belated claim on the strength of directions issued by the Court in other case -- Assertion of petitioner that he has a fresh cause of action for filing the instant petition after judgment cannot be sustained -- Unexplained delay and laches in invoking Article 226 jurisdiction has repeatedly been held to be a serious impediment for grant of relief -- Claim of the petitioner suffers from delay and laches and cannot be entertained – Writ dismissed.

(Para 11-23)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service matter -- Recovery of benefits already drawn – Permissibility of -- Ad-hoc appointment as Assistant Teacher (L.T Grade), on 20.09.1986 -- Services regularized on 07.08.1993 -- After calculating ad-hoc period Selection Grade was sanctioned on 20.09.1996 – By the impugned orders dated 08.12.2017 and 05.09.2019, respondent-State cancelled the payment of Selection Grade to the petitioner -- Writ petition disposed of, with the observations that the benefit, if any, granted to the petitioner shall not be recovered -- Amount of recovery made from the petitioner, if any, shall also be paid back to the petitioner.

(Para 2-8)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 -- Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1992, Rule 11 – Unequal promotion Quota – Principle of Intelligible defferentia -- Impugned Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Deputy Director provide for 60% quota to the Principals promoted from the cadre of Headmasters and 40% to the Principals promoted from the cadre of Lecturers for being placed as Deputy Directors – No reasonable classification to the extent of providing unequal quota to the Principals promoted from the cadre of lecturers and Principals promoted from the cadre of Headmasters is in clear violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution -- Rule 11 as amended in 2005 quashed to that extent.

(Para 12, 17-20)

Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (Uttarakhand Act No. 1 of 2018), Section 13(6) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of employee --  Petitioner is feeling difficulty in serving at Government ITI Dugadda, he wants to be transferred at a suitable place particularly in District Haridwar and made a representation -- Writ petition disposed of, respondent No.2 directed to take a decision on petitioner’s representation by a speaking and reasoned order, within a period of one week.

(Para 2-6)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 311 -- RGPSM’s General Service Conditions, Clause 4 -- Appointment in Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan / SSA -- Termination of service/ contract – Non-renewal of contract -- Appellant topped the revised Merit List, leading to her appointment -- While serving complaint(s) against her : (i) not punctual in attending to her duties, and; (ii) not correctly reported with regard to the events in the hostel -- She, inter alia, frankly admits to being late on occasion, but to compensate for her late-coming, she used to sit till late evening in the office for completion of work.

-- Clause 4 makes it clear that ordinarily, for inefficiency, one month’s notice is sufficient -- The Clause also makes it clear that if someone is found to have indulged in “undesirable activities”, the Mission Director was competent to terminate such person’s services “with immediate effect”.

-- Ld. Single Judge of High Court quashed the order holding that the termination orders being stigmatic in nature, relating to alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude, the same could not have been passed without holding a regular enquiry.

Respondents have placed themselves in a Catch-22 situation – If it is a case of termination simpliciter and non-stigmatic, then one month’s notice was required to be issued to the appellant, which was not done – If impugned order to be seen as falling under the latter part of Clause 4, it would be stigmatic -- Impugned order does visit the appellant with evil consequences and would create hurdles for her re further employment – Order of Ld. Single Judge, upheld, appellant held entitled to all consequential benefits including notional continuation in service at par with other similarly-situated employees, but with the back wages restricted to 50% -- In view of the long passage of time, liberty denied to the respondents to proceed afresh against the appellant as was granted by the learned Single Judge.

(Para 12, 30-36)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Dismissal from service – Acquittal in criminal case – Right to re-instatement -- In departmental proceedings petitioner found guilty of misappropriation of 80 Urea bags and embezzlement of Rs.29,656/- and award was passed against petitioner – No appeal/ revision filed against by petitioner – Held, acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement -- No ground to interfere with impugned dismissal order.

(Para 2-4)