Departmental Proceedings – Simultaneous with Criminal Trial – Legal Bar – Petitioner sought to stay departmental proceedings pending conclusion of criminal trial under Sections 186, 332, 353, 506 IPC – Court held there is no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings – Stay can be claimed to ensure defense in the criminal case is not prejudiced but subject to charge being of grave nature and involving complicated questions of law and fact – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-13].

Criminal and Departmental Proceedings – Distinct Purposes – Criminal prosecution launched for societal duty violations, whereas departmental enquiry aims at maintaining discipline and serviceefficiency – Different standards of proof and evidence rules apply – No legal impediment to proceed departmentally while criminal trial is pending [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Review – Complexity and Seriousness of Charges – Petitioner's claim of prejudice in defense due to simultaneous proceedings found unsubstantiated – FIR charges do not suggest complication or complexity – Incidents include repeated physical assault on wife during duty hours, and ongoing domestic abuse – No grave or complex issues found in charges under IPC [Paras 8, 10-12].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – No valid basis to stay departmental proceedings – Both proceedings can proceed simultaneously without prejudice to petitioner’s defense in criminal case – Petition dismissed [Paras 13-14].

Service Regulations – Superannuation Age – AICTE Regulations vs. 1992 Rules – Petitioners, Assistant Professors in Government Colleges, contended their services governed by AICTE Regulations, 2010/2019, which prescribe superannuation age of 65 years with an extension up to 70 years – Respondents applied 1992 Rules setting superannuation age at 58 years – Court held AICTE Regulations, having statutory force, override 1992 Rules – Petitioners entitled to superannuation age of 65 years as per AICTE Regulations – Respondents’ action in retiring petitioners at 58 years declared unsustainable [Paras 1-47].

Article 309 – Transitional Provisions – Effect of Subsequent Legislation – Court noted Article 309 empowers the President to make rules until legislation by appropriate legislature – Upon enactment of AICTE Act and issuance of regulations thereunder, 1992 Rules cease to operate where inconsistent – AICTE Regulations 2010 and 2019, being subsequent statutory provisions, supersede 1992 Rules regarding age of superannuation for technical education staff [Paras 17-20].

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonious Construction – Court emphasized need to harmonize provisions where possible, but statutory regulations under AICTE Act explicitly setting superannuation age must prevail over prior administrative rules – Provisions under AICTE Act specifically apply to technical institutions, thus governing employment conditions including superannuation [Paras 27-30].

Judicial Review – Tribunal’s Order – Misinterpretation – Tribunal erred in holding 1992 Rules applicable despite AICTE Regulations – Misapprehended binding nature of statutory regulations under AICTE Act – Tribunal’s order set aside – Petitioners’ right to continue till 65 years affirmed [Paras 46-49].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – AICTE Regulations, 2010/2019 govern petitioners’ service conditions – Superannuation age of 65 years with provision for extension up to 70 years applicable – Respondents directed to reinstate petitioners with all consequential benefits – Order of Central Administrative Tribunal set aside [Paras 48-50].

Lease Dispute – Striking off Defence – Order 15 Rule 5 CPC – Tenant's Possession Returned – Petitioner’s defence struck off for non-payment under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC – Possession of leased premises returned, leaving dispute on payable amount – Court held that with possession returned, Order 15 Rule 5 CPC is inapplicable – Striking off defence only applicable when seeking eviction along with recovery – Defence striking order set aside [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Interpretation – Objective and Application – Interpretation of procedural provisions must align with justice and purpose – Striking off defence is punitive; narrowly construed – Subsequent developments (possession returned) make striking off inapplicable – Court must ensure justice, not procedural penalties causing injustice [Paras 6-9].

Procedural Fairness – Defence Restoration – Lessee contested liability and had filed prior suit over property sealing – Dispute on due amount, not continued possession – Given serious dispute and possession return, default deemed purged – Defence striking order found inappropriate, lessee allowed to defend suit on recovery amount [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Held – Order striking off defence set aside – Petitioner permitted to defend suit concerning recovery amount – Interpretation of procedural rule aligned with justice and subsequent developments [Paras 10-11].

Employment Contract – Restriction on Job Application – Validity – Government servant’s right to apply for another post restricted for five years by employer – Court held such restriction is valid and not opposed to public policy – Qualified employees' job hopping curbed by such clauses to prevent disruption and financial waste – Selection and training of an employee involves significant time and cost – Petition dismissed, employee must abide by terms of the employment letter [Paras 1-22].

Public Policy – Employment Restrictions – Article 14 – Court emphasized that public interest takes precedence over private interest – Restriction applicable for first five years to curb job hopping among qualified employees – Clause does not violate Article 14 or Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act – Restriction on applying for equivalent posts within five years deemed valid, does not apply to higher posts [Paras 11-12].

Procedural Fairness – Resignation Terms – Clause in employment contract requiring three months advance notice or salary for resignation – Employer's right to not accept resignation until suitable substitute arranged – Court found no procedural unfairness in enforcing such terms – Petitioner’s challenge to terms of resignation rejected as contractually agreed upon [Paras 22-24].

Judicial Precedents – Consistency – Court referred to previous judgments affirming validity of similar employment restrictions – Cases of Dr. Rahul Chawla and Dr. Anjali cited, noting restrictions upheld when statutory provisions allow – Judgment aligns with established legal principles [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Restriction on job application within five years of service valid and enforceable – Resignation terms requiring notice or salary and acceptance by employer upheld – Petitioner's plea for no objection certificate rejected, must comply with employment terms [Paras 23-24].

Selection Process – Cancellation – Advertisement Error – Recruitment process initiated on 15.12.2018 for Members of District Consumer Forums – Clerical error in minimum age criteria not initially considered an impediment – State Government proceeded without issuing corrigendum – Petitioners' names recommended after proper selection – State’s later decision to cancel process due to advertisement error deemed arbitrary – Writ allowed [Paras 1-20].

Discrimination – Similar Treatment – Presidents and Members – Selection process for Presidents of District Forums completed and appointments notified – Members not appointed despite same selection process completion – Court held State's action discriminatory and unjustified – State cannot treat similarly placed candidates differently without valid reasons [Paras 18-19].

Procedural Fairness – Judicial Review – Selection Process Completion – Statutory Selection Committee recommended appointments – State delayed and later cancelled process citing new Act and rules – Court held State's role limited post-recommendation – Selection process as per old Act should be honored – Inaction and cancellation without valid grounds arbitrary [Paras 20-23].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Cancellation of selection process and impugned order dated 01.12.2020 quashed – State directed to notify appointments within two months – Compliance with Rule 5(10)-(12) regarding verifications allowed [Para 26].

Amnesty Scheme – Interpretation – Beneficial Legislation – Petitioner filed single appeal against a common order covering multiple show-cause notices – Petitioner's single declaration for waiver under Sabka Vishwas Scheme rejected for not filing separate declarations for each notice – Court held hyper-technical approach invalid – Single appeal permitted under Rule 6A of CESTAT Rules, 1982, hence single declaration justified – Scheme aims to minimize litigation and procedural compliance must not deny substantive relief – Petition allowed [Paras 1-12].

Procedural Compliance vs. Substantive Right – Eligibility Conditions – Petitioner complied with essential conditions under Sections 123 to 125 of Finance Act, 2019 – Court emphasized substantive rights over procedural technicalities – Government's objective to reduce litigation and collect revenue without extended disputes – Hyper-technical grounds for rejection contrary to legislative intent – Relief granted to petitioner [Paras 9-11].

Judicial Precedents – Consistent Interpretation – Referenced recent Supreme Court judgment in L & T Housing Finance Ltd. v. Trishul Developers – Emphasis on substantial compliance over trivial procedural objections – Equitable relief when no prejudice caused to revenue – Coordinated approach towards beneficial legislation reinforced [Para 11].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Rejection of petitioner's declaration under Amnesty Scheme quashed – Respondents directed to issue discharge certificate upon compliance with other conditions – Procedural formalities should not obstruct substantive entitlements under beneficial schemes [Para 12].

Proclaimed Offender – Procedural Compliance – Section 82 Cr.P.C – Petitioner declared as a proclaimed person for not appearing in a case – Petitioner later surrendered before the trial court – Court held that once the accused surrenders and joins proceedings, they can no longer be described as an offender – Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. fulfilled their purpose upon petitioner’s appearance – Order declaring petitioner a proclaimed person and consequent FIR quashed [Paras 1-9].

Judicial Review – Principles – Similar Precedents – Reference to Ashish Gupta vs. State of Punjab – Legal remedy pursuit does not imply evasion of arrest – Petitioner's actions consistent with seeking legal remedies available – Proclaimed offender order deemed hasty without allowing reasonable time for petitioner to avail legal options [Para 7].

Quashing FIR – Legal Grounds – Petitioner’s Compliance – Following petitioner’s compliance with court orders, proceedings under Section 82 were rendered redundant – Legal principle that procedural steps should not result in continued detriment once compliance achieved [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Order declaring petitioner as a proclaimed person and subsequent FIR quashed – Court emphasized procedural fairness and the fulfillment of Section 82 objectives upon surrender [Para 9].

Election Law – Judicial Review – Article 226 – Power of High Court – Petitioners challenged rejection of nomination papers by the Election Returning Officer without furnishing rejection orders – Court held power of High Court under Article 226 is available where it subserves the progress of election, facilitates its completion, and furthers the election process – However, an election can only be challenged through an election petition – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Jurisdiction – Article 243ZG – No Absolute Bar – Judicial Review Permissible – Court emphasized that Article 243ZG does not curtail or oust High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 – High Court's power of judicial review can be exercised in election matters if it subserves the election process – Rejection of nomination papers falls within the domain of election petitions, and High Court intervention is limited to exceptional circumstances [Paras 11-13].

Election Process – Statutory Compliance – Section 41 of 1994 Act – Petitioners alleged violation of statutory provisions by not providing rejection orders and not displaying rejected candidates' list – Court found procedural lapses do not warrant interference at this stage and should be addressed through election petitions – Petitioners directed to avail statutory remedy under Section 74 of 1994 Act [Paras 4-6, 13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – High Court’s power under Article 226 is not ousted but limited in election matters – Petitioners' grievances regarding nomination rejection to be addressed through election petitions – Petition dismissed without prejudice to petitioners' right to challenge through election petition [Paras 13-14].

Technical Bids – Rejection – Judicial Review – Petitioner, a sole proprietorship, challenged rejection of technical bid due to experience certificate issued in the name of a former partnership firm – Court held technical qualifications must be assessed as per tender documents – Previous partnership experience cannot be bifurcated and counted towards individual qualifications – Jurisdiction limited to checking arbitrariness or bias – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-44].

Experience of Partners – Bidding Eligibility – Petitioner sought to rely on experience from partnership firm where the proprietor held 50% share – Court rejected argument that partnership experience could be claimed proportionately – Different partners have different skill sets; experience of firm not divisible – Previous firm’s experience deemed irrelevant for current sole proprietorship bid [Paras 10-12].

Legal Precedents – Tender Authority Discretion – Court reiterated that interpretation of tender documents and assessment of qualifications is primarily within the domain of the issuing authority – Judicial interference warranted only if decision arbitrary or biased – Tender rejection upheld as decision-making process found rational and justified [Paras 34-44].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Rejection of technical bid upheld – Experience from former partnership not applicable to sole proprietorship – No arbitrariness or bias found in tender authority’s decision – Petition dismissed with no relief to petitioner [Paras 1-44].