Eligibility Criteria – Sports Category – Competitive Examination – The appellant applied for the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination 2020 under the Sports Persons category and received an admit card accordingly – During scrutiny, his sports certificates did not meet the eligibility criteria as per the Punjab Recruitment of Sportsmen (First Amendment) Rules, 2020 – Appellant’s candidature shifted to General category – Court held issuance of admit card does not confer vested right to be considered under Sports Persons category if ineligible – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-13].

Public Notice – Technical Constraints – Public notice issued before the preliminary examination clarified that admit cards issued based on online application categories were subject to certificate verification – Candidates not meeting Sports Persons criteria would be considered in their basic (General) category – Appellant notified and his candidature shifted accordingly – No vested right accrued due to initial admit card issuance [Paras 11-12].

Judicial Review – Scrutiny and Verification – Court upheld the verification process of sports certificates and adherence to eligibility criteria – The decision to consider appellant in General category due to ineligibility in Sports Persons category found legally valid – No merit in appellant’s claim for provisional candidature under Sports Persons category [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Issuance of admit card in Sports Persons category did not grant vested right if subsequent scrutiny found ineligibility – Public notice provided adequate information – Appeal dismissed for lack of merit and adherence to procedural fairness [Paras 13-14].

Motor Accident Claims – Separate and Distinct Remedies – Section 163-A vs. Section 166 – Simultaneous Proceedings – Remedies under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are independent and separate – Claimants cannot pursue both remedies simultaneously – Section 163-A is based on 'no-fault liability' and applicable for claimants earning less than Rs. 40,000/- p.a., while Section 166 is based on 'fault liability' – If a claim under Section 163-A is found non-maintainable, a claim under Section 166 is permissible [Paras 1-9].

Income Limitation – Section 163-A – The claimant's income exceeding Rs. 40,000/- p.a. renders a claim under Section 163-A non-maintainable – In such cases, a subsequent claim under Section 166 based on fault liability is not barred – Simultaneous benefit from both sections is impermissible, but sequential claims are allowed if initial claim under Section 163-A fails [Para 8-9].

Rash and Negligent Driving – DDR Evidence – Tribunal Findings – The Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving based on the claimant's testimony and DDR (Daily Diary Report) upheld – DDR stating the accident occurred 'suddenly' and 'by chance' does not negate rash and negligent driving if not explicitly stated – Tribunal correctly concluded rash and negligent driving based on evidence presented [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Tribunal's award of compensation affirmed – Simultaneous proceedings under Sections 163-A and 166 impermissible, but subsequent claim under Section 166 after dismissal of Section 163-A claim is valid – Rash and negligent driving sufficiently proved – Appeal dismissed with no merit [Para 10].

Termination of Service – Invalid Qualification – Non-Existing Institute – Petitioner employed as ETT Teacher based on Junior Basic Training (JBT) from Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad, Shripalpur – Institute found non-existent – Petitioner issued charge-sheet and subsequently terminated for lack of necessary qualification – Court held petitioner without minimum qualification has no right to continue in public employment – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Public Employment – Minimum Qualification – Court emphasized the requirement of possessing valid qualifications for public employment – Petitioner’s claim of good faith admission through Oxford College not excusable as the minimum qualification is mandatory – Employment without valid qualifications cannot be sustained [Paras 6-8].

Judicial Precedents – Recognition and Existence of Institutes – Differentiation – Court differentiated between cases of non-recognized institutes and non-existing institutes – Petitioner’s reliance on cases involving recognition disputes found inapplicable – Court highlighted that absence of the institute itself is a significant disqualifier [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioner’s appointment based on invalid qualification from a non-existent institute – Termination upheld as necessary for maintaining qualification standards in public employment – Petition dismissed with no relief granted [Para 10].

University Governance – Senate Elections – Indefinite Postponement – Regulation 12.2 – Petitioners challenged the indefinite postponement of Senate elections by the Vice-Chancellor of Panjab University – Court held that Regulation 12.2 allows postponement of elections but not indefinitely without valid reason – Indefinite postponement amidst national elections demonstrated malice and motive – Direction to complete elections within two months [Paras 1-10].

Power and Accountability – Vice-Chancellor's Authority – Limits – Vice-Chancellor's power to postpone elections must not be arbitrary or unbridled – Election postponement due to pandemic without revisiting decision despite national elections ongoing shows administrative malice – Court emphasized democratic governance and accountability in university functioning [Paras 8-10].

Legal and Procedural Compliance – Senate and Syndicate Functions – Court found indefinite postponement without Senate/Syndicate approval violated university governance statutes – Proper running of university necessitates timely elections for Senate to prevent autocratic governance and uphold democratic principles [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Review – Setting Aside Administrative Decisions – Court invoked principles of administrative fairness and judicial oversight to set aside the Vice-Chancellor’s decision – Directions issued to complete the election process to restore proper governance and uphold university’s democratic integrity [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Indefinite postponement of Senate elections by Vice-Chancellor set aside – Respondent directed to complete electoral process within two months – Petition allowed to restore democratic functioning of Panjab University [Paras 10].

Writ Petition – Maintainability – Alternative Remedy – Demand and Possession Notices – Petitioner-firm challenged demand notice dated 03.07.2019 and possession notice dated 18.09.2019 issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act – Court held that ordinarily, High Court would not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 if an effective alternative remedy is available – Petitioner failed to demonstrate why the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) was not an efficacious remedy or why there was such a travesty of justice to approach the High Court directly – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-7].

Legal Precedents – Alternative Remedy – High Court’s Jurisdiction – Reference to Supreme Court decisions in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. and Agarwal TracomPvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank – High Court to insist on exhausting remedies under relevant statute before invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Observations emphasized the complete code nature of the SARFAESI Act and statutory remedies provided therein [Paras 4-5].

Bank’s Procedure – Legality and Efficacy – Court found no compelling reasons or procedural illegality in the actions taken by the respondent-Bank to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction – Petitioner-firm had not availed the alternative remedy under SARFAESI Act till date – Petition dismissed on grounds of maintainability and lack of merit [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petition dismissed for lack of merit and maintainability – Petitioner directed to avail the alternative remedy available under the SARFAESI Act before approaching High Court [Para 7].

Contractual Employment – Right to Continue – Policy Decision – ECHS Scheme – Petitioner's contract as a driver under the ECHS was not renewed, and a new recruitment advertisement was issued – Court held that contractual employees have no right to continue against the terms of the contract – ECHS Scheme does not create permanent vacancies; contractual appointments are for fixed tenures – The Supreme Court in the Anita case established that contractual employees cannot challenge terms after accepting employment – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-22].

Policy Decision – Judicial Interference – Court emphasized the non-interference with policy decisions unless found arbitrary or illegal – ECHS Scheme, being a policy decision by the Central Government, is not subject to change by the court's intervention – Fresh recruitment intended to provide opportunities to other ex-servicemen – Petitioners bound by their initial acceptance of fixed tenure terms [Paras 20-22].

Precedents – Applicability of Supreme Court Judgments – The Division Bench's decision in Paramjit Kaur's case was declared per incuriam for not considering the Supreme Court's judgment in the State of Maharashtra v. Anita – Court reinforced the contractual nature of employment under government schemes and the binding terms of initial agreements [Paras 17-18].

Principle of Estoppel – Contractual Terms – Employees accepting fixed-term contracts cannot later challenge the terms – Court reiterated the principle of estoppel from the Anita case, denying petitioners' challenge to the non-renewal of their contracts – Rights of other potential candidates and policy intentions emphasized [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners had no right to automatic renewal of contracts – ECHS policy for fixed-term employment upheld – Petition dismissed for lack of merit and interference in policy decisions [Paras 24-25].

Regular Bail – Fresh Investigation – Police Jurisdiction – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners declared innocent after initial charge sheet – Court held that police have no power to conduct fresh investigation or re-investigation – Converting inquiry report into a supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is violative of procedural laws – Suo moto exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Instructions dated 04.05.2017 issued by Director, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab quashed – Directions for fair investigation issued [Paras 1-46].

Police Investigation – Statutory Procedure – Inquiry Reports – Police instructed to follow statutory provisions under Cr.P.C. for investigation – Representation/request by accused for examining innocence not to be entertained once investigation commences – Multiple inquiries or parallel investigations prohibited – Trial Courts to ensure compliance with statutory provisions and report lapses [Paras 27-41].

Judicial Oversight – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Powers of High Court – Court exercised inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice – Directed strict adherence to Supreme Court guidelines for police and prosecutors in criminal investigations – Ensured fair and impartial investigations without external influence or procedural shortcuts [Paras 47-54].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Held – Regular bail denied due to seriousness of offenses and specific allegations – Instructions permitting fresh inquiries by police quashed – Directions issued for adherence to lawful investigation procedures – Petitioners to be dealt with under existing statutory framework [Paras 23-46].

Equivalence of Qualifications – Eligibility for Post – Post of Store Keeper – Petitioner’s MBA (Retail Management) deemed not equivalent to required Material Management degree – Tribunal upheld rejection, deeming equivalence a technical matter for appropriate authority – Court held equivalence not exact, substantial similarity suffices – Nomenclature differences insufficient to deny equivalence if curriculum content similar – Directed expert committee examination for equivalence determination [Paras 1-16].

Administrative Decision – Academic Qualifications – Expert Review – Tribunal's reliance on substantial subject overlap in MBA and Material Management degrees – Court directed formation of expert committee to compare curricula – Reiterated importance of content over nomenclature in academic equivalence – Petition disposed with directive for expert review [Paras 12-16].

Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness – Expert Determination – Court emphasized procedural fairness in eligibility assessment – Directed expert committee to evaluate substantial equivalence of petitioner’s MBA (Retail Management) to prescribed qualifications – Expert determination critical for fair adjudication [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed – Held – Directed respondent to form expert committee to assess curriculum equivalence – Petitioner to be considered eligible if substantial equivalence found – Exercise to be completed within two months – Petitioner may challenge adverse expert decision through appropriate legal action [Paras 16-18].

Unauthorized Construction – Regularization – Rule 12(4) – Petitioners constructed houses on Gram Panchayat land – Claim for regularization under Rule 12(4) rejected by Deputy Commissioner – Court held concept of co-sharer does not apply to unauthorized occupation – Rule 12(4) applies to sale of land up to 200 sq. yards only – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-11].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Order 2, Rule 2 – Previous Litigation – Petitioners’ earlier petition challenging Deputy Commissioner’s order dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the dismissal – Present petition barred by Order 2, Rule 2 and estoppel – No new plea raised regarding encroached land shared by others – Petition dismissed as barred and frivolous [Paras 7-9].

Co-sharer Concept – Unauthorized Occupation – Concept of co-sharer relates to ownership, not encroachers – Petitioners sought regularization of encroachment under co-sharer claim – Court held co-sharer concept not applicable to regularize unauthorized possession – No merit in the claim under Rule 12(4) [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Review – Finality of Orders – Previous orders of Deputy Commissioner, High Court, and Supreme Court attained finality – Present petition challenging same order dismissed – Judicial finality respected to prevent abuse of process [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners’ claim for regularization of unauthorized construction dismissed – Concept of co-sharer not applicable – Previous final orders upheld – Petition found frivolous and gross abuse of process [Para 11].