Rent Law – NRI Landlord – Leave to Contest – NRI landlord sought eviction for settling permanently in Amritsar – Tenant failed to file an affidavit with the application for leave to contest – Held, leave to contest must follow procedure under Section 38(7) – Rent Authority to examine tenant’s entitlement within limited aspect of Section 24(3) – Tenant's failure to follow procedure resulted in summary eviction – Orders of eviction upheld [Paras 1-13].

Summary Procedure – Affidavit Requirement – Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court and High Court precedents affirm necessity of affidavit for contesting eviction petitions – Tenant’s failure to provide affidavit deemed an admission of landlord’s claims – Legislative intent is a speedy resolution in favor of landlords with genuine needs – Orders by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority justified [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Tenant granted three months to vacate premises – Orders by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld [Para 15].

Compromise in Legal Proceedings – Validity of Statements in Court – Landlord filed an eviction application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act for non-payment of rent and personal necessity – Parties settled and recorded their statements before the Appellate Authority – Tenant later sought disposal of the appeal on merits, claiming he was allured into making the statement – Held, statements recorded by a party or counsel in court are as valid as written compromises and satisfy the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – The exception is fraud or deception, which must be proven in a separate suit – No evidence of collusion found, petition dismissed [Paras 1-23].

Legal Sanctity of Court Statements – Documentary Evidence – Statements made in court and recorded by a judicial officer hold the same sanctity as written instruments of compromise – Judicial statements are presumed to be voluntary and are binding unless proven otherwise through specific legal action alleging fraud – Tenant's application for merit-based disposal lacked substantiating evidence of fraud or collusion [Paras 19-23].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Appellate Authority’s order upheld – Statements recorded by the court considered valid compromises – No action against the counsel as no complaint filed with Bar Council – Time provided to comply with the order given the pandemic situation [Paras 23-25].

Service Law – Recruitment as Station Supervisor – Eligibility Criteria – Haryana Roadways Service Rules, 1995 and related advertisement required a graduate with Hindi/Sanskrit at Matric level and a minimum of five years' experience in Motor Road Transport Government, Semi-Government or public undertakings for direct recruitment as Station Supervisors (SS) – No requirement of supervisory experience for direct recruits – Held, promotional eligibility criteria cannot be applied to direct recruits – Amendment to eligibility criteria post-selection process invalid [Paras 1-20].

Promotional vs. Direct Recruitment Criteria – Administrative Instructions – Promotional eligibility required five years’ supervisory experience, but direct recruitment criteria specified general experience in Motor Road Transport – Changing eligibility criteria by administrative clarification after the selection process commenced deemed impermissible – Statutory rules cannot be overridden by administrative instructions [Paras 14-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Single Judge set aside – Respondents directed to consider the appellants for appointment as Station Supervisors based on eligibility criteria in the advertisement and the Rules – Exercise to be completed within twelve weeks [Paras 22-23].

Service Law – Seniority – Retrospective Effect of Eligibility – Petitioners, declared ineligible initially due to their degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, were later held eligible by the court – Petitioners sought to be treated as appointees of 2014 batch, despite actual appointment in 2015 – Held, as per Gurdeep Singh's case, petitioners were eligible when they applied and participated in the selection process in 2012 – Thus, they must be treated as 2014 batch appointees and entitled to seniority and promotion benefits accordingly [Paras 1-22].

Equivalence of Qualifications – Judicial Decisions and Policy Considerations – Court noted the equivalence of degrees as decided by the Corporation in 2014, and the judgment in Gurdeep Singh's case affirmed this equivalence – The Corporation’s policy decision dated 08.08.2016 for promotional benefits to late-joining Assistant Engineers due to reasons attributable to the Corporation applied similarly to Junior Engineers – Corporation’s arbitrary denial of similar benefits to petitioners violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioners to be treated as 2014 batch appointees for Junior Engineers (Electrical) – Inter-se seniority to be based on merit secured in the common written examination held on 28.07.2013 – Petitioners entitled to notional pay fixation as 2014 batch appointees, without arrears for non-working period [Paras 29-31].

Sabka Vishwas Scheme – Single Declaration for Multiple Show Cause Notices – Rule 3(2) Interpretation – Petitioner contended that a single declaration suffices for a pending consolidated appeal before the CESTAT, as per Rule 3(2) – Held, Rule 3(2) requires separate declarations for each case but does not apply when multiple show cause notices are consolidated into a single order and appeal – Rejection of petitioner's application on hyper-technical grounds deemed unjustified – Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act invoked to interpret 'case' in the singular to include plural – Petitioner’s application should not have been rejected for filing one declaration [Paras 1-14].

Judicial Interpretation – Contextual Reading – Technicalities vs. Substance – Court emphasized substance over technicalities, noting CBSE’s flexible stance in previous similar corrections – Petition highlighted no dispute over the genuineness of petitioner’s claims – Larger interpretation required for just resolution – Respondents’ objection dismissed [Paras 8-13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 21st February 2020 set aside – Respondents directed to reconsider the petitioner's single declaration within eight weeks – Fresh decision to be communicated within one week thereafter – Petitioner granted liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies if aggrieved by the new decision [Paras 14-15].

Correction of Certificate – CBSE Examination Bye-Laws – Pedantic Approach – Petitioner sought correction of his father’s name from Sukhpal Singh to Sukhpal in CBSE records – Held, CBSE’s rigid adherence to Bye-law 69 and refusal based on school records untenable – Court found CBSE’s refusal without merit, highlighting the certificates' importance for further studies and career-building – Driving the petitioner to seek a civil court decree deemed unnecessary and burdensome – CBSE directed to correct records and issue fresh certificates [Paras 1-12].

CBSE – Genuine Claims – School Records and Documentation – Petitioner demonstrated his father’s name as Sukhpal through birth certificate, Aadhar card, and other documents – Court rejected CBSE’s argument citing strict adherence to school records, emphasizing need for flexibility in genuine cases – CBSE’s refusal inconsistent with its past decisions allowing similar corrections – Court stressed CBSE’s role in facilitating students’ future prospects [Paras 5-11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – CBSE directed to correct the petitioner’s father’s name in its records and issue fresh certificates within 7 days of receiving the original documents – Corrected certificates to note High Court order for the name change – No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Recruitment – Validity of Selection Method – Conformance to Service Rules – Petitioner contested the recruitment method used by the Public Service Commission, alleging it deviated from the Punjab Forest (Class II) Service Rules, 1985 – Held, Note to Appendix 'C' allows selection based solely on an interview but does not permit changing the examination pattern as provided in the Service Rules – The Commission did not invoke this Note and instead altered the written examination pattern inconsistently with the Rules – Court held such deviation impermissible and set aside the recruitment notice [Paras 1-18].

Public Service Commission – Decision-Making Authority – Multi-Member Commission – Petitioner argued that the Chairman of the Commission took policy decisions individually, contrary to the constitutional mandate of a Multi-Member body – Held, important policy decisions must be taken collectively by the Commission, not by the Chairman alone – No evidence that other members authorized the Chairman to act on their behalf – Supreme Court precedents cited to support this interpretation – Court ruled in favor of petitioner, emphasizing the necessity of collective decision-making [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Recruitment notice dated 27.09.2018 and subsequent corrigendums set aside – The Public Service Commission directed to adhere strictly to the Service Rules in future recruitment processes [Paras 21-22].

Seniority – Retrospective Seniority – Regulation 9 – Petitioners appointed as Junior Engineers-II (Electrical) in 2011 sought seniority over those appointed earlier – Held, in absence of rota-quota rule, seniority to be counted from dates of actual appointment – Petitioners, appointed after respondents already in cadre, cannot claim seniority over them even notionally – Seniority fixed based on date of regular appointment, not earlier selections or wait lists [Paras 1-53].

Legal Principles – Appointment and Seniority – Merit List and Waiting List – Seniority cannot be granted from a date before actual entry into service – Petitioners part of wait list, not directly selected – Only actual appointment determines seniority – Petitioners’ claim for seniority from 2005 invalid as their appointments occurred in 2011 – Court emphasized adherence to established seniority principles and dismissed claims for retrospective seniority [Paras 33-38, 52-54].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – PSPCL’s seniority assignment based on date of actual appointment upheld – Interim orders vacated – Petitioners directed to count seniority from actual appointment date in 2011 [Para 54].

Extension of One Time Settlement – Article 226 Jurisdiction – COVID-19 Pandemic – Petitioners sought extension for payment under OTS due to financial difficulties and delay in reimbursement from the Government under the Post-Matric Scholarship Scheme – Court held that Article 226 allows granting of extensions in OTS repayment considering the petitioners’ willingness to pay with interest and the objective of IBC to preserve and improve the financial condition of the debtor – Extension granted despite pending insolvency proceedings [Paras 1-47].

OTS Policy – Flexibility and Equitable Jurisdiction – Various bank policies provide for extensions in OTS – Courts can exercise equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 to extend repayment periods in deserving cases, balancing equities and considering the intention of the borrower to fulfill obligations – Court can grant such relief if it does not adversely affect the interests of other creditors or the corporate debtor’s assets [Paras 26-32].

Decision: Petition allowed – Time granted to make payment along with 9% simple interest – Petitioners to pay the remaining amount in two quarterly installments, Rs. 25 lakhs by 31.12.2020 and the balance by 31.03.2021 – Respondent bank to calculate due amounts and inform petitioners in advance [Paras 40, 47].