Seniority List – Merit-Based Determination – Unjust and Arbitrary Actions – Petitioners contested the seniority list finalized on 05.07.2016, which ranked them junior to private respondents solely due to delayed appointment letters, despite higher merit positions – Held, as per Division Bench judgment in Prem Singh's case, petitioners could not be treated as junior due to administrative delays – The action of the Corporation in treating petitioners as juniors violated Articles 14 and 16 – Seniority list quashed and direction issued for deemed date of appointment based on merit list [Paras 1-17].

Judicial Review – Seniority in Service – Principles of Fairness – Petitioners secured higher merit positions in a common selection process and were eligible in terms of qualifications and experience – Corporation's failure to issue appointment letters timely led to unjust seniority ranking – Court emphasized that administrative lapses should not prejudice meritorious candidates – Directions issued to revise seniority list to reflect merit-based rankings [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Petition allowed – Seniority list dated 05.07.2016 quashed – Petitioners granted deemed date of appointment as Junior Engineers (Electrical) from the date the first Junior Engineer was appointed from the same selection process – Corporation directed to issue fresh seniority list for Assistant Engineers (Electrical) within six weeks [Paras 17-18].

Land Ceiling – Reopening of Surplus Area Cases – Delay and Jurisdiction – Petitioners challenged the Financial Commissioner’s orders remanding surplus area cases to the Collector for a fresh decision after 16 and 24 years – Held, the power under Section 18(6) of the 1972 Act, although without a limitation period, must be exercised within a reasonable time – The Financial Commissioner did not justify the delay or consider the consequences of reopening old cases – Petitioners’ land holdings within permissible limits, and orders setting aside the Assistant Collector’s decision allowing eviction were unjustified [Paras 1-33].

Jurisdiction – Exercise of Revisional Powers – Lapse of Time – Supreme Court and High Court precedents require that extraordinary powers under Section 18(6) be exercised with reasons and within a reasonable timeframe – In the absence of fraud or suppression, the reopening of long-settled cases was unwarranted – Financial Commissioner’s order found to be without jurisdiction and set aside [Paras 17-23, 29-31].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Orders dated 12.09.1997 and 10.03.1999 passed by the Financial Commissioner set aside – Petitioners’ land holdings declared within permissible limits and eviction orders reinstated [Paras 34-36].

Interim Relief – Appellate Tribunal's Powers – The Appellate Tribunal, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, granted interim relief by temporarily de-sealing and handing over possession of a residential property for marriage functions – Held, the Tribunal has discretionary power to grant interim relief as long as the trial has not commenced before the Special Court – The Tribunal's power to grant interim relief is not barred unless specifically prohibited by statute – Interim orders can be passed if the Tribunal finds errors apparent on the record or procedural violations in the attachment and possession process [Paras 8-12].

Merits of Interim Relief Order – Appellate Tribunal failed to address the appellant's arguments on statutory non-compliance and procedural violations – The order was non-speaking, cryptic, and lacked justification – Appellate Tribunal's order set aside and case remanded for fresh adjudication with proper consideration of statutory provisions and arguments [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Interim order of Appellate Tribunal set aside – Case remanded for fresh adjudication – Parties directed to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings [Paras 15-17].

Rejection of Technical Bids – Compliance with Statutory Provisions – Petitioners’ technical bids were rejected for failing to comply with statutory requirements under EPF/ESI/Contract Labour Act – Petitioners showed independent business proprietors as employees, with EPF remitted in their names – Claimed savings on EPF for actual workmen – Held, rejection justified due to non-compliance with EPF Act, lack of records for actual workmen, and misleading information in bid documents – Writ Petitions dismissed [Paras 1-46].

Violation of EPF Act – Misrepresentation in Bids – Petitioners failed to provide accurate employment records and attendance registers – Independent business proprietors shown as labourers, contrary to tender requirements – Misrepresentation led to EPF being remitted for family members – Petitioners did not adequately justify non-compliance or produce necessary documentation – Rejection of technical bids upheld [Paras 9, 39-40].

Contractual Compliance – Judicial Review Scope –Court emphasized limited scope of judicial review in tender matters – Administrative decisions can be interfered with only if found to be arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide – In this case, FCI’s decision was found to be reasonable and in compliance with statutory requirements – Petitioners’ claims of arbitrariness and violation of natural justice principles were rejected [Paras 30-35, 43].

Decision:- Writ petitions dismissed – FCI's rejection of technical bids upheld as legally justified and compliant with public interest considerations under exceptional circumstances caused by alleged misrepresentation and non-compliance with statutory provisions [Para 46].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings – Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Petitioners sought quashing of acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, asserting that the acquisition had lapsed due to non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession as per Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Held, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, the word 'or' in Section 24(2) must be read as 'nor', meaning acquisition would lapse only if both compensation was not paid and possession was not taken – Since possession of 77.55% of the land had been taken and compensation was paid, the acquisition did not lapse – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-9].

Land Acquisition – Compliance with Statutory Provisions – Judicial Review – Court found that the majority of the compensation (77.55%) was paid and possession was taken as per the rapatroznamcha dated 13.08.2002 – Representation by petitioners was considered and rejected by the Zonal Committee after noting the impact on the development plan, including an 18-meter wide road – Judicial intervention not warranted as statutory provisions were complied with [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Notifications dated 12.06.2000 and 11.06.2001 under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act upheld – No interference warranted with the Zonal Committee's order rejecting the release of the land – Interim order vacated [Para 11].

Reservation in Education – Admission Criteria – Weightage for NET Qualification – Petitioner challenged the selection process for Ph.D. admission at Kurukshetra University, asserting that an OBC candidate with higher marks should be considered in the Haryana Open General Category (HOGC) quota – Held, a reserved category candidate who avails relaxation (like weightage for NET under OBC criteria) cannot be considered to have qualified on their own merit for general category vacancies – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-11].

Legal Principles – Reserved Category Candidates in General Quota – Supreme Court precedents establish that reserved category candidates benefiting from relaxations cannot claim seats in the general category – Such candidates are considered against reserved quotas only – University's decision to categorize OBC candidate with weightage marks in OBC quota upheld as consistent with legal norms [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Petition dismissed – University’s categorization of OBC candidate under the OBC quota upheld – Reserved category candidates using relaxations cannot claim general category seats [Para 11].

Constitutional Law – Principles of Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Petitioner was declared ineligible for the allotment of a petrol pump due to the presence of an unauthorized median cut near the proposed site – Held, the petitioner was not responsible for the median cut and should have been given an opportunity to get it removed – The evaluation committee was expected to verify facts from NHAI and provide an opportunity to the petitioner – Cancellation of LOI without hearing the petitioner was in violation of natural justice – Petition allowed, communication declaring ineligibility quashed [Paras 1-20].

Writ Jurisdiction – Availability of Alternative Remedy – Exceptions – Court's self-imposed rule to avoid entertaining writ petitions if an effective alternative remedy is available – Exceptions include statutory authority not acting in accordance with the law, defiance of judicial procedures, or violation of natural justice – In the present case, the grievance redressal forum is not statutory and principles of natural justice were violated – Hence, the writ petition is maintainable despite availability of alternative remedy [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Petition allowed – Communication dated 17.08.2019 declaring the petitioner ineligible quashed – Respondent Corporation directed to proceed in accordance with the law [Paras 23-26].

Cooperative Societies – Election – Eligibility of Candidates – Petitioner's nomination papers for Cooperative Society election rejected for not being an 'active member' in the last twelve months as required under Rule 27(f) of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Rules – Petitioner claimed participation based on affidavits from other members but provided no documentary proof – Court held that affidavits did not specify recent participation and could not substantiate the petitioner's claim – Bye-laws of the Society do not override the eligibility conditions in the State Rules – Proper enquiry conducted by Returning Officer based on Manager’s report [Paras 1-7].

Judicial Review – Enquiry by Returning Officer – Role of Manager's Report – Returning Officer’s enquiry deemed sufficient as per Clauses 6 and 7 of Appendix-A – Reliance on the Manager’s report about non-participation valid – Manager considered best person to verify member participation – No court-like enquiry required for nomination considerations – Petitioner's failure to substantiate participation in society activities led to rightful rejection of his nomination [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Returning Officer's rejection of nomination upheld – Petitioner failed to provide valid documentation of participation in society activities for eligibility – Court found no merit in petitioner's arguments and upheld the Returning Officer's decision [Para 11].

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 22 – Eviction of Children and Relatives – Petitioner, a widowed daughter-in-law, directed to vacate her father-in-law’s self-acquired house – Court upheld the Tribunal’s order, emphasizing that a senior citizen cannot be compelled to allow any relative to stay in their self-acquired property against their wishes – Petitioner to receive an initial amount of Rs. 2 lakhs for alternate accommodation and further Rs. 25 lakhs within a month from vacating the house, along with a monthly sum of Rs. 25,000/- for six years [Paras 1-19, 53, 65-68].

Family Dispute – Right to Residence – The Court noted that respondent No. 2, the 82-year-old father-in-law, had allowed the petitioner to stay in his house since the death of her husband in 2003, but found her behavior intolerable – Court emphasized the need for an amicable settlement to mitigate family disputes – Petitioner’s claim to stay in the house without the father's consent was dismissed, as the house was self-acquired by the father-in-law [Paras 62-64].

Judicial Review – Scope and Power – Court exercised judicial superintendence under Article 226 – Tribunal’s jurisdiction affirmed to order eviction to protect senior citizens’ rights and property – Eviction order based on senior citizen's right to live with security and dignity in their own property [Paras 40, 43-45].

Decision – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Held – Impugned order upheld with modifications – Respondent No. 2 to provide financial support for petitioner’s relocation and living expenses – Directions given for mutual cooperation to resolve the family dispute amicably [Paras 68-69].