Retiral Benefits – Leave Encashment and Age of Superannuation – The appellants challenged the Single Judge's order extending leave encashment benefits for service beyond 60 years. The court held that there is no uniform rule that leave encashment forms part of salary, and it depends on specific statutes and regulations. The Panjab University regulations did not provide for leave encashment beyond the age of 60 years. Hence, the appellants were not liable for leave encashment for the extended period of service beyond 60 years. [Paras 19-20]

Judicial Precedent – Constructive Res Judicata – The respondents' earlier petitions seeking enhancement of superannuation age were dismissed. The court held that the principle of constructive res judicata did not apply as the earlier petitions did not adjudicate on the entitlement to salary and other benefits for the extended period of service. Thus, the present petition was maintainable. [Paras 17-18]

Delay and Laches – The court rejected the contention that the writ petition should be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, as the petitioners acted upon the Supreme Court's judgment in a related matter and filed their petition within a reasonable period. [Para 18]

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The court allowed the appeals of the appellant-University, holding that the respondents were not entitled to leave encashment or other retiral benefits for the period of service beyond 60 years. The appeals of the writ petitioners were dismissed. [Paras 21]

Constitutional Law – Distance Education – Validation of Degrees – The appellant challenged the order of the Single Judge which quashed a public notice and subsequent examination results declared by the AICTE. The Single Judge had directed the AICTE to re-compute the results according to an earlier modality. Held, the AICTE must adhere to the strict guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the validity of degrees obtained through distance education. The Supreme Court's intent was to curb the commercialization of education and ensure that degrees obtained through improper channels are not validated post facto. The court upheld the order of the Single Judge, emphasizing the need for maintaining educational standards. [Paras 1-40]

Judicial Precedent – Adherence to Supreme Court Directives – The court noted that the Supreme Court had restricted benefits for degrees obtained through distance education and had mandated strict adherence to its guidelines to prevent dilution of educational standards. The AICTE's attempt to alter modalities post examination was found to be contrary to these directives. [Para 40]

Promotion and Seniority – Impact of Invalid Degrees – The court rejected the argument that promotions based on invalid degrees could be perpetuated. It held that maintaining the integrity of educational qualifications was paramount and that the AICTE must ensure compliance with Supreme Court rulings to uphold the sanctity of professional degrees. [Para 40]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The appeals were dismissed, affirming the Single Judge’s decision to quash the AICTE's notice and subsequent results, and directing re-computation according to the original modality. [Para 40]

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Bail – Conscious Possession – Recovery of narcotics from a polythene bag thrown on the ground by the petitioner when the police approached – Bail granted – Court found it debatable whether the petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband – The petitioner was not involved in any other case, and all prosecution witnesses were officials, thus reducing the risk of tampering or influencing witnesses – Bail granted subject to compliance with conditions to ensure the petitioner does not commit any similar offence.

Section 37 of NDPS Act – Applicability of Bail Provisions – The court held that while Section 37 imposes strict conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities, the facts of this case, including the uncertainty surrounding the petitioner’s conscious possession, satisfy the requirements of Section 37(1)(b) by implication – The court referred to several precedents, including Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, where similar circumstances led to the granting of bail.

Decision:

Regular bail granted to the petitioner with specific conditions imposed to meet the object of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Constitutional Law - Right to Life and Liberty - Live-in Relationship - Petitioners, both majors, seek protection from threats due to their live-in relationship - One petitioner not of marriageable age - Held, Constitution protects the liberty to pursue a way of life - Right to life and liberty includes the right to live with a partner of choice - Petitioners entitled to protection. [Paras 1, 15-16]

Live-in Relationships - Legal Recognition - Analysis - Live-in relationships recognized under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Adults have the right to live together even if not married - Protection of life and liberty is fundamental and stands at the highest pedestal. [Paras 8-10, 15]

Judicial Precedent - Supreme Court and High Court Judgments - Reference to Supreme Court and High Court decisions affirming protection for individuals in live-in relationships - Courts emphasize the importance of individual liberty and right to make personal life choices. [Paras 8-14]

Decision - Protection Ordered - Petition allowed - Respondent directed to address representation and provide protection if threat perception found - Petitioners' fundamental rights upheld. [Paras 17-18]

Pre-emption Act – Mandatory Court Order for Deposit – Petition challenging dismissal of application for deposit of 'Zare-Panjim' amount. Held, sub-section (1) of Section 22 mandates that the trial court must order the plaintiff to deposit a sum not exceeding 1/5th of the probable value of the land or property, or to provide security. In the absence of such direction, consequences for non-deposit cannot be imposed on the plaintiff. Dismissal of application set aside. [Paras 1-8]

Litigant Not to Suffer for Court's Mistake – The trial court's failure to issue the required direction under Section 22(1) led to the petitioner’s non-deposit. The petitioner cannot be penalized for this court error. The principle “actus curiae neminemgravabit” (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) applies. [Para 8]

Decision – Petition Allowed – The impugned order is set aside. The trial court is directed to determine the amount of 'Zare Panjim' and require the petitioner to deposit it or provide security as per Section 22. [Para 9]

Administrative Law - Appointment Process - Selection Committee Recommendations - Validity of Appointment – Held, the State Government is bound to follow the recommendations of the Selection Committee under Rule 6(10) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020. The appointment of a candidate lower in merit without assigning valid reasons constitutes a negation of the rule. The impugned appointment order and related memo were quashed. [Paras 1-20]

Role of the Selection Committee - Analysis – Held, the Selection Committee, after assessing the candidates based on suitability, record of past performance, integrity, and adjudicatory experience, recommended a merit-based panel for consideration by the State Government. Ignoring the higher-ranked candidate without valid reasons is incompatible with Rule 6(10) and (11) of the Rules of 2020, thus not legally sustainable. [Para 17]

Decision - Quashing of Appointment Order - The court quashed the appointment order and the related memo, directing the State Government to proceed strictly based on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. [Para 20]

Family Law - Child Custody - Welfare of the Child -Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking release of minor daughter—Petitioner married in India, daughter born in India, family moved to Canada—Matrimonial discord led to wife moving back to India with the minor—Foreign court judgment not binding—Dominant factor is the welfare of the child—Held, welfare of the child best served by staying with the mother—Visitation rights granted to the petitioner father at least twice a year.** [Paras 1-18]

Foreign Court Judgment - Relevance in Indian Context -Petitioner argued the foreign court's judgment should be binding under Section 13 CPC and Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act—Held, foreign court judgment loses relevance if not based on Indian laws—Primary consideration is the child's welfare—Foreign judgment cannot override the welfare principle enshrined in Indian jurisprudence.** [Paras 5-8]

Decision:Petition dismissed—Custody of the minor daughter to remain with the mother—Petitioner granted visitation rights twice a year—Application of the twin tests: welfare of the child and the child's desire, leads to the conclusion that the welfare of the girl child would be best served by staying with her mother.** [Paras 18-19]

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Anticipatory Bail – Evidence Linking Appellant – Appeal for anticipatory bail under Section 14-A SC/ST Act. Allegation of using objectionable words against a community over the phone, with the audio recording going viral. Held, no evidence linking the appellant to making the audio viral. Bail granted. [Paras 1-15]

Maintainability of Appeal – Judicial Interpretation – Relying on judgments from Kerala High Court and this High Court, the court found the appeal maintainable. [Paras 2-3]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned order set aside. Appellant directed to join the investigation and will be granted ad-interim bail upon arrest, subject to furnishing bail bonds. [Paras 16-18]

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Petition for amendment of written statement in matrimonial case. Held, the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC empower the court to allow amendments at any stage to determine real questions in controversy. Amendments to written statements are granted more liberally than to plaints, especially when they elaborate the defense and are explanatory in nature. Rejection of the application was unsustainable. [Paras 1-7]

Matrimonial Law – Amendment to Elaborate Defense – Petitioner sought to amend the written statement to explain the non-subsistence of an earlier marriage, which was already denied. The amendment was bona fide and would not prejudice the respondent. [Para 7]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Court allows the petition, setting aside the impugned order, and permits the amendment of the written statement. [Paras 8-9]