Industrial Disputes Act – Contractual Employees – Retrenchment – Alternative Remedy – Appellants working as Data Entry Operators under Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhiaran (HSVP) – HSVP is a statutory authority, not a housing apartment – Appellants prima facie covered under definition of "workmen" – Single Judge’s decision to relegate appellants to alternative remedy under ID Act upheld – Reliance on MGT Som Vihar’s case misconceived as facts differ – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-7].

Right to Continuation of Services – Contractual Employees – Retrenchment Criteria – Principles derived from precedents:

'Last Come First Go' Principle – Applicable in retrenchment but not if initial appointment is against public policy or work/conduct unsatisfactory.

Work and Conduct Evaluation – Unsatisfactory conduct nullifies seniority; services can be terminated per terms of employment.

Contractual Protection – Contractual/temporary employees have no protection against termination unless action is illegal, perverse, unreasonable, unfair, or irrational.

Renewal of Contract – Not a right; depends on management's perception of employee's usefulness and need for position [Paras 17-18].

**Judicial Review – Scope – Validity of Termination – Court examines legality, reasonableness, and fairness but does not act as appellate authority – Contractual terminations can be upheld if not vitiated by procedural infirmities [Paras 16, 19].

**Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Single Judge’s order upheld; Appellants to seek remedy under Industrial Disputes Act – Initial appointments against public policy; terminations justified – No merit found in appeal [Paras 18-20].

Examination – Re-evaluation of Answer Sheets – Absence of Provision – Petitioner requested re-evaluation of answer sheets for English language and Criminal Law papers in PCS (JB) 2019 – Court held that re-evaluation is not permitted in absence of relevant rules/instructions – Clause 11 of the advertisement explicitly disallowed re-evaluation – Petition dismissed as the request does not meet the established criteria [Paras 1-19].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Precedent Cases – Court referenced Supreme Court judgments including Pramod Kumar Srivastva, Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination v. Khushboo Srivastva, and H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur – Consistent position that re-evaluation not permitted unless explicitly provided by relevant rules – Petitioner’s case did not merit deviation from established judicial norms [Paras 16-18].

Delay in Filing – Procedural Lapse – Petitioner sought answer sheets under RTI, received them in September 2020, but delayed raising grievances until December 2020 – Court found this delay undermined the merit of the petition – Absence of timely action further justified dismissal [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – No provision for re-evaluation in the advertised rules – Previous Supreme Court rulings reaffirm non-entitlement to re-evaluation without specific provisions – Petition dismissed with no merit [Paras 18-19].

Proclaimed Offender – Procedural Compliance – Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner declared proclaimed offender for theft – Notice of proclamation issued but not published as per statutory requirement – Period between proclamation and hearing less than prescribed 30 days – Court found procedural lapses in compliance with Section 82 – Proclamation order quashed due to non-compliance [Paras 1-12].

Judicial Review – Scope and Application – Quashing FIR – From a perusal of the FIR, prima facie cognizable offence established – No ground for quashing FIR – Procedural lapses in declaring petitioner proclaimed offender addressed separately – Judicial review emphasized adherence to procedural mandates to avoid miscarriage of justice [Paras 8, 11-12].

Decision – Petition Partly Allowed – Held – FIR not quashed; Order declaring petitioner proclaimed offender quashed – Petitioner to surrender before trial court within four weeks – Trial court directed to consider bail application promptly [Para 12].

Recruitment – Equivalence of Degrees – Armed Services – Petitioner's degree in 'Electronic Communication System Engineering' not accepted as equivalent to 'Electronics and Communication Engineering' for Commissioned Officer recruitment – Court directed respondents to take a specific decision on the equivalence of the degrees – AICTE's recognition of both degrees as equivalent in norms considered relevant – Decision to impact both present and future recruitments to avoid inconvenience to similarly situated candidates [Paras 1-17].

Judicial Review – Scope and Power – Court emphasized its duty to ensure rational and unbiased decision-making by authorities – Directive to recruiting respondents to consciously determine equivalence based on AICTE norms and course content – Ensured procedural fairness and protection of petitioner’s rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution [Paras 13-17].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed – Held – Respondents to decide on degree equivalence within two weeks – Petitioner's claim to be considered if equivalence is affirmed – Immediate right to join training course subject to respondents' decision – Petition disposed with specific directives for timely decision-making [Paras 15-17].

Scheduled Caste Certificate – Cancellation – Inquiries and Judicial Review – Petitioners' Scheduled Caste certificates cancelled after two-level inquiry as per Supreme Court guidelines in Kumari Madhuri Patil case – Vigilance Cell and Scrutiny Committee found petitioners did not belong to Scheduled Caste – Petitioners challenged cancellation claiming lack of opportunity and improper consideration of evidence – Court upheld cancellation, finding due process followed and no perversity in findings – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-22].

Principles of Certiorari – Scope and Application – Court reiterated principles for issuing writ of certiorari as per T.C. Basappa case – Writ to correct jurisdictional errors, flagrant procedural violations, or manifest errors apparent on record – Supervisory jurisdiction emphasized, not appellate – Applied to uphold administrative findings against petitioners [Paras 17-18].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – High Court’s role in ensuring procedural fairness and correcting patent errors – Court found sufficient opportunities given to petitioners and due process followed by authorities – No material produced by petitioners to substantiate claims against findings of Vigilance Cell and Scrutiny Committee [Paras 19-22].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Cancellation of Scheduled Caste certificates upheld – Findings of Vigilance Cell and Scrutiny Committee affirmed – No interference warranted by High Court under Article 226 [Paras 22-23].

Arbitration Proceedings – Termination – Judicial Superintendence – Petition challenged the continuation of arbitration proceedings that extended over nine years without the parties' written consent – High Court held that the arbitrator's mandate had expired, and further proceedings without written consent were unauthorized – High Court can exercise judicial superintendence under Article 227 to set aside the arbitration proceedings – Orders appointing the arbitrator and subsequent procedural orders set aside – Parties directed to appoint a new arbitrator as per the agreement [Paras 1-44].

Arbitration Time Limits – Extension Without Consent – Arbitrator's mandate extended beyond the initial six months and four-month extension without written consent from parties – Arbitrator continued proceedings for nine years – Court emphasized that arbitration must conclude within specified timeframes unless explicitly extended by mutual consent – Mandate automatically terminates upon expiration of agreed period without consent – Arbitrator's prolonged delay deemed unjust and perverse [Paras 14-43].

Judicial Review – Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court’s power under Article 227 – Court upheld its authority to exercise judicial superintendence over arbitration matters to meet the ends of justice – Arbitration proceedings reviewed and set aside due to procedural violations and extended delays [Para 40].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Held – Orders appointing arbitrator and subsequent procedural orders set aside – Directed appointment of new arbitrator as per agreement – Revision petition allowed [Paras 43-44].

Regulatory Fees – Power to Legislate – Increase in Fees – Petitioner's grievance against 50% increase in fees for stamping and verification of weights and measures – Court held the Controller empowered to renew licenses as per Section 23(2) and Section 53 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 – Each State has the autonomy to frame its own rules – No violation of Articles 14 and 19 found – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-17].

Quid Pro Quo – Distinction between Tax and Fee – Petitioner argued the increased fees constituted a tax rather than a fee – Court referenced Supreme Court rulings distinguishing regulatory fees from taxes – Fees need not have a strict quid pro quo but must be reasonable and not excessive – Increase justified within legislative competence – No arbitrary or unjust imposition established [Paras 12-14].

Renewal Fees – Legality – Petitioner's contention that renewal fees were beyond the State's authority – Court held renewal within the scope of powers granted by the Legal Metrology Act – Renewal fee is a corollary to issuance fee – Statutory provisions empower State to prescribe renewal fees [Paras 16-17].

Discrimination – Fee Comparison with Neighboring States – Petitioner claimed fee disparity with neighboring states constituted discrimination – Court found each State independent in its rule-making – Quantum of fee is within legislative discretion – No breach of constitutional equality principles [Para 17].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Increase in license fees and security deposit by the State of Punjab upheld – No merit in claims of arbitrariness, excessiveness, or discrimination – Petition dismissed [Para 18].

Tender Process – Review of Technical Bids – Complaint Handling Protocol – Petitioner's technical bid rejected initially – Respondent's representation led to reevaluation and acceptance of their technical bid – Review based on proper protocol stipulated in DNIT – The court found the committee acted within its power under DNIT, and there was no procedural lapse – Petitioner's claim of non-review power unsustainable [Paras 1-19].

Experience Qualification – Calculation Error – Respondent's technical bid initially declared non-responsive due to a calculation error in bid document – Representation clarified the error (521.875 KLH should be 12.575 MLD) – Reassessment found respondent met the qualification criteria – No new criteria applied, only correction of an oversight – Petitioner's objection on this basis rejected [Paras 20-32].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – Principles of judicial restraint emphasized in tender matters – Unless process adopted or decision made by the authority is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or biased, court interference is unwarranted – Court found no bias or mala fide in the committee's decision – High-powered committee's credibility and expertise upheld – Petition dismissed [Paras 33-39].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Respondent's technical bid reevaluated and accepted correctly – Complaint handling protocol followed – No grounds for judicial interference found – Petition dismissed with no merit [Para 39].

Tax Legislation – Interpretation – Constitutionality – Petitioner challenged the upper limit of Rs. 5 Crore for disputed tax under Section 9(a)(i) of VSV Act as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Supreme Court precedents affirmed that tax laws should be strictly construed and the legislative domain should be respected – The Court held that fixing a monetary limit for availing benefits under the VSV Act is within legislative competence and not arbitrary or discriminatory – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-25].

Equity in Taxation – Hardship and Equity – Petitioner argued that the upper limit caused hardship and was inequitable – Court reiterated there is no equity in tax matters and hardship is not a valid ground for challenging the validity of a fiscal statute – Statutes must be interpreted as per their plain language without considering legislative intent beyond what is explicit [Para 21].

Legislative Classification – Rational Basis – Challenge to the monetary limit for availing benefits under VSV Act – Court emphasized the legislature's wide latitude in economic and fiscal policies – Classification based on monetary limits is a permissible legislative action and does not infringe on constitutional equality – Principles of economic pragmatism guide such classifications [Para 23].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – The upper limit for disputed tax under VSV Act is constitutionally valid – The Court upheld the legislative classification and dismissed the plea of hardship – No violation of Article 14 found [Para 25].