Selection Process and Appointment Invalidity – Writ Petition – Challenge to the selection processes by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission for appointment to various teaching and non-teaching positions – Court finds extensive procedural irregularities and illegalities, including appointments made outside of the merit panel, manipulation of Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets, and appointments granted after the validity of the panel expired – All appointments made under the tainted selection process declared null and void. [Paras 330-333, 352-353]

Role of SSC and Other Authorities – Analysis – SSC's engagement of unauthorized agencies for scanning and evaluation of OMR sheets without proper authorization or transparency, destruction of original OMR sheets without preserving electronic copies, and SSC's failure to adhere to recruitment rules highlighted – Court criticizes the deep-rooted manipulation and lack of cooperation from SSC, the State, and other involved parties, leading to a fraudulent selection process. [Paras 323-326, 328-329, 335-336]

Directions Issued – Cancellation of All Appointments – Due to the compromised integrity of the entire selection process, the court orders cancellation of all appointments made under the process – Further investigations by CBI directed into the creation of supernumerary posts intended to accommodate illegal appointees and the recovery of benefits received by illegally appointed individuals. [Paras 330, 352-358]

Legal and Constitutional Violations – Held – The selection process was conducted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, leading to a lack of fairness, transparency, and meritocracy in public appointments – Appointments made through such a process are void ab initio. [Paras 333, 353-354]

Minority Rights in Education – Allocation of PG Seats – Petitioner College Allegation – Held – Disproportionate allocation of PG seats to Petitioner College by Delhi University arbitrary – Rights under Article 30(1) not hindered by University’s regulations – DU directed to ensure proportionate seat allocation and consider framing guidelines for seat allocation among affiliated colleges. [Paras 1-31]

Minority Educational Institutions – Right to Administer – Supreme Court precedent allows minority institutions to devise their own admission process – Petitioner College permitted to continue interview process for minority students with specified weightage – Not applicable to non-minority students pending Supreme Court decision. [Paras 49-51, 63, 70]

Constitutional Law – Article 30(1) – Minority institutions’ right to establish and administer educational institutions affirmed – Restrictions by state must not impair fundamental right to administer – State may regulate to prevent maladministration and ensure educational excellence. [Paras 54-55, 57, 59, 60]

Judicial Directives – Delhi University (DU) instructed to reevaluate seat allocation process to Petitioner College and other affiliated colleges to avoid arbitrariness – Encouraged to develop objective criteria and guidelines for fair and transparent seat distribution among colleges. [Para 29]

Dismissal of Applications – Related applications rendered moot based on judgment’s directives and conclusions. [Para 32]

Court’s Directions – Upholds the college’s method for minority students – Prohibits interviews for non-minority students – Directs DU to ensure equitable seat distribution and to develop formal guidelines to govern PG seat allocation [Paras 29-31].

Tenancy Law - Grounds for Eviction – Requirement of Accommodation – Held – Landlord's bona fide requirement for accommodation substantiated by detailed familial needs, including health conditions and living arrangements of children. Tenant's challenge based on landlord's ownership of other properties dismissed due to lack of specificity and credible evidence. [Paras 2, 7-8]

Challenge to Eviction on Legal Grounds – Bar under Section 14(6) of the Act – Held – The relinquishment deed in favor of the respondent does not constitute a transfer of property under Section 14(6). The legal challenge against the maintainability of the eviction petition on these grounds dismissed. [Paras 4, 9]

Jurisdiction and Scope of Review under Section 25B(8) of the Act – Held – Limited scope of review in proceedings under Section 25B(8) acknowledged. The Court refuses to delve into new issues not raised before the Rent Controller. Upholds Rent Controller's order based on admitted facts and evidence presented at earlier stages. [Paras 9-10]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – No infirmity found in the impugned order of the Rent Controller. Petition dismissed, upholding the eviction based on the bona fide requirement of the landlord and legal grounds as established. [Para 10]

Petitioner's Claim of Veto Power – Claims by petitioner to represent "We, the People of India" and purported 'veto power' to secure release of the Chief Minister (Respondent No.5) from custody in all criminal cases – Court dismisses claims as unfounded and fantastical – Locus standi and public interest litigation principles discussed – No substance in petitioner’s claim leading to dismissal of the petition [Paras 1-3, 8-9, 11].

Judicial Custody and Equality Before Law – Petition not maintainable since judicial orders for custody were not challenged – Court emphasizes the constitutional principle of equality and the rule of law: "Be you ever so high, the law is above you" – Importance of maintaining public confidence in the legal system underscored [Paras 6-7].

Misplaced Representation and Lack of Authority – Petitioner, a law student, with no legal authority or power of attorney to act on behalf of or represent the Chief Minister – The concept of personal bond and assurance about the Chief Minister’s conduct found to be inappropriate and dismissed [Paras 10, 12].

Dismissal with Costs – The petition, considered an abuse of the judicial process, dismissed with costs of Rs.75,000 imposed on the petitioner, to be deposited with the AIIMS Poor Fund – This cost is a punitive measure against frivolous litigations [Para 14].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed with costs – No grounds for extraordinary interim bail – Principles of public interest litigation and locus standi affirmed – Costs imposed to deter similar frivolous litigations in the future [Para 14].

Ground of Eviction - Personal Bonafide Requirement - Landlords obtained eviction order against tenant on grounds of personal bonafide requirement and arrears of rent - Allegation landlords themselves faced eviction from another premises - Ground floor unsuitable due to different accommodation needs, preference for eviction of first-floor tenant to consolidate landlords' residence on a single floor [Paras 2-5, 12, 14].

Legal Proceedings and Evidence - Findings affirmed by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority - Tenant’s appeal claiming landlords intended to sell the property - Defence of non-bonafide requirement by landlords not accepted based on lack of similar eviction against other tenants and re-letting of another vacated premise - Tenants’ financial capability to purchase disputed - Eviction upheld by both Rent Controller and Appellate Authority [Paras 6-7, 13-15].

Revisional Powers of High Court - Exercise of power under Section 24(5) of the Act - High Court to ensure legality and propriety of lower court decisions without re-assessing facts - High Court's revisional jurisdiction not an appellate function - Reliance on the Supreme Court's exposition in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 [Paras 9-11].

Decision - No illegality, impropriety, or perversity in concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority found - Tenant’s revision petition dismissed based on established need and bonafide requirement of landlords for personal use - Miscellaneous application(s) also dismissed [Paras 15-16].

Bail Application - Petitioner under arrest for involvement in a drug racket operated from jail - FIR includes serious charges under NDPS, PC, and Prison Acts - Petitioner seeks bail on grounds that the seized quantity is less than commercial, and the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply - Rigorous conditions proposed for bail compliance [Paras 1, 3-4, 6-7, 13].

Criminal Network and Operations - Extensive drug racket operated from within jail premises involving jail officials and external agents - Petitioner allegedly facilitated communication for drug transactions using a mobile SIM smuggled into jail [Paras 5, A-B].

Legal Principles Applied - Intermediate quantity of narcotics involved, allowing for potential relief from stringent bail conditions prescribed under Section 37 NDPS Act - References to landmark Supreme Court decisions on bail conditions and considerations [Paras 7-10, 20].

Bail Conditions - Stringent conditions imposed including a high personal and financial bond, limitations on SIM card usage, and mandatory compliance with attendance - Prohibitions against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses - Specific directives for disabling other mobile services except the one linked to petitioner's Aadhaar [Paras 14-18].

Observations on Technology and Identification - Discussion on technology's role in modern identification and security within the judicial context - Conditions imposed reflect technological advancements and their integration into legal proceedings [Paras 13, 27].

Decision: Petition for bail granted subject to stringent conditions focusing on ensuring compliance and preventing influence or tampering - The decision reflects a balanced approach considering the accused's rights and the serious nature of the alleged crimes [Paras 13-27].

Bond Requirement and COVID-19 Service - Petitioners, postgraduate medical students, challenge the requirement to serve in government facilities post-training, questioning whether their service during the COVID-19 pandemic counts towards fulfilling bond terms - Court upholds that COVID-19 duties performed during educational period do not count towards bond service obligation [Paras 2-5, 18].

Government Investment Justification - Court references significant financial investment by the state in medical education, justifying the bond service requirement to ensure trained specialists serve in state facilities, particularly in rural or underserved areas [Paras 7, 9].

Legal Principles and Precedents - Analysis of previous cases similar in nature where the court had to consider the applicability of bond terms during extraordinary circumstances like the pandemic - The court emphasizes consistency in judicial decisions regarding bond service terms [Paras 13-14, 16-17].

Economic Impact and Policy Decisions - Discussion on the economic rationale behind the bond service, highlighting governmental spending on medical training aimed at improving public healthcare systems and ensuring availability of trained healthcare professionals in public health institutions [Paras 6, 8].

Final Decision - Petitions dismissed, maintaining that the bond conditions explicitly agreed upon by the petitioners must be adhered to, and COVID-19 service during education does not qualify towards the mandatory service period [Para 20].

Invocation of Supreme Court Precedents – Petitioner's reliance on Desh Raj Vs. Balkishan [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807] to argue that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory, not mandatory in non-commercial suits - emphasized distinction between procedures in commercial and non-commercial disputes as per Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [Paras 2, 6, 11-14].

Procedural History and Conduct of Petitioner – Initial appearance on 08.08.2023; delay in filing written statement attributed to focus on application against striking off defense rather than compliance with procedural timelines - Supreme Court's distinction in procedural rigor between commercial and non-commercial cases cited to argue for leniency [Paras 5-6].

Court’s Ruling and Reasoning – Despite procedural lapses by petitioner, the court grants one more opportunity to file the written statement, conditioned on payment of Rs. 30,000 as costs to respondent, underscoring court's discretion in non-commercial disputes to allow late filings under special circumstances [Para 6].

Conclusion and Disposal – Petition disposed off with conditions; further emphasizes judicial discretion in non-commercial matters and provides relief aimed at ensuring substantive justice [Para 7].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Claim for damages due to negligent driving – Appeal against Tribunal's dismissal of the claim petition – Vehicle damaged beyond repair from collision with another vehicle driven negligently – Compensation initially sought from the appellant's own insurance and then from the offending vehicle’s insurer – Tribunal dismissed claim as fully settled by appellant's insurer, negating any further liability of offending vehicle's insurer – High Court upheld Tribunal’s judgment, confirming full and final settlement by appellant's own insurer extinguishes further claim against other insurers. [Paras 3-6]

Negligence and Compensation – Contention of duplicate compensation rejected – Appellant received full settlement from own insurer, extinguishing right to claim further from offending vehicle's insurer – Tribunal and High Court found no merit in claim for additional compensation based on established settlement norms – Reliance on prior decisions on similar grounds, including Harkhu Bai's case, to affirm dismissal. [Paras 5-6]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Full and final settlement from appellant’s insurer deemed adequate; no further compensation from offending vehicle's insurer justified.