Service Law – Seniority – Retrospective Effect of Eligibility – Petitioners, declared ineligible initially due to their degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, were later held eligible by the court – Petitioners sought to be treated as appointees of 2014 batch, despite actual appointment in 2015 – Held, as per Gurdeep Singh's case, petitioners were eligible when they applied and participated in the selection process in 2012 – Thus, they must be treated as 2014 batch appointees and entitled to seniority and promotion benefits accordingly [Paras 1-22].

Equivalence of Qualifications – Judicial Decisions and Policy Considerations – Court noted the equivalence of degrees as decided by the Corporation in 2014, and the judgment in Gurdeep Singh's case affirmed this equivalence – The Corporation’s policy decision dated 08.08.2016 for promotional benefits to late-joining Assistant Engineers due to reasons attributable to the Corporation applied similarly to Junior Engineers – Corporation’s arbitrary denial of similar benefits to petitioners violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioners to be treated as 2014 batch appointees for Junior Engineers (Electrical) – Inter-se seniority to be based on merit secured in the common written examination held on 28.07.2013 – Petitioners entitled to notional pay fixation as 2014 batch appointees, without arrears for non-working period [Paras 29-31].

Sabka Vishwas Scheme – Single Declaration for Multiple Show Cause Notices – Rule 3(2) Interpretation – Petitioner contended that a single declaration suffices for a pending consolidated appeal before the CESTAT, as per Rule 3(2) – Held, Rule 3(2) requires separate declarations for each case but does not apply when multiple show cause notices are consolidated into a single order and appeal – Rejection of petitioner's application on hyper-technical grounds deemed unjustified – Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act invoked to interpret 'case' in the singular to include plural – Petitioner’s application should not have been rejected for filing one declaration [Paras 1-14].

Judicial Interpretation – Contextual Reading – Technicalities vs. Substance – Court emphasized substance over technicalities, noting CBSE’s flexible stance in previous similar corrections – Petition highlighted no dispute over the genuineness of petitioner’s claims – Larger interpretation required for just resolution – Respondents’ objection dismissed [Paras 8-13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 21st February 2020 set aside – Respondents directed to reconsider the petitioner's single declaration within eight weeks – Fresh decision to be communicated within one week thereafter – Petitioner granted liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies if aggrieved by the new decision [Paras 14-15].

Correction of Certificate – CBSE Examination Bye-Laws – Pedantic Approach – Petitioner sought correction of his father’s name from Sukhpal Singh to Sukhpal in CBSE records – Held, CBSE’s rigid adherence to Bye-law 69 and refusal based on school records untenable – Court found CBSE’s refusal without merit, highlighting the certificates' importance for further studies and career-building – Driving the petitioner to seek a civil court decree deemed unnecessary and burdensome – CBSE directed to correct records and issue fresh certificates [Paras 1-12].

CBSE – Genuine Claims – School Records and Documentation – Petitioner demonstrated his father’s name as Sukhpal through birth certificate, Aadhar card, and other documents – Court rejected CBSE’s argument citing strict adherence to school records, emphasizing need for flexibility in genuine cases – CBSE’s refusal inconsistent with its past decisions allowing similar corrections – Court stressed CBSE’s role in facilitating students’ future prospects [Paras 5-11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – CBSE directed to correct the petitioner’s father’s name in its records and issue fresh certificates within 7 days of receiving the original documents – Corrected certificates to note High Court order for the name change – No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Recruitment – Validity of Selection Method – Conformance to Service Rules – Petitioner contested the recruitment method used by the Public Service Commission, alleging it deviated from the Punjab Forest (Class II) Service Rules, 1985 – Held, Note to Appendix 'C' allows selection based solely on an interview but does not permit changing the examination pattern as provided in the Service Rules – The Commission did not invoke this Note and instead altered the written examination pattern inconsistently with the Rules – Court held such deviation impermissible and set aside the recruitment notice [Paras 1-18].

Public Service Commission – Decision-Making Authority – Multi-Member Commission – Petitioner argued that the Chairman of the Commission took policy decisions individually, contrary to the constitutional mandate of a Multi-Member body – Held, important policy decisions must be taken collectively by the Commission, not by the Chairman alone – No evidence that other members authorized the Chairman to act on their behalf – Supreme Court precedents cited to support this interpretation – Court ruled in favor of petitioner, emphasizing the necessity of collective decision-making [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Recruitment notice dated 27.09.2018 and subsequent corrigendums set aside – The Public Service Commission directed to adhere strictly to the Service Rules in future recruitment processes [Paras 21-22].

Seniority – Retrospective Seniority – Regulation 9 – Petitioners appointed as Junior Engineers-II (Electrical) in 2011 sought seniority over those appointed earlier – Held, in absence of rota-quota rule, seniority to be counted from dates of actual appointment – Petitioners, appointed after respondents already in cadre, cannot claim seniority over them even notionally – Seniority fixed based on date of regular appointment, not earlier selections or wait lists [Paras 1-53].

Legal Principles – Appointment and Seniority – Merit List and Waiting List – Seniority cannot be granted from a date before actual entry into service – Petitioners part of wait list, not directly selected – Only actual appointment determines seniority – Petitioners’ claim for seniority from 2005 invalid as their appointments occurred in 2011 – Court emphasized adherence to established seniority principles and dismissed claims for retrospective seniority [Paras 33-38, 52-54].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – PSPCL’s seniority assignment based on date of actual appointment upheld – Interim orders vacated – Petitioners directed to count seniority from actual appointment date in 2011 [Para 54].

Extension of One Time Settlement – Article 226 Jurisdiction – COVID-19 Pandemic – Petitioners sought extension for payment under OTS due to financial difficulties and delay in reimbursement from the Government under the Post-Matric Scholarship Scheme – Court held that Article 226 allows granting of extensions in OTS repayment considering the petitioners’ willingness to pay with interest and the objective of IBC to preserve and improve the financial condition of the debtor – Extension granted despite pending insolvency proceedings [Paras 1-47].

OTS Policy – Flexibility and Equitable Jurisdiction – Various bank policies provide for extensions in OTS – Courts can exercise equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 to extend repayment periods in deserving cases, balancing equities and considering the intention of the borrower to fulfill obligations – Court can grant such relief if it does not adversely affect the interests of other creditors or the corporate debtor’s assets [Paras 26-32].

Decision: Petition allowed – Time granted to make payment along with 9% simple interest – Petitioners to pay the remaining amount in two quarterly installments, Rs. 25 lakhs by 31.12.2020 and the balance by 31.03.2021 – Respondent bank to calculate due amounts and inform petitioners in advance [Paras 40, 47].

Criminal Procedure – Second Bail Petition – No New Developments – Petitioner filed second bail petition under Section 439 CrPC after withdrawing the first petition – No new developments or changes in circumstances since the first petition – Second petition deemed a review of the earlier judgment, not permissible in criminal law – Bail denied [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Law – Previous Cases and Criminal Disposition – Petitioner involved in six cases, four under the NDPS Act, besides one conviction – Petitioner’s criminal disposition and interest of society considered – Bail denied to prevent societal risk [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Second bail petition dismissed – No change in circumstances since withdrawal of first petition – Judicial precedent cited disallowing review in criminal bail matters [Paras 11-12].

Motor Vehicle Act – Compensation – Deduction for Financial Assistance – Deceased, employed as Khalasi in Delhi Development Authority (DDA), died in a road accident – Tribunal awarded compensation but deducted Rs.26,67,168/- for financial assistance under Haryana 2006 Rules – Held, deceased was a DDA employee, not covered by Haryana Rules – Deduction erroneous, not applicable – Compensation re-assessed without deduction – Tribunal's observation corrected [Paras 1-23].

Judicial Conduct – Bona Fide Error – No Disciplinary Action – Tribunal's error deemed bona fide, arising from incorrect assumption about deceased's employment – Legal system acknowledges judges’ fallibility – Appeals and revisions provided to correct such errors – No action warranted against judicial officer absent misconduct or extraneous influences – Emphasis on judicial sensitization to prevent recurrence [Paras 23-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Deduction of Rs.26,67,168/- from compensation reversed – Total compensation re-assessed to Rs.36,26,069/- with interest at 7.5% per annum – Directions issued for judicial sensitization through Chandigarh Judicial Academy [Paras 25-28].

NDPS Act – Default Bail – Incomplete Challan – Petitioner sought default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC as the challan was presented without the report of the chemical examiner – Division Bench in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta held that such a challan is incomplete, entitling the accused to default bail – However, two Single Benches declared this judgment per incuriam – Matter referred to a larger bench due to conflicting judgments [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Discipline – Stare Decisis – Per Incuriam – Doctrine of stare decisis ensures uniformity and certainty in law – Smaller Bench cannot declare a larger Bench's judgment per incuriam – Reference made to Division Bench for validity of Single Bench judgments – Petitioner granted bail pending resolution due to unsettled law causing confusion [Paras 5-12].

Decision: Petitioner granted bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to satisfaction of trial court – Matter referred to Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a Division Bench for urgent consideration [Paras 11-12].