Eviction Jurisdiction – Property within Municipal Limits – Haryana Rent Act – Petitioner's property initially outside municipal limits as per sale and rent deeds – Later included in municipal limits by notification – Court held mere mentioning in deeds does not override legal provisions – Jurisdiction determined based on date of filing eviction petition, not the date of rent agreement – Eviction petition filed post-notification, thus within jurisdiction – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-9].

Legal Provisions – Estoppel Against Law – Mention in Sale/Rent Deed – Court emphasized that parties cannot contract out of statutory provisions – Jurisdiction determined by applicable laws at the time of filing, irrespective of deed content – Notification bringing property within municipal limits prior to eviction petition renders Haryana Rent Act applicable [Paras 9-10].

Rent Controller's Jurisdiction – Notification Impact – Eviction petition validity challenged due to initial property status outside municipal limits – Court ruled jurisdiction aligned with notification date, not deed date – Rent Controller's authority upheld as property within municipal limits at eviction filing date [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Held – Jurisdiction based on notification date bringing property within municipal limits – Mention in sale/rent deed irrelevant against statutory provisions – No interference in Appellate Authority's order – Petition dismissed, eviction petition maintainable [Paras 9-10].

Transfer of Investigation – Judicial Review – Sections 173 and 465 Cr.P.C. – Petition for transferring investigation to CBI or any independent agency due to alleged bias and malice in current investigation – Court held no accused has right to choose investigating agency, but judicial review necessary to ensure fairness – Investigation quashed due to bias and malice, directing State to conduct fresh fair and impartial investigation by an independent team [Paras 44-80].

Constitutional Remedies – Articles 226 and 32 – Fundamental Rights – Court emphasized citizen's right against undue process during investigation and adjudication – Remedies under Articles 32 and 226 applicable for protecting rights not covered by statutory provisions – Court's duty to ensure fair investigation to prevent miscarriage of justice [Para 55].

Fair and Impartial Investigation – Statutory Compliance – Sections 173 and 482 Cr.P.C. – Investigation by respondent No.3 found influenced by political interests and public pressure – Respondent No.3 exhibited bias, malice, and irrationality in investigation – Court held investigation must be free from political and external pressures – Directions issued for fresh investigation by senior police officers ensuring compliance with statutory provisions [Paras 56-80].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Investigation quashed due to bias and unfairness – State directed to conduct fresh investigation by independent senior police officers team, free from all external pressures – Petition allowed with directions for ensuring fair and impartial investigation [Para 80].

Transfer Order – Quashing – Child Care Leave (CCL) – Competent Authority – Respondent No.5, a Chemist, was granted CCL for 730 days by an unauthorized authority – After availing CCL, respondent No.5 attempted to rejoin at Hisar, which was opposed by the petitioner – Court held the CCL sanction by Engineer-in-Chief invalid as per Government instructions, which require CCL of more than 120 days to be sanctioned by Administrative Secretary – Transfer of petitioner and rejoining of respondent No.5 at Hisar found to be politically influenced and not in public interest – Transfer order quashed [Paras 1-10].

Administrative Fairness – Compliance with Instructions – The sanction of CCL by an unauthorized authority and the stipulation for rejoining at the same place violated Government instructions – Petitioner’s position as Chemist at Hisar, sanctioned by the competent authority, could not be overridden by invalid instructions – Respondent No.5’s prolonged stay at Hisar, despite policy norms, indicated favoritism and extraneous considerations [Paras 8-11].

Political Interference – Judicial Scrutiny – Evidence of political interference in transfer decisions undermines administrative integrity – Court found substantial evidence suggesting administrative machinery was manipulated to favor respondent No.5, treating petitioner as a second-class citizen – Administrative actions based on extraneous considerations cannot be upheld [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Transfer order dated 5.5.2020 quashed – Petitioner to retain position as Chemist at Hisar with all service benefits – Respondent No.5’s stipulation to rejoin at Hisar unenforceable due to improper CCL sanction – Administrative actions must comply with statutory and procedural norms [Para 11].

Medical Registration – Timely Application – Candidate Eligibility – Section 25 of Indian Medical Council Act – Petitioner applied for registration with Delhi Medical Council before the last date for submission of application forms but received the certificate post deadline – Court held that the delay in issuance of the certificate, beyond the petitioner’s control, should not render her ineligible – Petition allowed [Paras 1-23].

Unique Case Facts – No Other Eligible Candidates – Due to pandemic and lack of eligible candidates for 642 Medical Officer posts, court emphasized the necessity of filling vacancies – Petitioner’s merit and completion of selection process validated her claim – Specific order issued based on the peculiar circumstances, emphasizing need for more medical officers [Paras 23-24].

Judicial Precedents – Delay Beyond Control – Reference to Parminder Kaur and Aradhana cases – Courts held that applicants cannot be penalized for delays in certificate issuance by authorities if they applied timely – Consistent judicial approach favoring substantive eligibility over procedural delays [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Petitioner's delayed registration certificate issuance by Delhi Medical Council should not invalidate her eligibility – Directed respondents to appoint petitioner as Medical Officer against one of the vacant posts in the general category – Decision based on exceptional circumstances and public interest due to COVID-19 [Paras 27].

Temporary Permits – Granting of Temporary Permits – The petitioners, existing stage carriage permit holders, challenged the granting of temporary permits to private respondents on the same routes – Contention that the temporary permits were issued without proper legal authority and in violation of the petitioners' rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – Court held that the State Government was not legally empowered to take the executive decision of granting temporary permits, and the rights of the petitioners were found to be infringed – Temporary permits quashed [Paras 1-32].

Procedure under Motor Vehicles Act – Requirements for Temporary Permits – Court noted that provisions of Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act override those of Chapter V – Temporary permits can only be granted under the proviso to Section 104 after due application of mind – Competent authority failed to record findings on the satisfaction of pre-conditions stipulated under the proviso while granting impugned permits – All procedural requirements under the Act must be adhered to [Paras 4, 10, 19].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Impugned temporary permits set aside – High Court emphasized the need for lawful and reasoned decisions by authorities and mandated that temporary permits be granted only in accordance with the statutory provisions and procedures under the Motor Vehicles Act [Paras 31-32].

Electricity Supply – Applicable Code – NOC Issuance – Petitioners, developers of various residential colonies, sought release of electricity connections as per the supply code applicable at the time of NOC issuance (2007-08) – Court held that the Supply Code, 2014 enables the distribution licensee to insist the developer fulfill updated requirements – Issuance of NOC does not bind the licensee to supply electricity as per old code – Petitioners took 10-11 years to complete projects, hence must comply with current regulations [Paras 1-21].

Infrastructure Development – Developer's Obligations – Distribution Networks – Petitioners failed to fully develop local distribution networks – Court held developers must complete necessary infrastructure before handing over to PSPCL – Distribution licensee justified in requiring compliance with Supply Code, 2014 to ensure proper electricity supply and infrastructure for future demands [Paras 20-21].

Judicial Precedents – No Automatic Right from NOC – Petitioners relied on Ansal Properties case – Court distinguished that the current case involves statutory obligations under Supply Code, 2014 – NOCs issued for feasibility assessment, not to guarantee old supply code applicability [Paras 17-18].

Consumer Welfare – Complete Infrastructure Requirement – Incomplete infrastructure by developers leads to consumer suffering – Court emphasized necessity of complete local electricity distribution networks before management transfer to PSPCL – Ensuring consumer welfare through compliance with updated regulations [Para 21].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners required to fulfill requirements of Supply Code, 2014 – Issuance of NOC does not exempt developers from updated statutory obligations – Petition dismissed for lack of merit [Paras 22-23].

Pension – Inclusion of Work Charge Service – Any employee who has rendered service on work charge/adhoc basis is entitled to count the period of such service towards the total length of qualifying service for pensionary benefits – Respondent's rejection of pension claim on grounds of not having 20 years of regular service set aside – Estoppel principle applied as petitioner’s voluntary retirement was accepted by the respondent – Orders for pensionary benefits to be released including work charge service period [Paras 1-12].

Voluntary Retirement – Entitlement to Pension – Once the offer of voluntary retirement is accepted, respondent cannot deny pension on grounds of not completing 20 years of regular service – Work charge service period included for pension eligibility – Respondent’s argument regarding regular service rejected [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned order quashed – Respondents directed to release pensionary benefits including work charge service period within 60 days – Compensatory interest awarded for wrongful denial of benefits [Para 12].

Seniority – Fixation by Promotion – Petitioners promoted retrospectively to the post of Food and Supplies Officers from dates of completion of 3 years of experience – Petitioners placed lower than direct recruits in seniority despite earlier retrospective dates – Held, appointments from any source subject to completion of probation – Probation period for direct recruits is 2 years, for promotion is 1 year – Seniority determined by continuous length of service – Completion of probation irrelevant to seniority fixation – Orders placing petitioners lower than direct recruits set aside [Paras 1-14].

Experience and Qualification – Promotion Requirements – Rules required 3 years of experience as Assistant Food and Supplies Officers for promotion – Petitioners lacked few months of required experience – Reconsideration granted retrospective promotion dates aligning with completion of required experience – Seniority must reflect earlier retrospective promotion dates prior to direct recruits’ entry [Paras 7-13].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Seniority list quashed – Directed fresh seniority list preparation based on dates of promotion for petitioners and direct appointment for respondents within two months [Para 19].

Reservation – Ex-servicemen Category – Lineal Descendants – Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 – Appellant contended non-inclusion of LDESM candidates in the shortlist for mains examination was against the rules and advertisement terms – Court held Clause 11 of the advertisement clearly states LDESM candidates considered only if no ESM candidates are available – With sufficient ESM candidates available, LDESM candidates to be treated as General category – Appellant had no right to be considered under ESM reservation – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-15].

Statutory Interpretation – Specific Provisions – Proviso to Rule 4(1) of 1982 Rules – Reservation for LDESM only applies if ESM candidates not available – Provisions of Rule 4 and advertisement Note 1(b) consistently interpreted – General candidates include LDESM when sufficient ESM candidates present – Claim of right for consideration under ESM reservation without basis [Paras 8-13].

Judicial Review – Administrative Decisions – Shortlisting Process – Appellant scored 180.5 marks against ESM cutoff of 160.5 but not shortlisted – Court found 143 ESM candidates available against 11 reserved posts – ESM candidates adequately filling reserved posts invalidated LDESM claim – Administrative adherence to statutory rules and advertisement terms upheld [Paras 3-14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Clause 11 and Rule 4 interpreted to deny LDESM reservation when sufficient ESM available – Appellant’s exclusion from ESM reservation valid – Appeal dismissed with no relief granted [Para 15].a