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

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].