Public Service Commission – Scaling of Marks – Validity of Scaling Formula in Exams with Optional Papers – RPSC adopted scaling method in optional subjects of competitive exam for Forest Services after finding wide subject-wise variation in difficulty index and mean marks – Appellants contended that scaling was not authorized under the 1962 and 2015 Rules and yielded arbitrary and absurd results – Held: Scaling necessary to ensure uniformity and fairness in evaluation when different optional subjects are involved – Expert Committee analyzed statistical data before recommending scaling formula – No arbitrariness or mala fides found in process – Scaling limited only to optional subjects and not applied to compulsory ones [Paras 1–4, 11–13, 31, 36].

Recruitment Rules – Interpretation of “Marks Obtained” – Scaled Marks vs. Raw Marks – Petitioners argued that scaling violated Rule 29 of the 2015 Rules, which prohibits re-evaluation – Court held that “marks obtained” includes scaled marks and scaling is distinct from re-evaluation – Scaling is part of the evaluation process and is not barred by the Rules – Application of scaling found to be within the implied powers of the Commission [Paras 32–34].

Precedent – Consistency of Judicial View – Stare Decisis – Court reaffirmed settled position in Jai Singh, Chandu Parihar, and Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal that scaling in exams involving optional subjects is valid – Rejected appellants’ reliance on Sanjay Singh case, holding it inapplicable since it pertained to exams with only compulsory subjects – Held: No change in facts or law to justify deviation from consistent precedent upholding scaling [Paras 26–28, 37–38].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality and Fairness in Competitive Examinations – Without scaling, candidates choosing difficult subjects would be unfairly disadvantaged – Scaling ensures uniformity across subjects of differing difficulty levels – Held: Use of scaling promotes objectivity, fairness, and does not violate Article 14 – No arbitrariness or unequal treatment established [Paras 29–30, 40].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge upheld – Scaling formula adopted by RPSC found to be fair, rational, and legally sustainable – No costs imposed – Pending applications disposed [Paras 39–41].

Criminal Law - Forgery – Wills – Civil Dispute Converted into Criminal Case – Criminal complaint filed alleging will dated 17.3.2015 is forged and used to claim property – Discharge sought on ground that genuineness of both wills (dated 17.3.2015 and 11.1.2017) already sub judice in civil suit filed in 2017 – FIR filed in 2019 as retaliatory measure – Held: Allegations raise disputed questions of title and ownership – No prima facie case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 or 120-B IPC – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process [Paras 5, 8, 14, 21–26]

Criminal Revision – Discharge – Jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC – Trial court refused discharge – High Court held that when allegations are entirely civil in nature and issues are pending adjudication in civil court, criminal prosecution must not proceed – Reliance placed on Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and Urmila Devi v. Balram – Power to discharge should be exercised to prevent misuse of criminal process [Paras 18, 19, 25]

Misuse of Criminal Law – FIR Against Deceased Person – FIR lodged against one Shamsher Singh who had died months prior to the complaint – Court held this indicated malice and misuse of process – Further strengthens case for discharge [Para 24]

Probate and Will Dispute – No Final Adjudication – Probate petition for will dated 17.3.2015 was dismissed in default and not on merits – Pending civil suit to determine genuineness of rival wills – Until civil court decides validity, treating will as forged is premature [Paras 13, 22]

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 6.1.2025 set aside – Revisionists discharged from proceedings – Trial against co-accused Sushil Narula to continue as per law [Paras 26–27]

Family Law – Custody of Minor Children – Split Custody – Welfare of Child Paramount – Preference of Minor Considered – Family Court granted custody of elder daughter to mother and younger son to father – Appellant-mother sought custody of both children to restore sibling bond – Held: Both parents are educated and financially stable; minor son (aged 11) has lived with father and paternal grandmother for 7 years and expressed genuine, independent desire to continue in same environment – No indication of coaching or adverse conditions – Court found no compelling reason to alter settled custody arrangement, especially where change could disrupt child’s emotional equilibrium and academic stability [Paras 1–3, 6–7, 15–17].

Child Custody – Preference of Child – Emotional Bonding and Continuity – Court interacted with both siblings – Son displayed strong attachment to father and grandmother and showed comfort in present routine – Although emotional bond with sister existed, frequent interaction was minimal due to years of separation – Court observed absence of hostility but also absence of shared day-to-day life – Held: Disruption of established bond with current caregiver not warranted solely to reunite siblings [Paras 6–9, 15–16].

Custody Jurisprudence – Allegations Between Parents Not Determinative – Welfare Principle Supersedes Fault-Based Arguments – Appellant cited father’s alleged misconduct, alcohol use, and discriminatory parenting – Family Court found such allegations either unproven or not materially affecting welfare of minor son – Court reiterated settled principle that child custody determination must transcend mutual recriminations between parties and focus only on child’s best interest [Paras 10.4, 13–14, 17].

Visitation Rights – Parental Cooperation Essential – Possibility of Future Modification Not Barred – Court upheld existing arrangement but emphasized that child welfare is dynamic – Directed both parties to maintain cordial interaction and ensure continuity in sibling relationship through visitation – Liberty granted to approach competent court for modification upon substantial change in circumstances [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 18.09.2023 upheld – Custody of minor son to remain with father and minor daughter with mother – Existing visitation rights of mother to continue – No costs [Paras 19–21].

Prevention of Money Laundering – Search and Seizure – Applicability of Section 17 PMLA – Complaint Against Co-Accused – Search Valid – ED conducted search under Section 17 PMLA at respondent’s premises on 09.02.2016 recovering ₹26.30 lakhs, laptop and other devices – Respondent not named in original 2011 prosecution complaint but allegedly facilitated main accused Hassan Ali Khan in obtaining forged passport and opening foreign account – Tribunal wrongly held search invalid for want of complaint against respondent – Held: Section 17 only requires prior institution of complaint or report under Section 157 CrPC, not necessarily against the same person whose premises is searched – Search based on “reason to believe” and linked to ongoing proceedings against co-accused held valid [Paras 19, 29, 34–38, 41].

Criminal Law – Money Laundering – Applicability of Retention and Attachment Provisions – Sections 5 vs. 17 PMLA – Retention was under Section 17(4) PMLA, not under Section 5 – Distinction clarified: Section 5 applies when ED believes person possesses proceeds of crime and may conceal it, requiring prior complaint/report under Section 173 CrPC – Section 17 applies to broader categories including possession of related records and allows search based on report under Section 157 CrPC – Tribunal erred in applying incorrect legal standard [Paras 24–30, 37].

Due Process – Tribunal’s Reasoning Based on Unraised Grounds – Procedural Impropriety – Remand Ordered – Tribunal allowed appeal on ground that no complaint was filed against respondent, though such contention was not raised before it – Respondent’s actual plea was that seizure had no nexus with any proceeds of crime and that ED failed to rebut his explanation of legitimate income – Held: Tribunal misdirected itself by deciding on an unargued issue – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication with liberty to respondent to raise all contentions [Paras 19, 23, 33, 43–45].

Supplementary Complaint – Effect of Respondent’s Death – No Impact on Validity of Search – Respondent died during pendency of appeal; his legal heir impleaded – Though ED failed to mention this fact in supplementary complaint filed later, Court held it has no bearing on legality of search conducted prior to his death or on retention proceedings under challenge [Paras 16, 20, 42].

Decision: Impugned order of Appellate Tribunal dated 21.05.2019 set aside – Appeal remanded for fresh decision by Tribunal in accordance with law – Parties granted opportunity to raise all relevant contentions – Appeal disposed accordingly [Paras 45–46].

Civil Law – Injunction Suit – Suppression of Material Facts – Non-specification of Suit Land – Plaintiff described suit land by khasra number, area and location – Evidence of parties and witnesses clearly identified the suit land – Held: Mere absence of boundary description not fatal when parties are aware of identity of land – No suppression of material facts established – Suit maintainable [Paras 11–16].

Property Law – Transfer of Immovable Property – Section 138, J&K Transfer of Property Act – Mandatory Requirement of Written and Registered Instrument – Defendant claimed possession based on alleged transfer from daughters of plaintiff – No registered sale deed or legal instrument produced – Held: Transfer without compliance with Section 138 is void and confers no right of ownership or lawful possession [Paras 18–21].

Property Law – Possession Follows Title – Illegal Possession – Defendant admittedly purchased land only from daughters of plaintiff – Vendor cannot convey better title than he possesses – Plaintiff never executed any transfer deed – Held: Defendant’s possession, if any, without lawful title amounts to trespass and cannot defeat lawful owner’s claim [Paras 15, 18–23].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Reversal of Findings of Fact – First Appellate Court set aside Trial Court decree without appreciating statutory mandate of Section 138 – Erroneously vested ownership and possession in defendant without documentary title – Held: Interference with Trial Court’s well-reasoned findings was perverse and unsustainable in law [Paras 21–24].

Civil Law – Permanent Prohibitory Injunction – Plaintiff Established Ownership and Lawful Possession through Revenue Records and Oral Evidence – Defendant failed to establish any legal right to possess suit land – Trial Court decree rightly granted injunction restraining interference – Restoration of Trial Court decree justified [Paras 22–25].

Decision: Civil Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting permanent prohibitory injunction restored – Suit of the plaintiff decreed – Registry directed to prepare decree sheet.

Election Law – Impleadment in Interlocutory Applications – Application by respondent No.1 in election petition seeking impleadment of respondent No.2 as opposite party in three pending IAs relating to dismissal of election petition – Held: Election petitioner had not claimed any relief against respondent No.2 – Respondent No.2 neither a necessary nor proper party for adjudication of pending IAs – Petition for impleadment rejected as not maintainable under Rule 27(a) of Orissa High Court Rules [Paras 1, 4, 7, 10–12]

Court Procedure – Rule 27(a) of Orissa High Court Rules – Interim Relief – Separate Applications – Rule mandates that a separate petition must be filed for each interlocutory relief – Filing of single I.A. seeking impleadment in multiple pending I.As. not permissible – I.A. No.93 of 2025 dismissed as contrary to procedural rules [Paras 5–7]

CPC – Non-Applicability of Order 1 Rule 10 to Election Proceedings – Court held that power of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC cannot be exercised in election petitions governed by specific provisions of the R.P. Act, 1951 – Reiterated Supreme Court’s view that general CPC provisions cannot override special statute [Paras 8, 11]

Election Law – Scope of Participation – No Right to Participate in IAs – Respondent No.2, not being a contesting party in the interlocutory applications, held to have no legal standing to participate – Mere impleadment in main election petition does not warrant involvement in interim applications filed prior to such impleadment [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Interlocutory Application No.93 of 2025 dismissed on contest – Held not maintainable in law – No merit found in prayer for impleadment – Separate IAs required for separate interlocutory reliefs under Rule 27(a) – No role demonstrated for respondent No.2 in pending IAs – Petition disposed of finally [Paras 11–12]

Civil Law – Temporary Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Balance of Convenience – Irreparable Injury – Rejection Upheld – Appellants filed suit for declaration and possession claiming title through registered sale deed of 1957 – Sought injunction against construction over suit property allegedly by temple trust – Trial court found no prima facie case, no irreparable loss, and no balance of convenience – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove continued possession or identity of suit land – Delay of nearly 70 years and admission in affidavit regarding lack of knowledge of title belied their claim – No interference warranted with trial court's discretion [Paras 10, 20-22, 24]

Property Dispute – Identity of Suit Property – Revenue Records vs. Sale Deed – Conflict Noted – Plaintiffs' description of suit property inconsistent with long-standing entries in revenue record showing temple possession since 1965 – Sale deed lacked survey number or definitive boundaries – Temple renovations conducted in 1985 and 2008 with municipal approval – Plaintiffs failed to prove nexus between sale deed and present-day suit land [Paras 13-15, 21]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretionary Orders – Scope Limited – Principles Reiterated – Citing Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. and Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., held: Appellate court cannot substitute trial court’s discretion unless arbitrary or perverse – Trial court’s denial of injunction found consistent with settled legal principles – No error in exercise of jurisdiction [Paras 23-24]

Judicial Reasoning – Delay, Acquiescence, and Possession – Conduct Considered – Plaintiffs’ long silence since 1957, absence of mutation, and lack of possession undermined credibility – Affidavit stating knowledge of sale deed surfaced only in 2023 further weakened case – Respondents demonstrated continuous possession and legal sanction of construction – Injunction rightly denied [Paras 20-22]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted in trial court's refusal to grant temporary injunction – No order as to costs.

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act – Driving Licence – Statutory Grace Period – Expired licence remains valid for 30 days under proviso to Section 14 – Licence expired on 04.06.2001; accident on 04.07.2001 within grace period – Driver legally licensed – No breach of policy conditions – Insurer not entitled to recovery rights – Tribunal’s award upheld [Paras 3–6].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 14 Proviso – Effect of expiry of driving licence – Statutory extension of validity – Held: Proviso explicitly provides that a driving licence continues to remain effective for 30 days from the date of expiry – Licence of driver expired on 04.06.2001; statutory grace period ran from 05.06.2001 to 04.07.2001 – Accident at 10:45 AM on 04.07.2001 fell squarely within grace period – Licence deemed valid at time of accident [Paras 3–4].

Insurance Law – Breach of Policy Conditions – Absence of valid licence – Insurer’s plea rejected – Renewal made after accident irrelevant as licence had statutory efficacy on accident date – No willful breach attributable to insured – Recovery rights cannot be granted to insurer [Paras 2–4, 6].

Interpretation – Computation of statutory period – Section 9, General Clauses Act – Counting of days – Grace period begins the day after expiry – 30th day falls on 04.07.2001 – Court affirms correct computation and applicability of grace period [Paras 3–4].

Precedent – Proviso to Section 14 consistently interpreted – Court relies on:

(a) State of Haryana & Anr. v. Karkor & Ors. (P&H, 24.05.2018) – licence valid during statutory grace period; insurer not entitled to recovery rights;

(b) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumari, 2018 (4) ADJ 527 (Allahabad HC) – expired licence continues to be effective for 30 days and insurer cannot allege breach during this period –

Held: Same view applies; Tribunal’s findings correct; no reason for appellate interference [Para 5].

MACT Appeal – Scope of interference – Tribunal correctly fastened liability upon insurer – No infirmity in findings – Appeal devoid of merit – Dismissed [Paras 1–2, 6–7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Award dated 04.01.2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind affirmed – Driver’s licence deemed valid on date of accident due to statutory 30-day extension under proviso to Section 14 MV Act; consequently, no breach of policy conditions – Insurer not entitled to recovery rights – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 6–8].

Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – Bar on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Section 433A MMC Act – Civil Court Cannot Entertain Suit Challenging Demolition Notices – Plaint Rejected – Plaintiff challenged notices under Sections 260 and 478 MMC Act alleging unauthorized construction – Civil court refused to reject plaint holding suit not barred – Held: Suit was plain challenge to statutory notices; no specific averment of nullity or bad faith – Bar under Section 433A attracted – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 14, 36, 42, 46–47]

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Barred by Statute – Duty of Court to Reject Suit at Threshold – Court held that where statutory bar exists, plaint must be scrutinised meaningfully to assess if jurisdiction is retained – If not, it must be rejected at inception – Trial Court erred by delving into merits and failing to apply strict standards under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 44–46]

Interpretation – Scope of Civil Court Jurisdiction in Urban Planning Matters – Bar is Not Absolute but Limited to Cases Not Involving Nullity or Bad Faith – While recognising that some exceptions exist to ouster clauses (e.g. nullity, bad faith, abuse of power), Court reaffirmed that such exceptions must be specifically pleaded and not merely stated in vague terms – No such grounds found in plaint [Paras 20–28, 41]

Town Planning – Civil Suit to Prevent Demolition – Suit Filed as Tactical Measure to Delay Action Against Illegal Construction – High Court Disapproves Misuse of Court Process – Plaintiff expanded tin-shed without permission; sought to mask demolition notice challenge as suit for possession – Held: Suit a strategic device to delay statutory action – Not permissible in law [Paras 43, 45]

Municipal Law – Section 260 and 478 MMC Act – Action for Unauthorized Construction – Civil Court Cannot Interfere with Demolition Once Notice Issued Unless Action Is Nullity – Court reaffirmed statutory scheme where designated officers are empowered to demolish illegal structures – Civil suits against such notices are barred unless challenge is based on strong foundational grounds [Paras 15–17, 42]

Decision: Revisions allowed – Order of Trial Court dated 8 October 2015 set aside – Plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.130 of 2015 rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Civil suit barred under Section 433A of MMC Act – Status quo to continue for four weeks to allow appeal [Paras 47–49]