Constitutional Law - Right to Appointment - Articles 14 and 16 - Appointment to advertised posts when vacancies remain unfilled - State cannot arbitrarily refuse to fill vacancies from the merit list - The court held that the petitioner, being the next in order of merit and having participated in the selection process, was entitled to appointment when posts remained vacant. The refusal to appoint was deemed arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India [Paras 9, 10, 14].

Employment Law - Merit-Based Selection - Rejection of Waiting List Candidates - Distinction between wait-listed candidates and next in order of merit - The petitioner's claim was against advertised posts and not as a wait-listed candidate. The court rejected the State's argument that no waiting list was prepared, highlighting that the petitioner was next in order of merit for the advertised vacancies [Para 14].

Judicial Review - Delay in Legal Process - Continuity of Claim and Vigilance by Petitioner - Despite the elapsed time, the court recognized the petitioner's continuous efforts and representations to secure the appointment. The claim could not be denied on grounds of delay, given the persistent pursuit of his rights through legal and administrative channels [Paras 18, 19].

Decision - Petition Allowed - Appointment Ordered - The court set aside the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim and directed the State to appoint the petitioner to one of the vacant posts of Vocational Master (Civil) advertised in 2009. The appointment was to relate back to the date when other candidates from the same selection process were appointed, without entitlement to arrears of salary [Paras 20, 21, 22].

Civil Procedure - Executing Court's Duty - Application of Mind in Property Attachment and Sale - Order 21, Rule 17 and Rule 66 CPC - The court must carefully consider whether the entire property needs to be sold or only a part sufficient to satisfy the decree amount. The executing court failed to do so, leading to a disproportionate sale of the property [Paras 19, 20].

Balance Between Rights - Judgment Debtor and Auction Purchaser - Order 21, Rule 90 CPC - Although protections are provided to auction purchasers to prevent setting aside sales for minor irregularities, the court's jurisdiction to correct material irregularities and injustices remains intact. The court must balance the rights of both parties without favoring the auction purchaser excessively [Paras 23, 24].

Proportionality in Attachment - Order 21, Rule 17 CPC - The property attached should correspond as closely as possible to the amount due under the decree. The executing court did not adhere to this principle, leading to an unnecessary and extensive sale that prejudiced the judgment debtor [Para 30].

Public Auction and Market Value - Public Auctions Often Do Not Reflect True Market Value - The public auction process may not yield the property's true market value, especially when conducted without proper judicial consideration. This oversight can cause substantial financial injury to the judgment debtor [Para 34].

Decision - Sale Set Aside - Revision Petition Allowed - The executing court's orders were set aside due to material irregularities causing substantial injury to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to return the auction amount with interest to the auction purchaser, highlighting the importance of judicial diligence in execution proceedings [Paras 35, 36, 37].

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR based on Compromise - Section 307 IPC - High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offenses if the settlement serves justice and prevents abuse of process - The court emphasized that each case should be considered on its own merits, evaluating the possibility of conviction, nature of injuries, weapon used, and whether the offense can be diluted - Quashing allowed based on compromise, considering the continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose and amount to abuse of process [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Offense Against Society vs. Individual - Section 307 IPC - While Section 307 generally represents a serious offense against society, the court may consider the context, such as the nature of the weapon and public exposure, to determine if the case warrants quashing on compromise - The court held that the High Court can quash such offenses if the evidence suggests a strong possibility of non-conviction and if public interest and justice are better served by doing so [Paras 6, 7].

Factors for Consideration in Quashing - Examination of medical evidence, nature of weapon, public exposure, and context of the offense (e.g., matrimonial discord) to assess the appropriateness of quashing under Section 482 CrPC - The court outlined factors like whether the injuries were on vital body parts, if the weapon used was deadly, and if the incident was publicly exposed, to decide on quashing based on compromise [Paras 7, 8].

Decision - FIR and Cross Version Quashed - The petitions were allowed, and the FIR, along with cross versions and all consequential proceedings, were quashed based on the compromise, subject to costs payable to the District Legal Services Authority - The court ordered quashing, emphasizing the mutual settlement and its role in fostering peace between the parties [Paras 10, 11].

Criminal Law - Conviction based on Testimony of Chance Witness - Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC - Testimony of chance witness lacked corroboration and was unreliable - Conviction set aside - The court held that reliance on an uncorroborated chance witness was rash, especially given the improbabilities in the witness's account and his delayed reporting of the incident. The chance witness's testimony was deemed unsafe for conviction [Paras 30, 32].

Criminal Law - Discrepancy between Medical and Ocular Evidence - Appeal against conviction - Medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's claim that the deceased was throttled with a parna - Conviction set aside - The medical officer's testimony indicated that the injuries were consistent with manual throttling rather than using a parna, creating a material contradiction with the eyewitness account [Para 35].

Criminal Procedure - Section 313 Cr.P.C - Motive for False Implication - Accused benefited from doubt due to plausible motive of complainant - Conviction set aside - The court noted the possibility of false implication due to strained family relations and the complainant's motive. The benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants, leading to their acquittal [Paras 37, 38].

Decision - Conviction and Sentence Set Aside - Appeal allowed - The court quashed the judgment of conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellants of all charges due to unreliable witness testimony and contradictions in evidence - The appellants were acquitted, and their bail bonds discharged [Paras 39, 40].

Municipal Law - Removal of Elected Mayor - Show Cause Notice - Writ petition challenging show cause notice issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 - No individual allegation or fiduciary loss established against the Mayor - Principle of natural justice requires specific charges and explanation opportunity - Held that the show cause notice lacked specifics of misconduct or individual culpability, and any action for collective decisions should implicate all responsible Councillors, not the petitioner alone - The court quashed the show cause notice citing improper jurisdiction and violation of natural justice principles [Paras 1, 11, 12, 15, 22, 24].

Principles of Natural Justice - Requirement of Precise Charges - Discriminatory Issuance of Notice - The court emphasized the necessity for clear communication of charges to enable the affected party to respond effectively - Unilateral action against the Mayor without implicating other Councillors involved in collective decisions was deemed discriminatory and unfair - Show cause notice was quashed due to prejudged opinion and lack of proper inquiry [Paras 15, 18, 21].

Quasi-Judicial Proceedings - Fairness and Open Mind - Prejudgment in Show Cause Notice - The court highlighted that a quasi-judicial authority must act fairly with an open mind during show cause proceedings - The predetermined language of the show cause notice indicated bias and rendered the subsequent proceedings unfair and invalid [Paras 18, 20].

Decision - Quashing of Show Cause Notice - The writ petition was allowed, and the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was quashed - The court permitted the respondents to proceed with proper inquiry if required - The action against the petitioner was found to be based on arbitrary and discriminatory grounds without following due procedure [Paras 24, 25].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Criminal appeal against initiation of prosecution under TOHO based on second FIR – Challenge on grounds of constitutional violations and procedural lapses – TOHO being a special Act, its provisions take precedence over general laws – Supreme Court interpretation mandates that complaints under TOHO must be initiated by an appropriate authority – FIR and subsequent proceedings held invalid – Appeal allowed, FIR and charge-sheet quashed. [Paras 50-51]

Procedural Requirements under Special Acts – Held – Provisions of TOHO require complaint by an appropriate authority – Initiation of criminal proceedings by FIR contrary to Section 22 of TOHO – Emphasis on adherence to statutory mandates to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice – Mistrial declared due to non-compliance with procedural requirements of TOHO and Cr.P.C. [Paras 50-51]

Role of Investigating Authorities – Analysis – Lapses identified in investigation, including exhibition of illegible documents and failure to question hostile witnesses – Court criticizes casual approach in trial – Highlights necessity for diligence and compliance with legal procedures to uphold justice and constitutional protections. [Paras 50-51]

Decision:

Appeal allowed. FIR and charge-sheet quashed. The court emphasized the need for adherence to procedural requirements under TOHO, stating that the FIR was invalid due to the lack of an appropriate authority's complaint as mandated by Section 22 of TOHO. [Para 51]

Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Section 11 CPC - Previous Judgment Binding in Subsequent Suit - The court held that the previous judgment, where it was determined that Pritam Kaur @ Prito was not the widow of Teja Singh, operates as res judicata in the subsequent suit. This decision on an issue directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit precludes re-litigation of the same issue [Paras 2, 11].

Fresh Suit After Withdrawal - Order 23, Rule 1(4) CPC - New Cause of Action - The court found that the subsequent suit was not barred under Order 23, Rule 1(4) as it was based on a new cause of action arising from an order passed by the appellate authority on 28.01.1985, following the withdrawal of the previous suit [Paras 7, 8].

Proof of Reversionary Rights - Unchallenged Testimony - The court noted that the testimony of Tehal Singh, which established the plaintiffs and certain defendants as reversioners of Teja Singh, went unchallenged in cross-examination. This unchallenged testimony was taken as evidence of their reversionary rights [Paras 14, 15].

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Concurrent Findings Upheld - The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that Jaspal Singh, claiming through Pritam Kaur @ Prito, had no right to the estate of Teja Singh, who was found to have died unmarried and issueless [Paras 18, 19].

Specific Performance - Limitation and Knowledge of Sale - Regular Second Appeal against lower courts' judgments - Suit for specific performance filed within the limitation period but more than a year after the sale deed to the subsequent purchaser - Plaintiff unaware of the prior sale at the time of suit filing - The suit could not be considered belated as it was filed within the prescribed limitation period and the plaintiff was not aware of the prior sale deed when initiating the suit - Lower courts' reliance on assumptions about the plaintiff's knowledge of the prior sale was found erroneous - Appeal allowed [Paras 10, 13, 14].

Discretion in Granting Specific Performance - Legal Principles - Whether courts' discretion to grant specific performance should be guided by judicial principles based on sound reasoning - The court emphasized that judicial discretion must be based on reasonable and sound principles - The findings of the lower courts were set aside as they were not based on proper judicial discretion [Para 13].

Evaluation of Evidence - Payment and Validity of Agreement - Scrutiny of the facts showing that the agreement to sell and the payment of earnest money were proven, while the subsequent purchaser's claims of additional payments were found to be unsubstantiated - The registered sale deed did not reflect additional payments claimed by the subsequent purchaser, indicating an attempt to mislead the court - The evidence supported the plaintiff's claim [Paras 7, 9, 11].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - The court set aside the findings of the lower courts, holding that they did not exercise their discretion properly - Decree for specific performance granted - The appeal was allowed, and the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell was granted based on the merits of the case [Paras 13, 14].

Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Partnership Firm Registration - Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Recovery suit filed in individual capacity as a farmer, not barred by Section 69(1) of the Partnership Act - The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the price of agricultural produce sold to the defendant firm, asserting his capacity as an individual farmer and not as a partner of the firm - Held that the suit was rightly filed in the individual capacity of the plaintiff, and Section 69(1) of the Partnership Act did not bar the suit - Petition dismissed [Paras 10-12].

Role of Plaintiff as Farmer - Analysis - Held - The plaintiff's status as a farmer with an independent agricultural account in the firm distinguished his individual claims from partnership claims. The suit was based on personal agricultural transactions and not on partnership disputes - The court observed that the plaintiff's claims for the recovery of dues were as an individual farmer dealing with the firm, making Section 69(1) inapplicable [Paras 10-12].

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - The court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the trial court's decision that the suit in its present form was not barred by Section 69(1) of the Partnership Act - Emphasized that the rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was correct as the suit did not arise from partnership disputes but from individual agricultural transactions [Para 13].