Proclaimed Offender – Procedural Compliance – Section 82 Cr.P.C – Petitioner declared as a proclaimed person for not appearing in a case – Petitioner later surrendered before the trial court – Court held that once the accused surrenders and joins proceedings, they can no longer be described as an offender – Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. fulfilled their purpose upon petitioner’s appearance – Order declaring petitioner a proclaimed person and consequent FIR quashed [Paras 1-9].

Judicial Review – Principles – Similar Precedents – Reference to Ashish Gupta vs. State of Punjab – Legal remedy pursuit does not imply evasion of arrest – Petitioner's actions consistent with seeking legal remedies available – Proclaimed offender order deemed hasty without allowing reasonable time for petitioner to avail legal options [Para 7].

Quashing FIR – Legal Grounds – Petitioner’s Compliance – Following petitioner’s compliance with court orders, proceedings under Section 82 were rendered redundant – Legal principle that procedural steps should not result in continued detriment once compliance achieved [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Order declaring petitioner as a proclaimed person and subsequent FIR quashed – Court emphasized procedural fairness and the fulfillment of Section 82 objectives upon surrender [Para 9].

Election Law – Judicial Review – Article 226 – Power of High Court – Petitioners challenged rejection of nomination papers by the Election Returning Officer without furnishing rejection orders – Court held power of High Court under Article 226 is available where it subserves the progress of election, facilitates its completion, and furthers the election process – However, an election can only be challenged through an election petition – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Jurisdiction – Article 243ZG – No Absolute Bar – Judicial Review Permissible – Court emphasized that Article 243ZG does not curtail or oust High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 – High Court's power of judicial review can be exercised in election matters if it subserves the election process – Rejection of nomination papers falls within the domain of election petitions, and High Court intervention is limited to exceptional circumstances [Paras 11-13].

Election Process – Statutory Compliance – Section 41 of 1994 Act – Petitioners alleged violation of statutory provisions by not providing rejection orders and not displaying rejected candidates' list – Court found procedural lapses do not warrant interference at this stage and should be addressed through election petitions – Petitioners directed to avail statutory remedy under Section 74 of 1994 Act [Paras 4-6, 13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – High Court’s power under Article 226 is not ousted but limited in election matters – Petitioners' grievances regarding nomination rejection to be addressed through election petitions – Petition dismissed without prejudice to petitioners' right to challenge through election petition [Paras 13-14].

Technical Bids – Rejection – Judicial Review – Petitioner, a sole proprietorship, challenged rejection of technical bid due to experience certificate issued in the name of a former partnership firm – Court held technical qualifications must be assessed as per tender documents – Previous partnership experience cannot be bifurcated and counted towards individual qualifications – Jurisdiction limited to checking arbitrariness or bias – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-44].

Experience of Partners – Bidding Eligibility – Petitioner sought to rely on experience from partnership firm where the proprietor held 50% share – Court rejected argument that partnership experience could be claimed proportionately – Different partners have different skill sets; experience of firm not divisible – Previous firm’s experience deemed irrelevant for current sole proprietorship bid [Paras 10-12].

Legal Precedents – Tender Authority Discretion – Court reiterated that interpretation of tender documents and assessment of qualifications is primarily within the domain of the issuing authority – Judicial interference warranted only if decision arbitrary or biased – Tender rejection upheld as decision-making process found rational and justified [Paras 34-44].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Rejection of technical bid upheld – Experience from former partnership not applicable to sole proprietorship – No arbitrariness or bias found in tender authority’s decision – Petition dismissed with no relief to petitioner [Paras 1-44].

Transfer and Deputation – Regulatory vs. Commercial Wings – Rules Compliance – Petitioners, Transport Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors, challenged orders transferring them between Regulatory and Commercial wings – Court held that Haryana Transport Department (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998 did not permit such transfers – The Rules of 1998 did not include the phrase "any department under the control of the government," which is present in the 2016 Rules – Since 1998 Rules apply, reliance on 2016 general rules is impermissible – Orders of transfer/deputation invalid [Paras 29-36].

Reasonableness and Rationality – Wednesbury Principles – Administrative Action – Court found no justification for transfer orders purportedly to address corruption – No specific disciplinary proceedings initiated against any named individuals – Transfer orders failed Wednesbury principles of reasonableness – Administrative action deemed unsustainable [Paras 28-30].

Organizational Structure – Bifurcation Impact – Independent Units – Petitioners belonged to Regulatory Wing; transferred to Commercial Wing (Haryana Roadways) – Bifurcation in 2002 created separate independent units – Rules and rationale for separating wings at top level apply throughout hierarchy – Cross-wing transfers undermine operational integrity and original bifurcation intent – Such transfers, therefore, invalid [Paras 10-32].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – Transfer/deputation orders quashed – Regulatory and Commercial wings to maintain independent staff – Petitioners reinstated to original positions within respective wings – Orders set aside on grounds of statutory non-compliance and lack of administrative rationality [Paras 36-37].

Election Law – Rejection of Nomination Papers – Judicial Review – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Petitioner's nomination papers rejected on grounds of illegal occupation of government land – Court held writ petition not maintainable – Election disputes to be addressed through election petitions as per Article 243ZG of the Constitution and Sections 74 and 89 of Punjab Election Commission Act – Supreme Court precedents mandate that election process once started should not be interrupted by writ petitions – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Nomination Process – Scope of Judicial Review – Petitioner’s claim of non-occupation of government land required factual determination – Court emphasized that factual disputes related to elections should be resolved through election tribunals – Nomination rejections fall within election process, thus writ petitions barred unless exceptional circumstances proven [Paras 4-19].

Statutory Provisions – Compliance and Disqualifications – Sections 11(q) and 11(r) of the Punjab Election Commission Act – Petitioner’s disqualification based on unauthorized occupation and non-payment of municipal taxes – Court upheld statutory compliance by election authorities – Specific statutory grounds for disqualification applicable, writ jurisdiction limited in election matters [Paras 21-26].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Writ petition challenging rejection of nomination papers not maintainable – Validity of election process to be questioned through election petitions – Petitioner at liberty to file an election petition as per statutory provisions [Para 30].

Transfer of IAS Officers – Discretion and Administrative Exigencies – Rule 7 of IAS Cadre Rules, 1954 – Petitioner, 100% visually impaired IAS Officer, challenged transfer as discriminatory – Court held transfer is an incident of service, no vested right to specific posting – Transfer orders based on administrative exigencies and public interest, not discriminatory – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-27, 40-43].

Statutory Compliance – Tenure and Recommendations – Rule 7(3) and 7(5) – Petitioner’s transfer within two years challenged for non-compliance with minimum tenure – Court found compliance with statutory provisions; Civil Services Board recommended transfer – Extraordinary COVID-19 circumstances justified administrative decisions – No violation of statutory rules established [Paras 23-35].

Judicial Review – Limits on Interference – Administrative Decisions – Court emphasized limited scope of judicial review in administrative transfers – Absence of mala fides or violation of statutory rules restricts court interference – Administrative discretion and public interest paramount – Orders of CAT upheld, transfer order valid [Paras 21, 41].

Career Progression – Field Experience Requirement – Petitioner's grievance on inadequate field experience addressed – Court noted petitioner completed requisite field experience for central deputation eligibility – Primary grievance resolved, no further merit in claims [Paras 17-19, 39].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Transfer order from Deputy Commissioner to Director position upheld – Statutory rules complied, no discrimination or mala fides found – CAT order affirmed, petition dismissed [Paras 42-43].

Recruitment Criteria – HTET Requirement – Transitional Provisions – Petitioners sought exemption from HTET for second recruitment after the notification of the 2012 Rules – Court held that the transitional provision allowed exemption only for the first recruitment post-notification – Petitioners were given several opportunities to qualify HTET in 2017 and 2018 but failed – No right to claim exemption as a matter of right – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Eligibility – Requirement of Qualification – Petitioners failed to clear HTET by the date of interview – Exemption granted in first recruitment does not apply to subsequent recruitments – Eligibility criteria of HTET/STET common for all subjects under the 2012 Rules – Petitioners' ineligibility for interview upheld as per recruitment rules [Paras 5-10, 14].

Judicial Review – Consistency with Recruitment Rules – Court emphasized adherence to statutory recruitment criteria – Relaxation provisions under Rule 19-A allowed State discretion but not as a matter of right – Petitioners' reliance on initial exemption misconceived – Petitioners’ claim for interview without HTET qualification rejected [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners not eligible for interview without HTET qualification – Exemption granted for first recruitment not applicable – State's decision upheld – No merit in the petition [Paras 16-18].

Education Law – Revaluation of Answer Sheets – Online Examinations – Petitioners challenged the University’s decision to disallow revaluation of answer sheets from online examinations conducted due to COVID-19. Court held that revaluation regulations framed by the University Senate apply to all forms of examinations unless explicitly excluded. Controller of Examination's decision to disallow revaluation based on an interpretation of minutes of a committee meeting was set aside [Paras 1-19].

Jurisdiction of University Authorities – Regulation Amendment – Court emphasized that the University Senate, as the supreme authority, has the power to frame regulations, including those for revaluation. The Controller of Examination does not have the authority to amend these regulations. The decision to exclude revaluation for online exams was beyond the Controller’s jurisdiction and not supported by any explicit decision [Paras 2-3, 7-12, 18].

Regulation Consistency – Various Examination Modes – University regulations for revaluation were intended to cover all examination modes, including online exams, unless specifically excluded. Court noted that even online exams involved handwritten submissions, maintaining the integrity of the revaluation process. Regulations governing traditional exams apply equally to online formats unless explicitly modified [Paras 10-11, 15-16].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Court directed Panjab University to re-evaluate the answer sheets as requested by the petitioners. Controller of Examination’s decision to exclude revaluation for online exams was set aside. Petitioners entitled to the same revaluation rights as traditional examination candidates [Paras 19-20].

Pension and Financial Assistance – Denial Based on Conviction – Unrelated Offence – Petitioner denied pension and financial assistance due to her conviction in a murder case unrelated to her husband's death – Court held denial unsustainable as the conviction was not related to her husband's death – Order denying benefits set aside – Mandamus issued for payment of arrears with interest [Paras 1-14].

Rules Interpretation – Family Pension – Good Conduct Clause – Punjab Civil Services Rules 2.2(a) – Good conduct requirement applies to pensioners, not family members receiving financial aid – No misconduct clause in Haryana Rules of 2006 affecting family members' entitlement to financial assistance – Court emphasized the beneficial intent of the Rules, aimed at assisting the deceased employee’s family [Paras 3-5, 9-10].

Judicial Precedents – Pension Recovery Limits – Consistent with precedents, complete pension cannot be withheld – Maximum one-third of gross pension recoverable for pecuniary loss to the Government – Family Pension Rules' disqualification clause applies only if the Government employee was murdered by the family member claiming pension – Similar rulings from other High Courts upheld [Paras 6-8, 11-12].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Denial of pension and financial assistance to the petitioner based on unrelated conviction is invalid – Respondents directed to pay arrears of monthly financial assistance and process family pension claim – Simple interest at 6% per annum on arrears awarded – Compliance required within two months [Paras 13-14].