Judicial Review – Academic Matters – Articles 226 & 227, Constitution of India – Dismissed – Courts and Tribunals in writ jurisdiction do not re-assess answer keys or academic judgments of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) unless decision-making is vitiated by patent illegality or arbitrariness – Judicial interference is rare, for material error, especially where re-evaluation rules are absent – Academic matters are for academic authorities, courts lack expertise – Correctness of evaluation presumed, benefit of doubt to examining authority – Judicial review in technical/multi-disciplinary exams is strictly circumscribed – Intervention only for clear error of law, patent arbitrariness, or manifest procedural impropriety – High Court upheld Tribunal's non-interference with SSC's CGLE 2024 evaluation, finding no patent illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety [Paras 15-22, 32].

Competitive Examinations – Grace Marks/Bonus Marks – Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE), 2024 – Upheld (with observations) – Uniform grant of grace marks for 22 questions to all candidates, including non-attempters or incorrect answerers, deviates seriously from competitive merit and procedural fairness – This magnitude of revisions indicates systemic lapse in question paper framing, vetting, and answer key finalisation, including translation parity issues – Policy of extending benefit for invalid questions has discernible logic to mitigate unintended prejudice but must be an exception, not masking systemic deficiencies – Rationale for uniform marks for incorrect/ambiguous/multiple correct answers' questions cannot be entirely rejected, as discerning candidates might avoid doubtful questions due to negative marking – Court acknowledged petitioners' instances of typographical errors where correct options were deducible but held that once examining authority, based on expert opinion, treated questions as ambiguous and adopted uniform moderation, court cannot substitute its own assessment for SMEs' [Paras 9, 23, 25, 27].

Examination Procedure – Final Answer Key – Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE), 2024 – Upheld (with observations) – Declaring final results before final answer key publication insulated SSC's decision-making from timely scrutiny, creating a fait accompli and shielding systemic errors – This reflects casualness and lack of rigour – Though not pressed before Tribunal, the anomaly where a candidate attempting correctly in one language suffers due to defects in another, while non-attempters benefit, highlights need for clear, consistent, transparent policies for ambiguous/defective questions – Court expects SSC to adopt circumspect and systematic approach in framing, vetting, and finalising question papers and answer keys, and institutionalise clear, transparent policy for addressing ambiguities and objections to enhance credibility and reduce litigation [Paras 28, 30, 31].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned Orders are upheld – All pending applications also stand disposed of [Paras 34, 35].

Gangster Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Solitary Base Case – Validity of Gang Chart – Application under Section 528 BNSS filed seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act, including charge-sheet and cognizance order – Applicant contended that initiation of Gangster Act proceedings on the basis of a solitary case was impermissible and contrary to the Gangster Rules, 2021 – Held: In view of Rule 22 of the Gangster Rules, 2021 and law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P., Gangster Act can be invoked even on the basis of a single case – No illegality found on this ground [Paras 4, 10, 28–29].

Gang Chart – Compliance with Rule 5(3) – Joint Meeting and Satisfaction of Authorities – Challenge raised on the ground that gang chart was approved without due discussion and joint meeting – Court found that gang chart was prepared and approved on 21.09.2024 after completion of investigation of the base case and after a joint meeting – Satisfaction of forwarding and approving authorities recorded in their own handwriting – Held: Requirements of Rule 5(3)(a) and Rule 16 duly complied with – Case distinguishable from Sanni Mishra, Mohd. Arif @ Guddu and Vinod Bihari Lal [Paras 7–9, 13, 18].

Rule 5(3)(c) – Completion of Investigation of Base Case – Applicant contended that gang chart was approved prior to completion of investigation of the base case – Court noted that charge-sheet in the base case was prepared on 20.09.2024 and gang chart was prepared on 21.09.2024 – Held: Statutory requirement that investigation must be completed prior to approval of gang chart was fully satisfied – No violation of Rule 5(3)(c) [Paras 3, 8, 21].

Rule 8(2) – Allegation of False or Unconfirmed Information – Submission that unverified and false information was entered in the gang chart – Applicant failed to point out any specific false entry – Court held that status of base case and relevant particulars were correctly mentioned – No violation of Rule 8(2) established [Paras 9, 16, 26].

Rule 10 – Requirement of Certified Copy of Charge-Sheet – Argument that certified copy of charge-sheet was not annexed with the gang chart – Court relying on Ambuj Parag Dubey and Narendra Kumar held that Rule 10 does not require a certified copy issued by the court – Copy of charge-sheet prepared and certified by the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation is sufficient – Held: No violation of Rule 10(1) [Paras 9, 21–25].

Rule 16 & Rule 17 – Independent Application of Mind – Applicant alleged mechanical approval of gang chart – Court found that authorities recorded satisfaction independently and not by signing a pre-printed proforma – Held: Mandatory requirement of independent application of mind under Rules 16 and 17 complied with [Paras 13, 18, 29].

Scope of Interference under Section 528 BNSS – Court reiterated that at the stage of quashing, it cannot undertake a roving enquiry into sufficiency of evidence – Once statutory procedure under the Gangster Act and Rules is followed, proceedings cannot be quashed merely on technical objections – Application held devoid of merit [Paras 11, 29–30].

Decision: Application dismissed – Proceedings under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act upheld – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Cause of Action – Court reiterated that while considering an application for rejection of plaint, it must confine itself strictly to the averments in the plaint and documents relied upon therein – Test is whether on a plain and meaningful reading, the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendant seeking rejection – Plaint can be rejected partially against some defendants while surviving against others [Paras 1, 14, 18(A), 18(G)].

Company Law – Directors – Personal Liability – Separate Corporate Personality – Mere designation as director or nominee director does not ipso facto render a director personally liable for acts or contractual obligations of the company – In absence of pleadings showing personal role, benefit, statutory liability, or grounds for lifting the corporate veil, no cause of action lies against directors [Paras 11, 12, 18(D), 18(E)].

Pleadings – Omnibus Allegations – Use of Generic Expression “Defendants” – Plaint making sweeping and omnibus allegations without attributing specific acts, omissions, or roles to individual defendants held insufficient – Use of generic expression “the Defendants” without individualized pleadings fails to disclose cause of action against directors [Paras 10, 18(B)].

Fraud and Collusion – Pleading Requirements – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Allegations of fraud, collusion, or conspiracy must be pleaded with material particulars – Bald and vague allegations without specific particulars do not meet statutory pleading standards and cannot sustain impleadment of directors [Paras 10, 18(E)].

Order VII Rule 11 – Scope of Enquiry – Affidavit in Reply Irrelevant – Plaintiff cannot rely on averments in affidavit-in-reply to cure defects in plaint – Cause of action must be disclosed in the plaint itself – Material outside the plaint cannot be considered while deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 13, 17, 18(F)].

Nominee Directors – Impleadment Without Averments – Nominee directors impleaded solely on basis of designation without any pleaded involvement or wrongdoing – Held that plaint was entirely bereft of any allegation against Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 – Plaint rejected as against them [Paras 3–9, 16, 18(B), 18(C)].

Decision: All Notices of Motion allowed – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as against Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 – Suit to proceed only against remaining defendants – Consequential Notice of Motion disposed of as infructuous [Paras 19–20].

Service Tax – Legal Services by Advocate – Exemption – Individual advocate rendered legal services to partnership firm of advocates – Order-in-Original confirmed service tax demand on alleged mismatch between ITR and ST-3 returns – Held, in view of Notification No.25/2012-ST and Notification No.30/2012-ST, services provided by individual advocate to another advocate or firm of advocates exempt / taxable under reverse charge with Nil liability on service provider – Levy on individual advocate without jurisdiction – Impugned order quashed [Paras 7-8].

Jurisdictional Error – Binding Notifications Ignored – Designated Officer failed to consider statutory notifications exempting legal services by advocates – Action contrary to binding exemption notifications – Proceedings held to be without jurisdiction – No remand necessary [Paras 7, 9].

Recovery Proceedings – Section 87 Finance Act – Bank Account Lien – Recovery notice issued and lien created on petitioner’s bank accounts pursuant to invalid demand – Consequential recovery action liable to be set aside upon quashing of demand order [Paras 3-4, 9].

Natural Justice – Non-service of Show Cause Notice – SCN and hearing notices sent to old address – Petitioner unaware of proceedings – However, petition allowed on foundational jurisdictional issue of non-leviability – Court did not deem remand necessary in light of clear legal position [Paras 4-5, 7].

Precedent – Advocate Pooja Patil v. Deputy Commissioner, CGST – Similar levy on individual advocate set aside – Present case squarely covered by said decision – Notifications dated 20.06.2012 clearly exempt legal services provided by individual advocate to firm of advocates – Petition allowed [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order-in-Original dated 15.03.2023, Recovery Notice dated 31.10.2025 and Show Cause Notice dated 27.10.2021 quashed and set aside – No costs.

Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof – Revenue Records – Plaintiff relied primarily on kist receipts (Exs.A3 to A15) and mutation entries to establish ancestral title – Patta and chitta not produced – No proof of alleged partitions between plaintiff’s father and uncle or between plaintiff and his brothers – Courts below decreed suit mainly on failure of defendants to prove title – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiff must independently prove his title by clear and cogent evidence and cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case – Revenue records and kist receipts do not confer title – Findings of Courts below held perverse and contrary to settled law [Paras 34–37, 42–45, 50(i), (iv)].

Ex Parte Decree – Restitution – Retention of Benefit – Plaintiff obtained ex parte decree and took delivery in execution on 25.01.1985 – Ex parte decree set aside on 20.03.1991 – Courts below granted injunction relying heavily on delivery taken pursuant to ex parte decree – Held: Once ex parte decree is set aside, parties are restored to original position – Plaintiff cannot retain benefit obtained under decree which ceases to exist – Section 144 CPC embodies principle of restitution ex debito justitiae – Reliance on delivery pursuant to nullified decree held erroneous and perverse [Paras 32–33, 50(iii)].

Delivery of Possession – Presumption of Official Acts – Plea of Paper Delivery – Court officer’s report of delivery attracts presumption under Section 114 Evidence Act that official acts are regularly performed – Such presumption rebuttable only by specific plea of fraud complying with Order VI Rule 4 CPC – No such plea raised by defendants – Plea of paper delivery rejected – However, benefit of delivery lost upon setting aside of ex parte decree [Paras 28–29].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings – Interference Permissible – Though High Court ordinarily does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact, interference warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, ignore material evidence, or proceed on fundamental errors of law – Present case falls within such exceptions [Paras 26–27].

Transfer of Property – Better Title – Nemo Dat Principle – Defendant relied on Ex.B1 and Ex.B2/Ex.B3 to claim title through Sanjeeviraya Reddy – Parent deed (Ex.B1) did not cover suit survey numbers – Will not proved in accordance with law – Held: One cannot transfer better title than one possesses – Defendant also failed to establish better title – Neither party proved exclusive title – Plaintiff left to seek partition if so advised [Paras 46–48, 49].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court in OS.No.575 of 1983 dated 30.06.1994 and First Appellate Court in AS.No.71 of 1994 dated 13.11.1998 set aside – Suit dismissed – Trial Court directed to ensure re-delivery of property to third defendant in view of setting aside of ex parte decree – Liberty reserved to plaintiff to file properly framed suit for partition – No order as to costs [Paras 50–51].

Public Procurement – GeM Tender – One Bid Per Bidder Clause – Common Independent Director – Petitioner disqualified as one Independent Director was common in petitioner-company and another bidder – Held: Term “Director” in Clause 29 does not include “Independent Director” – Independent Director occupies distinct statutory position under Companies Act, 2013 – Disqualification unsustainable [Paras 23–27].

Companies Act, 2013 – Independent Director – Distinct Statutory Framework – Sections 2(47), 149(6), 149(12) provide special qualifications, independence criteria and limited liability – Independent Director neither involved in day-to-day management nor holds pecuniary interest – Cannot be equated with Managing/Whole-time/Executive Director [Paras 13–17, 21].

Vicarious Liability – Role-Based Responsibility – Supreme Court precedents (SMS Pharmaceuticals; National Small Industries; Sunita Palita; K.S. Mehta) reiterate that liability depends on role in conduct of business, not designation alone – Independent/Non-executive Directors not liable absent specific involvement – Reinforces distinction for interpreting procurement clauses [Paras 18–20].

Interpretation of Tender Conditions – Harmonious Construction – Clause 29 of GeM GTC to be read with Clause 24 (Allied Firms) – Object is to prevent multiple bids by entities under common control/management – Independent Director without shareholding or managerial control does not constitute “common management” or “majority interest” [Paras 24–26].

Procurement Law – Object of “One Bid per Bidder” – Intended to prevent cartelisation or multiple bids by related concerns under effective control – Mere presence of common Independent Director without controlling interest does not attract disqualification [Paras 23, 26].

Clarification by Department of Expenditure – Term “Independent Director” not mentioned in definition of Allied Firms – No authoritative inclusion of Independent Director within scope of “Director” for such purpose – Court proceeds on statutory scheme of Companies Act [Paras 10–11].

GeM Portal – Role as Intermediary – Respondent No.2 (GeM) acts as neutral digital platform – Procuring entity solely responsible for bid evaluation and disqualification – No substantive role in impugned action [Paras 9.2–9.4].

Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Where disqualification based on erroneous interpretation of tender clause contrary to statutory framework, writ court justified in interference [Paras 27–28].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned technical disqualification communications dated 12.12.2025 quashed and set aside – Respondent No.1 directed to consider petitioner’s bids along with other bidders in accordance with tender conditions – Rule made absolute – No order as to costs.

NDPS Act – Supurdnama of Seized Vehicle – Owner-cum-Driver Accused – Joint Possession of Contraband – Refusal of Interim Custody Justified – Applicant sought interim release of Pick-up vehicle seized in Crime No.397/2025 registered under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act – Vehicle registered in applicant’s name and contraband (18 kg 600 gms ganja) recovered from joint possession of applicant and co-accused – Applicant arrayed as accused and also driver of vehicle – Held: Case falls within first/second category of seizure where owner/driver is accused – Vehicle cannot be released till reverse burden is discharged – Order rejecting Supurdnama not perverse [Paras 9–12, 16–19].

Supreme Court Guidelines – Bishwajit Dey / Denash Case – No Straight-Jacket Formula – Facts Distinguishable – Supreme Court held that release of vehicle depends on factual matrix and is not automatic – In Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu, vehicle released as owner was not accused and contraband carried without owner’s knowledge along with lawful cargo – In present case, owner himself was driving vehicle and no other lawful cargo was being carried – Held: Benefit of Denash judgment not applicable [Paras 13–17].

Section 451 CrPC – Discretion of Trial Court – Limited Scope of Revisional Interference – Interim custody of seized property is discretionary – Revisional Court will interfere only if order is arbitrary or perverse – Trial court considered nature of offence, role of accused and seizure circumstances – Held: No perversity or illegality warranting interference [Paras 8, 19].

NDPS Offences – Reverse Burden of Proof – Impact on Release of Conveyance – Where owner is directly involved in transportation of contraband, presumption under NDPS Act operates – Vehicle forms part of offence and may be liable for confiscation – Held: Release at interim stage would defeat statutory scheme [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order dated 31.12.2025 rejecting Supurdnama application affirmed – No interference warranted.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 69 – Sexual Intercourse on False Promise of Marriage – Accused married man allegedly concealed marital status and induced victim through social media – Repeated sexual relations resulting in pregnancy – Allegation of deceit from inception – Held: Prima facie ingredients of Section 69 BNS disclosed – Whether victim knew about marital status is matter of trial – Proceedings cannot be quashed at threshold [Paras 11, 13, 17].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Promise to Marry – Distinction between false promise made without intention to fulfil and breach of promise made in good faith – Court reiterates principle laid down in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar – Allegation that accused, being already married, knew promise to marry could not be fulfilled – Prima facie case of deceitful means made out – Issue of voluntariness of consent to be examined during trial [Paras 13, 17].

Section 528 BNSS – Scope of Inherent Jurisdiction – Quashing of Charge-sheet – Power to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases – At stage of quashing, Court only to see prima facie material and not conduct mini trial – Where FIR, statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and medical record disclose commission of cognizable offences – Interference not warranted – Reliance placed on Bhajan Lal and other precedents [Paras 10, 18].

Criminal Intimidation and Hurt – Co-accused – Allegations of threats, pressure for compromise and intimidation by wife, sister and brother-in-law of main accused – Specific allegations present in FIR and statements – Matter requires evidence – Proceedings against co-accused also not liable to be quashed at this stage [Paras 2, 11.7, 17].

Distinguishing Precedents – Judgments in Amol Bhagwan Nehul, Mahesh Damu Khare and Uday held inapplicable on facts – Present case involves allegation of deceit from inception by married accused and repeated exploitation – Factual matrix materially different [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Application under Section 528 BNSS dismissed – Charge-sheet dated 22.07.2025, summoning order dated 26.08.2025 and proceedings of Case No. 554 of 2025 (State v. Vipin Kumar and others) upheld – Trial to proceed in accordance with law.

Service Law – Promotion – Relaxation of Qualification – Seniority in Feeder Cadre – Petitioner and private respondents promoted as Section Officers – Educational qualification of graduation relaxed in favour of respondents by Hon’ble Chief Justice under Rule 6 – Upon regularisation, seniority fixed on basis of inter se seniority in lower cadre and not educational qualification – Held: Relaxation of qualification was lawful and once granted, respondents could not be treated differently – Seniority correctly determined – No right accrued to petitioner to supersede seniors merely on basis of qualification [Paras 7, 12–14].

Service Cadre – Acceptance of Promotion – Estoppel Against Change of Cadre – Petitioner promoted as Reader (equivalent grade to Assistant Registrar-II) and accepted appointment without protest – Later sought redesignation as Assistant Registrar-II and consequential promotions on ground of better promotional avenues – Held: Employee cannot seek change of cadre at his sweet will after accepting promotion – Having derived benefit of post of Reader, petitioner estopped from claiming retrospective placement in different cadre – Administrative authority justified in rejecting request [Paras 10–15].

Retrospective Promotion – Challenge to Promotion of Seniors – Only one vacancy of Assistant Registrar-II available – Same offered to senior-most Section Officer – Petitioner neither challenged promotion at relevant time nor succeeded in earlier representations – Subsequent grievance arose only when respondents secured further promotion – Held: No arbitrariness or illegality in promoting seniors in relaxation of qualification already granted – Petition devoid of merit [Paras 9, 13–14].

Reader Post – Qualification of LLB – Earlier litigation held LLB as minimum qualification for Reader and directed remedial measures – However, appointments not quashed – Petitioner allowed to continue as Reader till superannuation – Held: No consequential right accrued to seek redesignation as Assistant Registrar-II merely because of observations in earlier judgment [Paras 2, 11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No merit in claim for retrospective appointment as Assistant Registrar-II or for consequential promotion and seniority – Order speaking and reportable.