A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 -- Appointment of Local Commissioner – Demarcation of property -- Application by defendant for appointment of a Local Commissioner for demarcation of the property -- Plaintiff-respondent is yet to prove his case by leading evidence -- Defendant-petitioner has not even started his evidence and it would be premature to come to a conclusion that there is any dispute or confusion regarding the demarcation of the land -- What in fact the defendant-petitioner is wanting is for the Court to collect evidence for him, which cannot be permitted.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Constitution of India, Article 227 – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Dismissal of application -- Maintainability of revision -- An order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order.

(Para 8)

Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Departmental proceedings against policeman -- Complainant in FIR turned hostile in view of the threat given by petitioner/policeman – Punishment of stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect given – Image of the police department lowered on account of the misconduct and threat in open public -- Punishment imposed upon the police officials does not suffer from any infirmity and neither it seems disproportionate to the misconduct in question -- Other delinquent official has chosen not contest the said punishment, which was imposed upon him – Held, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 8-13)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Appointment of Health worker -- Registration with Council --  Requirement of – Late issuance of registration -- Appellants except one had applied for U.P. Council registration before the date of advertisement i.e., 15.12.2021 -- Therefore, for no fault(s) of theirs, the appellants could not have been made to suffer – If it is found that there is no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant, he cannot be punished for no fault attributable to him -- Respondent(s) directed to appoint the appellants to the post of Health Worker (Female) within a period of six weeks, if otherwise, they are found meritorious and fulfilling the other eligibility criteria and the appellants shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of their actual appointments.

(Para 4-6)

Constitution of India, Article 141 -- Inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits – Rotation of quota rule -- Following questions need to be decided by a larger Bench of five Hon’ble Judges:

a. Whether the decision in the case of K. Meghachandra, 2020 (5) SCC 689 can be said to be a binding precedent in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Mervyn Coutindo, 1966 (3) SCR 600 and the law laid down by a Coordinate Bench in the case of M. Subba Reddy, 2004 (6) SCC 729?

b. In absence of specific statutory rules to the contrary, when the ‘rotation of quota’ rule is applicable, whether the seniority of direct recruits who were recruited in the recruitment process which commenced in the relevant recruitment year but ended thereafter, can be fixed by following ‘rotation of quota’ by interspacing them with the direct recruits of the same recruitment year who were promoted earlier during the same year?

(Para 35)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(2), 96, Order 7, Rule 11 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Rejection of plaint – Revision – Appeal -- Plaint ordered to be rejected invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Held, rejection of plaint falls within the definition of decree as provided under Section 2 (2) of CPC and thus, becomes appealable u/s 96 CPC thereof -- Revision petition is not maintainable.

(Para 1-3)

Constitution of India, Article 21 – Bank loan Defaulter -- Right to travel abroad – Look Out Notice (LOC) – Fundamental right to travel abroad guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed by seeking issuance of an LOC – Since the right to travel abroad flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a very high threshold is mandated to deny such a right to an Indian citizen -- At the time the LOC was issued against the petitioner, he is not an accused of having committed a cognizable offence in India -- Originating agency can only request that they be informed about the arrival/departure of the subject in such cases -- Since in the instant case, petitioner is admittedly having ‘permanent residency certificate’ of USA and has business interests in the USA, the petitioner cannot be prevented from travelling abroad -- However in view of declaration of loan account as fraud and declaration of petitioner as a “willful defaulter” and filing of a police complaint, though after filing of the Writ Petition, subject to certain conditions, he can be permitted to travel abroad – Writ Petition allowed, subject to depositing an FDR/TDR for Rs. 10 lakhs with the Registrar General within 2 weeks, the LOC issued against the petitioner set aside -- In the event of petitioner returning to India and producing his passport before the Registrar (General) within the time of 2 months as aforesaid, the FDR/TDR deposited by him shall be returned otherwise it shall be forfeited.

(Para 34-51)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 2(2), 7, 8 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Scheduled Tribe daughter’s right of survivorship -- Whether the appellant/petitioner being the daughter is entitled to the share in the compensation with respect to the land acquired, on survivorship basis under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act? -- As per Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Succession Act will not be applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe.

-- If the claim of the appellant on the basis of the survivorship under the Hindu Succession Act is accepted in that case it would tantamount to amend the law. It is for the legislature to amend the law and not the Court.

-- To deny the equal right to the daughter belonging to the tribal even after a period of 70 years of the Constitution of India under which right to equality is guaranteed, it is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by which the Hindu Succession Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe.

-- Direction given to Central Government to consider it just and necessary to withdraw the exemptions provided to the Scheduled Tribes and whether to bring a suitable amendment or not – Court shown hope and trust that the Central Government will look into the matter and take an appropriate decision taking into consideration the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 6-7.2)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Covid-19 pandemic – Hostel charges -- Entire course conducted online -- As a necessary corollary, it has to be held that petitioner did not avail the hostel facilities at all – Demand of hostel rent is unreasonable -- Demand raised quashed to the extent of the demand for payment of hostel rent only -- Amenities charges upheld -- Writ petition partly allowed.

(Para 1-6)

Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Void ab initio appointment – Pensionary benefits -- Once the appointment is held to be illegal and void ab initio the services rendered cannot be considered/counted for the purpose of pension.

(Para 1)

Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 30 – Constitution of India, Section 226 -- Election of office bearers – Non-holding of – Writ petition -- Elections of the members of the Managing Committee held on 21.08.2022 but the elections of the office bearers not conducted so far which has to take place within 60 days of the election of the Managing Committee – Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the legal notice within a period of 15 days.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Police protection in run-away marriage -- Concealment of previous marriage – Proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C -- Proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. are to be initiated in exceptional circumstances and considering the impact of commission of offence upon the administration of justice -- Only the directions were issued to the SSP to look into the representation with regard to the threat perception – Held, not a fit case for initiating enquiry for making false pleadings in the writ petition.

(Para 5-10)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 136, 226 – Pharmacy Act, 1948 (8 of 1948), Section 10, 18 -- Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 -- Public Interest Litigation – Fake pharmacist – Registered pharmacist in hospitals -- Serious allegations made against the Bihar State Pharmacy Council and the State of Bihar for not taking any action with respect to fake pharmacist and/or running the Government’s hospitals and/or other hospitals without registered pharmacist and the in-action on the part of the Bihar State Pharmacy Council/State Government has resulted into the affected health of the citizen – Held, State Government and the Bihar State Pharmacy Council cannot be permitted to play with the health and life of the citizen – Under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 as well as the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, it is the duty cast upon the Pharmacy Council and the State Government to see that the hospitals/medical stores, etc., are not run by the fake pharmacist and are run by the registered pharmacist only – Appeal allowed, matter remanded to the High Court to consider the writ petition afresh after calling the detailed report/counter from the State of Bihar and Bihar State Pharmacy Council on: -

(i) how many Governments’ hospitals/hospitals/medical stores/private hospitals are being run either by fake pharmacist or without registered pharmacist;

(ii) whether any action is taken by the State Government on the fact-finding committee report submitted by the Bihar State Pharmacy Council which was reported to be forwarded to the State Government;

(iii) whether there are any fake pharmacists as alleged in the writ petition;

(iv) any action is taken by the State Government or by the Bihar State Pharmacy Council against such fake pharmacist;

(v) whether the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 are being followed in the entire State of Bihar or not.

While considering the writ petition the High Court should bear in mind the public interest and the health of the citizen.

Constitution of India, Article 21, 32 – Writ for fair investigation and transfer of trial -- Murder -- Petitioners being daughter and wife of the deceased have a fundamental right to get justice as victim and they have a legitimate expectation that criminal trial is being conducted in a fair and impartial manner and uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations – Justice is not to be done but the justice is seen to have been done also -- As per the settled position of law, free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution -- If the criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking the confidence of the public in the system -- However, at the same time, looking to the large number of witnesses to be examined during the trial and no hardship is caused to those witnesses, instead of transferring the trial to New Delhi, case transferred to CBI Special Court at Hyderabad -- CBI also directed to complete the further investigation/investigation in the FIR on the larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence, at the earliest independently and in an unbiased manner.

(Para 13-15)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c), 37 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Right to expeditious trial -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- High Court declined to grant bail on the ground that the quantity seized was a commercial quantity and the rigours of Section 37 would preclude the grant of bail -- There has been no progress in the trial -- Appellant is in custody for over four years -- A period of five years would be completed in February 2023 -- Having due regard to the right of the appellant to an expeditious trial within the ambit of Article 21, the appellant should be released on bail -- Appellant ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 5, 8-10)

Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 (15 of 2022), Section 12(11) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Parole – Non-decisioning of application – Writ petition – State that decision with respect to the grant of parole is to be taken within a period of 7 weeks -- 7 weeks have already elapsed, petition disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to take a final decision on the application within a period of 10 days.

(Para 2-6)

Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (19 of 1976), Section 16, 17 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Bonded labour/ Detenue at brick-kiln –  Writ of habeas corpus -- Criminal Writ Petition disposed of with direction to District Magistrate to treat the petition as a complaint under the Act of 1976 and take immediate action in accordance with law, within a period of one week.

(Para 2-4)

A. Constitution of India, Article 19(1), 21 – Life and liberty – Arrest of accused -- Object of arrest is neither punitive nor preventive -- It has become very common to put criminal law in motion even though dispute involved is purely contractual or civil in nature -- Many times arrest entails deprivation of source of income of entire family besides forever stigma in a closely knit society like ours -- There is neither mechanism to compensate a man who is later on found innocent nor acquittal can return valuable time, energy, status, future of family members especially children which is lost on account of incarceration of bread earner of the family -- Detention or arrest not only deprives a person from his fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 but also freedom guaranteed by Article 19(1) of our Constitution --  Life of every human being is most precious gift of God and everyone has very limited span of life which cannot be spoiled on account of incompetence, personal grudge, vengeance of someone; or brutal, illegal, unethical action of the State machinery.

(Para 5)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 365, 302, 328, 201, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 446, 482 -- Constitution of India,  Section 21 – Murder trial -- Jump of bail – Quashing of Non-bailable warrants/ Cancellation of bail bond. Held,

i) The object of cancellation of bond or declaration of anyone as proclaimed offender/person is to secure his presence. The petitioner has come forward to face trial and undertakes to appear before trial court on each and every date, thus, his presence would meet ends of justice;

ii) The Petitioner for wasting valuable time and energy of courts as well prosecution is willing to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-;

iii) The Petitioner is ready to furnish bond/surety to the satisfaction of the trial court;

iv) The petitioner is resident of Jagraon and trial is pending at Ludhiana, thus jurisdictional court and police authorities have direct access over the activities of the petitioner.

v) The petitioner was initially granted regular bail by this Hon'ble High Court;

vi) Trial is pending since 2017 and petitioner is ready to face trial, thus, no prejudice is going to cause to prosecution or complainant;

Petition allowed, petitioner directed to appear before Trial Court on 09.12.2022 and furnish fresh bail bond/surety bond to its satisfaction.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41A, 439 – Regular bail -- Binding precedent -- Though, it is always said that the High Court is not a Court to subordinate to the Supreme Court -- However, when the High Court deals with judgments of Supreme Court, which are binding on everyone under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it is expected that the judgments have to be dealt with due respect -- The learned Single Judge of the Telangana High Court in the impugned judgment has observed “27. A parental guidance by the Supreme Court through the judgment in Arnesh Kumar’s case is thus not a sword of Damocles either in respect of police officers or Magistrates who exercise the power of arrest and remand respectively.” – Held, with great respect to the learned Judge, such observation is totally unwarranted – Observations made in the judgment, which are contrary to the observations made in the case of Arnesh Kumar’s case would not be treated as a binding precedent in the State of Telangana.

(Para 4-12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 10 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Non-filing of written statement – Defence struck off – Civil Revision -- If the petitioner is not granted one more opportunity to file his written statement, he would suffer irreparable loss which in turn would result in miscarriage of justice – For just and proper adjudication of the case, one last effective opportunity to the petitioner to file his written statement granted without issuing noticed to respondents subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to be paid to respondent No.1/plaintiff.

(Para 4, 5)

Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 27 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Society laws -- Appointment of Chowkidar – Appointment made without advertisement -- Merely because approval has been granted to the appointment by the Assistant Registrar cannot justify an appointment which had been carried without notice to the public at large – By impugned order appointment set aside -- No merit in petition warranting interference – Petition dismissed.

(Para 4, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226, 309 – Disturbance in seniority – Opportunity of hearing -- Petitioner was initially working as UDC in field cadre and thereafter adjusted in the head office – Impugned order passed after a representation had been received against the change of cadre of the petitioner to head office -- Petitioner had not been issued any notice or afforded any opportunity of hearing – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside -- Respondents shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order after issuance of notice along with furnishing a copy of representation and by affording an opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order.

(Para 5, 6)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, Order 21, Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, Order 41 Rule 5 -- Execution of decree for specific performance – First Appeal and Stay application pending since 2019 – Objection to execution dismissed on the ground that there is no stay – Ld. Lower appellate Court directed to decide the application Order XLI Rule 5 read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking stay on operation of judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, on the next date of hearing -- Till then execution proceedings shall remain stayed.

(Para 1-4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 62 – Banking default case -- One Time Settlement/ OTS – Extension of time – Writ jurisdiction -- Borrower as a matter of right cannot claim extension of time – By the impugned judgment and order rescheduling the payment under the OTS Scheme and granting extension of time would tantamount to rewriting the contract which is not permissible while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Impugned judgment/ order quashed and set aside -- Consequently, the original writ petition filed by the respondent/borrower stands dismissed.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 164-A, 173 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Rape case Guidelines -- Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police vs. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna, (2014) 8 SCC 913 exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution issued interim directions in the form of mandamus to all the Police Stations-in-Charge in the entire country to follow:

“10.1. Upon receipt of information relating to the commission of offence of rape, the investigating officer shall make immediate steps to take the victim to any Metropolitan/preferably Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC. A copy of the statement under Section 164 CrPC should be handed over to the investigating officer immediately with a specific direction that the contents of such statement under Section 164 CrPC should not be disclosed to any person till charge-sheet/report under Section 173 CrPC is filed.

10.2. The investigating officer shall as far as possible take the victim to the nearest Lady Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate.

10.3. The investigating officer shall record specifically the date and the time at which he learnt about the commission of the offence of rape and the date and time at which he took the victim to the Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate as aforesaid.

10.4. If there is any delay exceeding 24 hours in taking the victim to the Magistrate, the investigating officer should record the reasons for the same in the case diary and hand over a copy of the same to the Magistrate.

10.5. Medical examination of the victim : Section 164-A CrPC inserted by Act 25 of 2005 in CrPC imposes an obligation on the part of investigating officer to get the victim of the rape immediately medically examined. A copy of the report of such medical examination should be immediately handed over to the Magistrate who records the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC.”

Supreme Court gave suggestion to every High Court that the appropriate modifications/amendments be made to the Criminal Practice/Trial Rules incorporating provisions consistent with the directions issued in the decisions in Shivanna’s case (2014) 8 SCC 913.

(Para 1-7)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Title dispute -- Vacation of interim relief – Writ jurisdiction -- No reason recorded, which called for vacation of interim relief by ADC -- Writ petition disposed of with the direction that petition u/s 11 of the PVCL Act filed by the petitioners be finally decided by the ADC within a period of three months -- Till then, status quo with regard to possession maintained.

(Para 3-6)

A. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Public appointment – Registration of FIR – Effect of – FIR is merely a report regarding an alleged incident which may or may not involve commission of some offence – Therefore, mere factum of the receipt of first information by the police cannot be raised to the level of a fact rendering a candidate ineligible for the public appointment – Writ petition allowed, respondents directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner, effective from the date the candidate immediately lower to her in the merit of selection was appointed -- Petitioner shall also be, accordingly, entitled to all service benefits including seniority and pay fixation on notional basis -- However, petitioner will not be entitled to arrears of salary upto the date she actually joins.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Public appointment – Registration of criminal case -- Induction of a term in the appointment letter; to the effect that if a criminal case is registered then the appointment would be denied, would be totally without any legal sanction.

(Para 6)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Collusive proclamation – Writ jurisdiction -- Merely because one of the applicants was the father of the petitioner collusion cannot be inferred -- Two other candidates had also applied and there is no evidence that either of them was closely related to the petitioner – Petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by Collector, upset by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner – Writ allowed, impugned orders set quashed and appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar is upheld.

(Para 2-5)

A. Circumstantial evidence -- In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused – A very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt.

(Para 12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25 – Constitution of India, Article 20(3) – Murder -- Confession before police – Videography of statement by police – Recovery therefrom -- Evidential value – Conviction by Session Court affirmed by High Court – Setting aside of -- Entire case of the prosecution is built upon the confessional/voluntary statements made by the accused persons before the police and the recovery of the alleged weapon of murder recovered at the pointing out of the accused and the recovery of alleged stolen gold material from a jewelry shop, again, on pointing out of the accused – They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them -- Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court – Session Court and High Court taken this evidence of voluntary statements made by the accused and hence admitted it as evidence -- Held, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements -- Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself -- Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence -- Appeals allowed, the order of the Sessions Judge and the High Court set aside, the appellants ordered to be released from jail.

(Para 13, 17)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 -- Compassionate appointment – Concession not a right -- Appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution -- However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms -- Compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.

(Para 6)

B. Compassionate appointment -- Object of -- Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment -- Whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis -- Object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

(Para 7)

C. Compassionate appointment to married daughter – Right of – Effect of delay -- Claim rejected on 18.08.2011/ 23.4.2013 – Respondent-daughter cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother -- Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee.

(Para 2.1-2.3, 7.1)

A. Compassionate appointment to daughter – Wife already employed -- Widow of the deceased employee was serving in the Kerala State Health Services Department and, therefore, as such was not eligible and/or entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Government employment -- Compassionate appointment – Object of -- Concession not a right -- For all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution -- However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms -- Compassionate ground is a concession and not a right -- Whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis -- Object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

(Para 8, 9)

C. Compassionate appointment to daughter – Application after 14 years of death – Case rejected after 24 years of death – Held, after a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground -- If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.

(Para 9.1)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ petition by NGO – Locus standi -- None of participated in the tender process and/or could have participated in the tender process have challenged the tender conditions -- Writ petition before the High Court was not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation -- In that view of the matter, it is not appreciable how respondent No.1/ original writ petitioner being an NGO would have any locus standi to maintain the writ petition challenging the tender conditions in the respective RFPs -- Respondent No.1 cannot be said to be an” aggrieved party” – Held, High Court has erred in entertaining the writ petition, ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of locus standi.

(Para 5)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Challenge to Terms of tender – Writ jurisdiction -- Terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide – Terms of the Invitation to Tender are realm of contract -- Government/ tenderer/ tender making authority must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender.

(Para 6)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 9 -- Necessary party -- Necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed by the Court -- if a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Cancellation of Fair Price Dealer – Subsequent allottee – Writ petition -- Necessary party -- Even if a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, he/she still has a right to be heard and to make submissions defending the order of cancellation -- Appellant had been selected by the Tehsil Level Selection Committee in its meeting and thereafter, he was appointed as Fair Price Dealer vide order of the Competent Authority, on a regular basis – Held, appellant was a necessary party to the proceedings before the High Court.

(Para 13-15)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Cancellation of Fair Price Dealer – Concealment of facts – High Court allowed the writ -- Respondent No. 9/ writ petitioner was very well aware that during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant was appointed as a Fair Price Dealer -- Respondent No.9 has not only suppressed the fact about the subsequent allotment of the fair price shop to the appellant but has also tried to mislead the High Court that the fair price shop of respondent No.9 was attached to another fair price shop holder -- Impugned order of the High Court quashed and set aside – Order cancelling the Fair Price Shop licence of respondent No. 9 and order dismissing the appeal of respondent No.9 affirmed.

(Para 16-22)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Regular bail – Parity -- High Court proceeded to grant bail to the respondent No. 2 only for the reason that identically placed co-accused persons had already been granted bail -- Order granting bail to the co-accused met with its strong disapproval by Supreme Court – High Court granted bail to the co-accused while ignoring the relevant considerations and with a mere reference to the mandate of Article 21 -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 12-14, 20)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Regular bail – Custody period – Relevancy of -- Gruesome day-light murder of the son of the appellant with 8 grievous injuries, including those of incise wounds and stab wounds on and around the neck and the chest -- Respondent No. 2 had been in custody since 02.09.2019 or that he had no negative antecedents, by themselves, do not make out a case for grant of bail – Respondent No. 2 has specifically been named in the FIR as one of the assailants; and looking to the nature of the accusations and the nature of injuries, the prosecution case, prima facie, cannot dubbed as fanciful or improbable – Bail by High Court -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 15-20)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Arbitrariness violates Article 14, 16 -- State is bound by the fundamental rights of its employees under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India -- Arbitrariness violates the right to equality under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 12)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, Rule 25(2) – Resignation/ appointment after seeking permission -- Resignation from service may entail forfeiture of past service -- However, sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Rules carves out an exception, clarifies that a resignation with proper permission to take up another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government shall not entail forfeiture of past service -- Respondent was selected through Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the Assistant Director (Agro-Industries), while he was still in service of the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, which is also an entity fully controlled by the State of Rajasthan -- Respondent having retired after working for about 26 years, the Petitioner-State cannot raise the question of proof of prior permission before resignation, more so when the appointment had been made through the RPSC to a Government post -- It is to be deemed that there has been disclosure of past service and the application has been made through proper channel by obtaining the requisite approvals -- It is to be presumed that prior permission had been taken unless the contrary could be established by the State.

(Para 23-26)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay of six years in filing the Writ Petition – Limitation -- Laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Relief being discretionary, the Courts might in their discretion refuse to entertain the Writ Petition, where there is gross delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner, particularly, where the relief sought would, if granted, unsettle things, which are already settled – Pension is a lifelong benefit, denial of pension is a continuing wrong -- Court cannot also be oblivious to the difficulties of a retired employee in approaching the Court, which could include financial constraints.

(Para 26-27)

D. Interpretation of pension rules – It is settled law that when financial rules framed by the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee.

(Para 28)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 73 – Comparison of signatures/ thumb impressions – Validity of documents -- Neither the nomenclature of the document, nor the content of a document, nor the legality, validity, authenticity or veracity of the document is required to be gone into, while making consideration of the prayer for comparison of signature/L.T.I. of two documents.

(Para 35)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 73 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Comparison of signatures/ thumb impressions – Defendants did not admit the purported document produced by the petitioners/ plaintiffs -- Basis of denial of such document is oral assertion only without any supportive evidence -- When the court below upon due discharge of discretion vested to the court has allowed comparison of the two documents, due to the failure of defendants to cause production of original deed, such discretion being lawfully exercised, would not suggest for any revisit of such prayer in aid of a recalling application filed by defendants.

(Para 37)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre and Service) Rules, 1975 -- Superannuation of employees – Retiral and terminal benefits -- In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to go into the question of law as raised by the parties, since all the appellants have superannuated -- Appellants give up their claim for arrears and that they restricted their claim only insofar as the terminal benefits and pension as payable to them – Appeals disposed of with a direction to the respondents to calculate terminal benefits on the basis of the orders passed by the learned CAT dated 26th May 2008 and 7th July, 2010 as the learned CAT order dated 26th May 2008 was not challenged by the respondent-Union of India and has, therefore, attained finality -- Pension would be paid to the appellants w.e.f. 1st January 2023 -- Appellants held entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the terminal benefits payable to them from the date of their superannuation till the date of actual payment.

(Para 9-12)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 -- West Bengal Judicial (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2004 – Appointment / Promotion as District Judge – Direct recruitment – Jump promotes --  Promotion – Right of -- Issuance of Draft gradation list – Challenge to -- Writ Petition, as filed, ought not to have entertained on draft gradation list calling for objections – No error in the administrative decision taken by the High Court in facilitating the issuance of the impugned communication calling for objection on the premise that eligible officers will have to be fitted against the vacancies for the period from 1.10.2004 to 31.12.2008 -- It is the fair acknowledgment on the part of the High Court to redeem the mistake committed in not promoting the officers at the appropriate time -- One cannot withhold the due promotion of the promotes till the date of recruitment of the direct recruits or appointment of the jump promotes -- High Court and the State Government directed to give effect to the impugned draft gradation list insofar as the appellant alone, within a period of 12 weeks.

(Para 10-13)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2), 17 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Insurance claim wrongly transferred by Bank – Default due to wrong Act of Bank -- Plea of -- Challenge to Section 13(2) Notice of SARFAESI Act – Writ jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy – Limitation -- Held, mainly challenged before the High Court was notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition -- Remedy available to the respondents/ loanee was to initiate proceedings u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Respondents relegated to avail the alternative statutory remedy by way of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – When such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits including the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that nothing was due and payable, if the amount received as insurance claim would not have transferred to the Working Capital Account -- Appeal allowed to the aforesaid extent -- If such proceedings are initiated within a period of four weeks, the same be dealt with without raising the dispute with respect to limitation, however, subject to compliance of other requirements under the Act.

(Para 2-6)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 4(b), 6 and 13  – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 7 -- Live-in-relationship of minor girl with boy -- Guardian of minor girl – Writ for Protection of Life and liberty -- Boy does not fall within ambit of Sections 4 and 6 of the 1956 Act -- Petitioners (Boy and girl) have not solemnised the marriage – No material on record to even prima facie satisfy Court with regard to the welfare of the minor -- In writ, it would not be possible to record evidence to the effect that petitioner No. 1 (boy) is acting for the welfare of petitioner No. 2 (girl) and his interest is not adverse to the interest of the minor -- Minor held to be not with her guardians – Petition is filed to be used as a shield against the complaint filed by the family of petitioner No. 2 (girl) -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 2, 6-15)

A. Constitution of India, Article 310, 311 -- Departmental proceedings – Acquittal in criminal case -- Reinstatement in service – Right of -- A departmental proceeding is different from a criminal proceeding -- Fundamental difference between the two is that whereas in a departmental proceeding a delinquent employee can be held guilty on the basis of “preponderance of probabilities”, in a criminal court the prosecution has to prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt” -- The two forums run at different levels -- Merely because a person has been acquitted in a criminal trial, he cannot be ipso facto reinstated in service.

(Para 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 310, 311 -- Departmental proceedings – Acquittal in criminal case – Benefit of doubt -- Reinstatement in service – Right of -- By the impugned order, the Division Bench of High Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge which had allowed the writ petition of the respondent, quashing his dismissal from service – Acquittal of the respondent is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to a “benefit of doubt” – Appeal allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court set aside.

(Para 1, 14)

A. Constitution of India, Article 311(2)(a)(b) -- Termination of employee – Departmental enquiry – FIR -- Mere registration of an FIR would not be sufficient ground to invoke Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India to dispense with holding of a departmental inquiry before dismissing a delinquent employee.

(Para 7)

B. Constitution of India, Article 311(2)(a)(b) -- Termination of employee -- Dispensed with departmental enquiry -- Adequate reasons have to be given in the order of dismissal as to why it would not be reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry.

(Para 7)

C. Constitution of India, Article 311(2)(a)(b) -- Dismissal of employee -- On perusal of impugned order of dismissal, it is apparent that no reasons whatsoever have been recorded to show as to why it is not possible to hold an inquiry -- A mere observation that the conduct of the petitioner is not good for credibility of the police department and he does not deserve to be a good public servant in future, would not satisfy the stringent conditions imposed of giving a reasonable explanation as to why an inquiry cannot be held before dismissing an employee -- Writ petition allowed, impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service set aside.

(Para 8, 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Rajasthan Special Assistance to Disabled Ex-Servicemen and Dependants of Deceased Defence Personnel (Allotment of Lands) Rules, 1963, Rules 2(a), 3, 6, 7 -- Allotment of land to Disabled ex-serviceman – Right of – Internal departmental communication – Reliance upon -- Letter written by the Secretary of the Soldier Welfare Department to the District Collector, on 19.03.1971 for allotment of land -- Rules contemplate that if the possession is not taken within 6 months, the allotment shall be deemed to have been cancelled – Held, firstly, the inter-departmental communication dated 19.03.1971 cannot be treated to be a letter of allotment -- Alternatively, even if it is considered to be a letter of allotment, the writ petitioner could not claim possession on the basis of such communication after more than 30 years in terms of the Rules applicable for allotment of land to the disabled ex-servicemen -- Disabled ex-serviceman had not taken any action for almost 27 years after the so-called letter of allotment during his life time – Writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is wholly misconceived, mischievous with collateral motives -- High Court had gone out of the way to order possession of land which was never proceeded with letter of allotment in favour of the writ petitioner -- Appeal allowed, order passed by the High Court set aside.

(Para 13-18)

A. Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Concurrent finding of conviction – Interference by Supreme Court – Re-appreciation of evidence -- Scope of -- Both the Trial Court and the High Court have agreed in their appreciation of evidence and have arrived at concurrent findings of fact -- Ordinarily, in an appeal by special leave against concurrent findings of fact, Supreme Court would not enter into reappreciation of evidence -- However, if the assessment of the Trial Court and the High Court is vitiated by any error of law or procedure or misreading of evidence or any disregard to the norms of judicial process leading to serious prejudice or injustice, this Court may consider interference in an appropriate case so as to prevent miscarriage of justice.

(Para 13)

B. Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Murder -- Concurrent finding of conviction – Interference by Supreme Court – Re-appreciation of evidence -- Unreasonable behaviour of eye witnesses – Acquittal of accused -- As per the assertion of PW-2 (father) and PW-3 (mother), they had seen their son being assaulted by two persons with weapon -- PW-2 had allegedly fallen unconscious after seeing the blood oozing from the body of his son -- In that situation and scenario, it is difficult to appreciate that these witnesses would go home, take meal and go to bed without bothering about the welfare of their injured son -- This aspect is coupled with the fact that they had allegedly narrated the incident to PW-1 (other son) only when he reached home after having seen the dead body of his brother -- FIR was lodged next day morning at 10 a.m. – Taking all the circumstances into account, testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 could not have been accepted as that of eye-witnesses to the incident from any standpoint – Moreover, PW-4, PW-5, PW-8 and PW-9, who were projected by the prosecution as independent witnesses, did not support the prosecution case at all – Deceased had been brutally assaulted and had received multiple injuries on vital parts but, on the evidence as adduced by the prosecution, it is difficult to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants alone were the authors of such injuries -- Fit case for interference in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court – Appeal allowed -- Appellants acquitted.

(Para 16-22)

C. Criminal trial – Benefit of doubt -- A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense -- When a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

(Para 19)

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (Bombay Act No. III of 1888), Section 353B. 354 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Dilapidated and dangerous condition of building – Demolition and eviction – Right of allottees/ Senior citizen – Writ jurisdiction -- Building constructed in the year 1967 and is about 55 years old -- Once a building completes the prescribed period of life under the statute i.e., 30 years, a structural audit is required to be carried out for certifying its stability and safety for human dwelling mandatorily under the provisions of Section 353B of the 1888 Act -- Structure audit report dated 29.07.2014 of the building in question has found it to be dangerous for human dwelling and also for the passers-by – A notice u/s 354 of the MMC Act was issued in respect of the whole building which has been identified as dilapidated and dangerous.

– Merely because the Municipal Corporation is a party to the proceedings initiated by the appellants with regard to alterations made in the flat existing in the dilapidated building will not mean that the Municipal Corporation cannot carry out an audit of the structure as a whole, as mandated by law, to judge the stability and safety.

-- Rights of the appellants in the flat owned by them in the building in question is an independent right and the demolition of the building nowhere would affect that independent right.

-- Building in question is in a ruinous condition and needs to be repaired at the earliest for the simple reason that it is unsafe for human habitation -- Satisfaction recorded by the Municipal Commissioner is in accordance with the due procedure prescribed by law and is not vitiated by any perversity or any illegality, there exists no ground to interfere with the impugned notices.

-- Merely because the appellants are senior citizens, does not impel Court to take any lenient view in the matter in larger public interest particularly when the private interests of the appellants have been amply safeguarded.

Judicial notice can be taken of various media reports reporting collapse of many old structures in Mumbai causing serious loss of human lives and limbs -- By making interference of any sort in the matter at the behest of the appellants, in the existing facts and circumstances, Court would not only be putting the life of the appellants and other residents of the building in jeopardy, but also hazarding the life and limb of the general public as well -- Held, High Court has rightly dismissed the challenge laid to the impugned notices of demolition and eviction -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 14-24)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 21, 22 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 -- Two FIRs – Quashing of Second FIR – Abuse of process of law -- Second FIR nearly four years after the first FIR – Multiple FIR by the same person against the same accused for same set of facts and allegations is nothing but abuse of the process of law -- Act of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India – Appeal must succeed, FIR, charge sheet and the summoning order quashed and set aside.

(Para 11-13)

Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Overflooding of Ghaggar basin to the detriment of 25 villages – Remained unresolved for last many years – Solution to flood problem -- Measures suggested by CWPRS, Pune in its report that :

i. Short term measures, recommended in case 2(d), which involves widening of river from 60m-90m at some feasible reaches along with limiting water level rise to 2 m at both banks by constructing embankments, in model study report is an optimal solution and needs to be adopted by State Govts.

ii. State Governments may act appropriately and in time bound manner as per the recommendations made in the final model study report by CWPRS, Pune.

Direction given to concerned States to take appropriate steps in terms of the recommendations made in the final Model Study Report submitted by CWPRS, Pune and to take all corrective measures as suggested/recommended – There shall be periodical meetings every four weeks of the concerned stakeholders to discuss the progress on implementation of the recommendations – Ghaggar Standing Committee to send a report after receiving all further information from the concerned States on implementation of the recommendations every three months to the Central Water Commission and in turn the Central Water Commission to submit the report before Supreme Court.

(Para 1-4)

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25F, 25FFA – Closure of business -- Bonafide of Management -- Retrenchment of employees -- Re-employment thereafter – Continuity of service with backwages – Right of -- 55 drivers/employee went on strike over claiming pay hike and permanency of casual employees -- Soon after employees joined services, appellant through individual letters ‘retrenched’ the services of all 55 employees, on the ground of closure of business – Later, appellant started offering re-employment to all employees on new terms and conditions – Retrenchment of all drivers followed by an offer of re-employment on new terms and conditions was not bona fide -- Once the orders of retrenchment set aside, the workmen naturally became entitled to continuity of service with order of back wages.

(Para 15, 16)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25F, 25FFA –Constitution of India, Article 136 – Closure of business -- Retrenchment of employees -- Setting aside of -- Backwages – Right of -- Whether award of 75% back-wages to employees was justified, after their retrenchment orders were set aside – Tribunal has considered the matter in detail and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence directed reinstatement of the employees with only 75% back wages -- Whether a workman was gainfully employed or not is a question of fact, and the finding of the Tribunal as upheld by the High Court, cannot be interfered with by the Supreme Court in exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 18)

A. Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), Section 77 – Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995, Regulation 3, 5, 6 -- Commercial transaction – Criminal proceedings against large incorporates -- Initiation of criminal action in commercial transactions, should take place with a lot of circumspection and the Courts ought to act as gate keepers for the same -- Initiating frivolous criminal actions against large corporations, would give rise to adverse economic consequences for the country in the long run -- Therefore, the Regulator must be cautious in initiating such an action and carefully weigh each factor.

(Para 29)

B. Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), Section 77 – Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995, Regulation 3, 5, 6 -- Constitution of India, Article 14 – Action against company – Duty of SEBI -- Rule of natural justice -- SEBI is a regulator and has a duty to act fairly, while conducting proceedings or initiating any action against the parties -- Being a quasi-judicial body, the constitutional mandate of SEBI is to act fairly, in accordance with the rules prescribed by law -- Duty to act fairly by SEBI, is inextricably tied with the principles of natural justice, wherein a party cannot be condemned without having been given an adequate opportunity to defend itself.

(Para 42, 43)

C. Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), Section 77 – Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995, Regulation 3, 5, 6 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 207 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 129 – Non-supply of documents, reports, Legal opinion, Fact finding investigation by SEBI -- Impugned action of the appellant hails back to the year 1994 -- Investigation report by SEBI in 2005 was inconclusive about the alleged offence -- Minister of Corporate Affairs, Union of India recommended closure of the case – SEBI’s action to initiate a criminal complaint without providing the appellant an adequate opportunity to defend itself by releasing necessary Reports and other documents, cannot be appreciated -- Respondents relied on litigation privilege u/s 129 of the Evidence Act, 1872 -- Simple test in this case is whether SEBI has launched the prosecution on the basis of the investigation report alone -- Answer seems to be ‘No’ by SEBI’s own admission -- That being the case, further Reports and opinions obtained, from whomsoever it may be, are only an extension of the investigation to help SEBI as a Regulator to ascertain the facts and reach conclusions for prosecution or otherwise – Defence taken by SEBI that they need not disclose any documents at this stage as such a request is premature in terms of the CrPC, cannot be sustained -- SEBI could not have claimed privilege over certain parts of the documents and at the same time, agreeing to disclose some part -- Such selective disclosure cannot be countenanced in law as it clearly amounts to cherry-picking -- Appeal allowed, direction given to SEBI to furnish a copy of documents to the appellant forthwith.

(Para 45-59)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 33C(2) – Constitution of India, Article  226, 227 -- Labour law -- Recovery of wages – Writ Court’s duty -- Labour Court rejected application u/s 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 preferred by the workman – Ld. Single Judge without any discussion and/or recording any specific findings on the merits of the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the 33(C)(2) application, allowed the writ petition – Held, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the writ petition preferred by the workman on merits and ought to have given some findings on the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the 33(C)(2) application -- Impugned judgment and order quashed and set aside -- Matter remitted back to the learned Single Judge to decide Writ Petition afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.

(Para 2.1, 4.2, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 – Recruitment of driver – Long pendency of petition – Changed circumstances – Compensation in lieu of appointment -- High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to appoint the private respondent/ original petitioner as Driver with seniority as per his merit position without any back wages – Initial recruitment 14 year back – At present no post of driver available -- All the subsequent appointments are now being made on contractual basis and through contractors -- As on today, the age of the respondent No.1 would be approximately 49 years -- Retirement age of the driver is reported to be 55 years -- If the respondent No.1 is to be appointed now as driver, he will have to clear the driving test to drive the bus on the road – Held, at this stage, the actual appointment of respondent No.1 is not possible -- Rs.7.5 lakhs awarded as compensation with 6 per cent interest from September, 2013 onwards till the actual payment.

(Para 2-5)