Transfer and Deputation – Regulatory vs. Commercial Wings – Rules Compliance – Petitioners, Transport Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors, challenged orders transferring them between Regulatory and Commercial wings – Court held that Haryana Transport Department (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998 did not permit such transfers – The Rules of 1998 did not include the phrase "any department under the control of the government," which is present in the 2016 Rules – Since 1998 Rules apply, reliance on 2016 general rules is impermissible – Orders of transfer/deputation invalid [Paras 29-36].

Reasonableness and Rationality – Wednesbury Principles – Administrative Action – Court found no justification for transfer orders purportedly to address corruption – No specific disciplinary proceedings initiated against any named individuals – Transfer orders failed Wednesbury principles of reasonableness – Administrative action deemed unsustainable [Paras 28-30].

Organizational Structure – Bifurcation Impact – Independent Units – Petitioners belonged to Regulatory Wing; transferred to Commercial Wing (Haryana Roadways) – Bifurcation in 2002 created separate independent units – Rules and rationale for separating wings at top level apply throughout hierarchy – Cross-wing transfers undermine operational integrity and original bifurcation intent – Such transfers, therefore, invalid [Paras 10-32].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – Transfer/deputation orders quashed – Regulatory and Commercial wings to maintain independent staff – Petitioners reinstated to original positions within respective wings – Orders set aside on grounds of statutory non-compliance and lack of administrative rationality [Paras 36-37].

Election Law – Rejection of Nomination Papers – Judicial Review – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Petitioner's nomination papers rejected on grounds of illegal occupation of government land – Court held writ petition not maintainable – Election disputes to be addressed through election petitions as per Article 243ZG of the Constitution and Sections 74 and 89 of Punjab Election Commission Act – Supreme Court precedents mandate that election process once started should not be interrupted by writ petitions – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Nomination Process – Scope of Judicial Review – Petitioner’s claim of non-occupation of government land required factual determination – Court emphasized that factual disputes related to elections should be resolved through election tribunals – Nomination rejections fall within election process, thus writ petitions barred unless exceptional circumstances proven [Paras 4-19].

Statutory Provisions – Compliance and Disqualifications – Sections 11(q) and 11(r) of the Punjab Election Commission Act – Petitioner’s disqualification based on unauthorized occupation and non-payment of municipal taxes – Court upheld statutory compliance by election authorities – Specific statutory grounds for disqualification applicable, writ jurisdiction limited in election matters [Paras 21-26].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Writ petition challenging rejection of nomination papers not maintainable – Validity of election process to be questioned through election petitions – Petitioner at liberty to file an election petition as per statutory provisions [Para 30].

Transfer of IAS Officers – Discretion and Administrative Exigencies – Rule 7 of IAS Cadre Rules, 1954 – Petitioner, 100% visually impaired IAS Officer, challenged transfer as discriminatory – Court held transfer is an incident of service, no vested right to specific posting – Transfer orders based on administrative exigencies and public interest, not discriminatory – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-27, 40-43].

Statutory Compliance – Tenure and Recommendations – Rule 7(3) and 7(5) – Petitioner’s transfer within two years challenged for non-compliance with minimum tenure – Court found compliance with statutory provisions; Civil Services Board recommended transfer – Extraordinary COVID-19 circumstances justified administrative decisions – No violation of statutory rules established [Paras 23-35].

Judicial Review – Limits on Interference – Administrative Decisions – Court emphasized limited scope of judicial review in administrative transfers – Absence of mala fides or violation of statutory rules restricts court interference – Administrative discretion and public interest paramount – Orders of CAT upheld, transfer order valid [Paras 21, 41].

Career Progression – Field Experience Requirement – Petitioner's grievance on inadequate field experience addressed – Court noted petitioner completed requisite field experience for central deputation eligibility – Primary grievance resolved, no further merit in claims [Paras 17-19, 39].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Transfer order from Deputy Commissioner to Director position upheld – Statutory rules complied, no discrimination or mala fides found – CAT order affirmed, petition dismissed [Paras 42-43].

Recruitment Criteria – HTET Requirement – Transitional Provisions – Petitioners sought exemption from HTET for second recruitment after the notification of the 2012 Rules – Court held that the transitional provision allowed exemption only for the first recruitment post-notification – Petitioners were given several opportunities to qualify HTET in 2017 and 2018 but failed – No right to claim exemption as a matter of right – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Eligibility – Requirement of Qualification – Petitioners failed to clear HTET by the date of interview – Exemption granted in first recruitment does not apply to subsequent recruitments – Eligibility criteria of HTET/STET common for all subjects under the 2012 Rules – Petitioners' ineligibility for interview upheld as per recruitment rules [Paras 5-10, 14].

Judicial Review – Consistency with Recruitment Rules – Court emphasized adherence to statutory recruitment criteria – Relaxation provisions under Rule 19-A allowed State discretion but not as a matter of right – Petitioners' reliance on initial exemption misconceived – Petitioners’ claim for interview without HTET qualification rejected [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners not eligible for interview without HTET qualification – Exemption granted for first recruitment not applicable – State's decision upheld – No merit in the petition [Paras 16-18].

Education Law – Revaluation of Answer Sheets – Online Examinations – Petitioners challenged the University’s decision to disallow revaluation of answer sheets from online examinations conducted due to COVID-19. Court held that revaluation regulations framed by the University Senate apply to all forms of examinations unless explicitly excluded. Controller of Examination's decision to disallow revaluation based on an interpretation of minutes of a committee meeting was set aside [Paras 1-19].

Jurisdiction of University Authorities – Regulation Amendment – Court emphasized that the University Senate, as the supreme authority, has the power to frame regulations, including those for revaluation. The Controller of Examination does not have the authority to amend these regulations. The decision to exclude revaluation for online exams was beyond the Controller’s jurisdiction and not supported by any explicit decision [Paras 2-3, 7-12, 18].

Regulation Consistency – Various Examination Modes – University regulations for revaluation were intended to cover all examination modes, including online exams, unless specifically excluded. Court noted that even online exams involved handwritten submissions, maintaining the integrity of the revaluation process. Regulations governing traditional exams apply equally to online formats unless explicitly modified [Paras 10-11, 15-16].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Court directed Panjab University to re-evaluate the answer sheets as requested by the petitioners. Controller of Examination’s decision to exclude revaluation for online exams was set aside. Petitioners entitled to the same revaluation rights as traditional examination candidates [Paras 19-20].

Pension and Financial Assistance – Denial Based on Conviction – Unrelated Offence – Petitioner denied pension and financial assistance due to her conviction in a murder case unrelated to her husband's death – Court held denial unsustainable as the conviction was not related to her husband's death – Order denying benefits set aside – Mandamus issued for payment of arrears with interest [Paras 1-14].

Rules Interpretation – Family Pension – Good Conduct Clause – Punjab Civil Services Rules 2.2(a) – Good conduct requirement applies to pensioners, not family members receiving financial aid – No misconduct clause in Haryana Rules of 2006 affecting family members' entitlement to financial assistance – Court emphasized the beneficial intent of the Rules, aimed at assisting the deceased employee’s family [Paras 3-5, 9-10].

Judicial Precedents – Pension Recovery Limits – Consistent with precedents, complete pension cannot be withheld – Maximum one-third of gross pension recoverable for pecuniary loss to the Government – Family Pension Rules' disqualification clause applies only if the Government employee was murdered by the family member claiming pension – Similar rulings from other High Courts upheld [Paras 6-8, 11-12].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Denial of pension and financial assistance to the petitioner based on unrelated conviction is invalid – Respondents directed to pay arrears of monthly financial assistance and process family pension claim – Simple interest at 6% per annum on arrears awarded – Compliance required within two months [Paras 13-14].

Amnesty Scheme – Liberal Interpretation – Enquiry Initiation Date – Petitioners' declarations under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme rejected due to ongoing enquiry – Court held that any enquiry/audit/investigation initiated after the scheme commencement on 01.09.2019 cannot disqualify a declarant – Scheme aims to reduce litigation and recover dues – Liberal interpretation emphasized to fulfill legislative intent – Rejection of declarations on procedural grounds deemed improper – Petitions allowed [Paras 1-17].

Beneficial Legislation – Application Scope – Sections 123, 124, 125 of Finance Act, 2019 – Dispute on cut-off date for voluntary disclosure – Petitioner argued 30.06.2019 as cut-off date – Respondents contended ineligibility due to enquiry initiation post-01.09.2019 – Court favored petitioners' interpretation, supporting broad and liberal application of the scheme [Paras 5-6, 12-13].

Circulars and Guidelines – Board Clarifications – Circulars from Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs extended scheme benefits even to those excluded by Section 125 – Liberal interpretation endorsed by recent Supreme Court judgment in Brahampal @ Sammay v. National Insurance Company – Scheme’s success reliant on avoiding strict interpretations [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Held – Rejection of declarations under the Amnesty Scheme set aside – Enquiries initiated post-scheme commencement irrelevant for disqualification – Liberal interpretation to advance scheme’s purpose endorsed – Orders for declaration rejection quashed [Para 17].

Panchayati Raj Act – Suspension of Sarpanch – Registration of FIR – Section 20 – Court held pendency or registration of FIR itself not sufficient for suspension – Director must form opinion on likelihood of embarrassment in duties or involvement of moral turpitude or character defect – Impugned suspension order not meeting statutory requirements set aside [Paras 1-12].

Judicial Review – Procedural Requirements – Director’s Order – Director’s suspension order did not specify how FIRs would cause embarrassment or involve moral turpitude – Court found Director only stated public interest without statutory grounds – Suspension order invalid as per statutory provision [Paras 7-8].

Acquittal and Pendency of FIRs – Impact on Suspension – Petitioner acquitted in several FIRs, some FIRs pending for years without progress – FIRs predate election, and latest FIR under investigation – Director’s order failed to account for these aspects – Suspension for long duration unjustified [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Suspension order and affirmation by Financial Commissioner set aside – Elected representative cannot be suspended for prolonged period without meeting statutory criteria – Orders dated 26.08.2019 and 19.12.2019 quashed [Paras 11-12].

Employee’s Compensation – Jurisdiction – Section 21 – Deceased driver killed during employment – Commissioner at Nuh awarded compensation – Appellant contended lack of jurisdiction as incident occurred in Mathura, UP – Court held jurisdiction valid where dependents reside or employer has registered office – Procedural notice irregularity does not prejudice claimants – Jurisdiction upheld [Paras 4-5].

Interest on Compensation – Section 4A – Award of 12% interest from date of incident – Appellant challenged interest from incident date – Court upheld interest award as per Section 4A for defaults in compensation payment – Statutory interest justified from date compensation fell due [Para 6].

Cause of Death – Connection with Employment – Gunshot Injury – Appellant argued death unrelated to employment – Court rejected argument – Death during employment course meets compensation criteria under Section 3(1) – Employer liable for compensation regardless of injury cause if connected to employment [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Review – Substantial Question of Law – Appeal under Section 30 requires substantial law question – Court found no substantial question of law in appeal – Commissioner’s award upheld as reasoned and justified [Para 9].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Jurisdiction and compensation award by Commissioner at Nuh affirmed – No substantial question of law for appellate review – Appeal dismissed in limine, compensation to be released to claimants [Paras 10-12].