Service Law – Pensionary Benefits – Parity with Similarly Placed Employees – Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India – Direction to Consider Claims – The petitioners, retired SLR workers of the Water Resources Department, sought pensionary benefits citing discrimination as the Government had extended similar benefits to SLR workers in the Fisheries Department – The Tribunal disposed of the matter, leaving it to the Government’s discretion – The High Court observed that the Government must maintain parity in service conditions for similarly placed employees – Held: The Government is directed to reconsider the petitioners' claims in light of the Cabinet Decision dated 16/02/2011 and the Apex Court judgments, including Rajkaran Singh v. Union of India [(2004) 8 SCR 516] [Paras 4-10].

Employment Regularization – Long Continuous Service – Applicability of Apex Court Judgments – The petitioners relied on Rajkaran Singh v. Union of India and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India [(2024 INSC 332)] to argue that their continuous service of over a decade warranted reclassification as regular employees and entitlement to pension – The High Court noted that employment rights cannot be determined solely by initial terms of appointment but must consider the substantive nature of work performed over time – Held: Government must assess whether the petitioners' service conditions evolved to justify pensionary benefits and provide them an opportunity to be heard [Paras 8-9].

Judicial Review – Scope of Court’s Intervention in Policy Decisions – The Government contended that extending pensionary benefits to SLR workers in the Water Resources Department would impose a financial burden – The Court held that while fiscal considerations are relevant, they cannot override constitutional principles of equal treatment – Held: The Government must take a reasoned decision within three months while considering the Apex Court’s directives on service regularization and pension entitlements [Para 10].

Decision: – The Original Petitions are disposed of with directions to the Government to reconsider the claims of the petitioners within three months and provide them an opportunity of hearing.
 

Bail under NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Conscious Possession – Applicant sought bail in a case involving seizure of 1880 grams of MDMA, well above the commercial quantity threshold of 10 grams – Prosecution established that the applicant inquired about the parcels containing contraband, attempted to collect them while concealing his identity, and fled upon sensing law enforcement presence – Held: Applicant’s conduct indicates knowledge and involvement, satisfying prima facie conscious possession under the NDPS Act [Paras 8-9] – Decision: Bail denied.

*Rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – In cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, bail can only be granted if the Court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail – Given the weight of the seized contraband and the ongoing investigation into a larger drug trafficking conspiracy, the Court found that the applicant failed to meet the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act [Paras 10-12] – Decision: Bail application dismissed.

Ongoing Investigation – Risk of Absconding – Co-accused absconding – The applicant’s brother-in-law and driver, key suspects, remain untraceable – CBI argued that releasing the applicant could compromise the investigation into an international drug trafficking syndicate – Held: Given the gravity of the offence and potential risk of absconding or tampering with evidence, bail cannot be granted at this stage [Paras 11-12] – Decision: Bail denied.

Duration of Incarceration – Speedy Trial – Applicant argued for bail on the ground of prolonged custody – Court held that while the right to a speedy trial is fundamental, the ongoing investigation into international drug trafficking justifies continued judicial custody – No indication of undue delay attributable to the prosecution [Paras 13-14] – Decision: Bail denied.
 

Recruitment Process – Cancellation of Previous Selection Process – Right to Reapply – Petitioners participated in 2022 recruitment process but were unable to secure positions—Recruitment process was cancelled by AAI on 13/02/2024—A fresh recruitment process was initiated on 19/12/2024, but petitioners became over-aged under the new eligibility criteria—Held: Cancellation of the recruitment process cannot deprive eligible candidates of their right to employment—Reliance placed on A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, 1990 (2) SCC 669—Petitioners granted age relaxation to apply in 2024 recruitment [Paras 8-13].

Right to Equality in Public Employment – Article 16 of the Constitution – Petitioners contended that AAI's decision to restrict their participation violated Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution—Held: While right to employment is not a fundamental right, the principle of equal opportunity in public employment must be upheld—Denial of participation due to the cancellation of a prior recruitment process constitutes an arbitrary and unfair restriction—High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, (2022) 4 SCC 643 followed—AAI directed to extend the deadline for online applications [Paras 12-15].

Recruitment Age Limit – Judicial Interference in Eligibility Criteria – AAI argued that age criteria is fixed and cannot be relaxed—Held: While courts generally do not interfere in recruitment policies, exceptions can be made where an administrative decision unfairly excludes eligible candidates—Judicial intervention is warranted where the recruitment process is cancelled after progressing to a significant stage—Reliance placed on Nitish Kumar v. Union of India, WP(C) 2977/2023 (Delhi HC) and Santram Patel v. CRPF, WP(C) 4185/2023 (Delhi HC)—Petitioners' participation permitted [Paras 10-13].

Administrative Delay in Recruitment – Impact on Age Eligibility – Petitioners argued that if the 2022 recruitment had not been cancelled, they would not have been over-aged—Held: Candidates should not suffer due to procedural delays and cancellations beyond their control—AAI's decision to include the 32 previously cancelled vacancies in the 2024 recruitment process supports the contention that age relaxation is justified—Sachin & Others v. CRPF, WP(C) 90/2023 (Delhi HC) distinguished—AAI directed to issue a fresh notification extending the application process [Paras 13-15].

Precedential Value – One-Time Age Relaxation Not a General Rule – AAI contended that granting age relaxation would set a precedent—Held: Relaxation is granted only due to the peculiar facts of the case, where recruitment was cancelled after an advanced stage—This decision shall not serve as a general precedent for future recruitment processes [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Impugned age restriction in 2024 recruitment process relaxed—Petitioners granted eligibility to apply—AAI directed to extend application deadline and issue notification within 15 days—Decision applicable only to participants of 2022 recruitment process—Petition disposed of.
 

Service Law – Recruitment Rules – Exclusion of Degree Holders for Junior Engineer (Civil) Post – Validity of Rule 8(1)(ii) and (iii) of the 2023 Rules – Petitioners challenged the exclusion of B.Tech degree holders from applying for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), arguing that a higher qualification (degree) should subsume a lower qualification (diploma) – Held: The prescription of diploma as the only eligible qualification is a policy decision of the State and cannot be interfered with unless manifestly arbitrary – Equivalence of qualifications is not a matter for judicial review but for the employer to decide – The exclusion of degree holders is justified, considering the functional requirements of Junior Engineers and available opportunities for degree holders in higher posts [Paras 46-50].

Recruitment Policy – Power of the State to Prescribe Eligibility Criteria – Judicial Review Limited – The employer has the discretion to prescribe qualifications for posts – Courts should not expand or alter the prescribed qualifications unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles – Held: Judicial review does not extend to determining equivalence of qualifications unless there is a manifest illegality – The recruitment rules were framed after due deliberation and do not suffer from arbitrariness [Paras 44-50].

Higher Qualification Not Necessarily a Substitute for a Lower Qualification – Functional Differences Between Diploma and Degree Courses – The syllabus and training provided in a diploma course are distinct from those in a degree course – Held: A degree in Civil Engineering does not automatically subsume a diploma in Civil Engineering – The classification made by the State is rational and serves the legitimate purpose of defining the job role and ensuring level-playing field for diploma holders [Paras 44-46].

Precedent – Supreme Court Decisions in Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010) & Puneet Sharma v. HP Electricity Board (2021) Distinguished – Petitioners relied on Jyoti K.K. and Puneet Sharma to argue that higher qualifications should be considered valid – Held: Those cases involved specific rules allowing higher qualifications to be treated as equivalent to prescribed qualifications – In contrast, the Bihar Recruitment Rules do not mention "minimum qualification" but specify diploma as the only eligible qualification, thus excluding degree holders – Jyoti K.K. and Puneet Sharma do not support the petitioners’ claim in the absence of an explicit rule equating degree and diploma qualifications [Paras 17-20, 41-50].

Constitutional Law – Classification Based on Educational Qualification – Reasonable and Non-Arbitrary – The classification between diploma and degree holders for Junior Engineer posts is based on functional requirements and administrative policy – Held: The State is entitled to create a distinct cadre for diploma holders without violating Article 14 of the Constitution – Exclusion of degree holders does not violate the right to equality as they have access to higher posts [Paras 47-50].

Decision: – Writ petitions dismissed. The challenge to Rule 8(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Bihar Water Resource Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2023, fails.

Service Law – Ad-hoc Appointment – Non-renewal of Contract as Discriminatory Action – The petitioner, who had served as an Assistant Professor (Forensic Science) on a contractual basis for three years, was not granted renewal of her contract, while two similarly placed candidates were retained – Held: Non-renewal of the petitioner’s contract without a formal order while renewing contracts of other similarly placed candidates amounts to discriminatory treatment and prima facie victimization – Interim relief granted directing status quo [Paras 2, 5.1].

Principle of Non-replacement of an Ad-hoc Employee by Another Ad-hoc Employee – The petitioner contended that an ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc employee – Held: The university failed to produce any formal order scrapping the recruitment process or justify non-renewal of the petitioner’s contract – Court directed maintenance of status quo concerning petitioner’s employment until further orders [Paras 5.2, 5.2.1].

Ad-Interim Relief – Absence of a Formal Termination Order – The court noted that no formal order was issued terminating the petitioner’s contract or notifying her about non-renewal – Held: In light of precedents and an earlier similar case (Brijeshkumar Sinha v. Vice Chancellor, Rashtriya Raksha University & Ors.), where status quo was granted, the petitioner deserves interim relief – Status quo directed concerning her employment [Paras 5.2.1, 5.3].

Decision: Notice issued, returnable on 11th February 2025. In the meantime, since no formal order was passed regarding the termination or non-renewal of the petitioner’s contract, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo concerning her service conditions, as if the employment contract has not been terminated or put to an end.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Retaliatory FIR – Timing of Complaint – Malicious Prosecution Inferred – The husband filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 18/10/2023, and the wife lodged the FIR shortly thereafter on 27/10/2023. No explanation was provided for the delay in filing the complaint, despite her claim of being driven out of the matrimonial home on 21/04/2023. Held, the FIR appears to be a retaliatory measure rather than a genuine grievance [Paras 6-7].

Omnibus Allegations – Lack of Specific Role Attribution – Quashing Justified – The FIR contained general allegations without assigning specific roles to the accused. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were identical and lacked independent corroboration. The charge sheet also failed to establish the role of each accused, violating the principles laid down in Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726. Held, continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process [Paras 7, 10-11].

Medical Evidence – Contradictions in Injury Report – The private opposite party alleged physical assault by the husband, but her medical report showed no external injuries. Despite this, the injury was classified as "simple" without any basis. Held, such contradictions cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations [Para 8].

Exercise of Inherent Powers – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – The High Court has the authority under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings where the allegations lack substance, and the prosecution appears to be an abuse of legal process. Held, in the absence of prima facie evidence, allowing the case to continue would be unjustified [Paras 9, 12].

Decision: The criminal revision petitions are allowed. The proceedings in G.R. Case No. 895 of 2023 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantan, Paschim Medinipur, are quashed. The petitioners are set at liberty and discharged from their bail bonds.

Criminal Procedure – Magistrate’s Power Under Section 156(3) CrPC – Whether Magistrate Can Direct a Superior Police Officer to Register FIR – Held: No – The petitioner sought quashing of the ASJ’s order setting aside the Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) CrPC to the DCP (East) to register an FIR and hand over the investigation to DIU – High Court held that a Magistrate can only direct the officer in charge of a police station, not a superior officer – Reliance placed on CBI v. State of Rajasthan (2001) – Magistrate must proceed under Section 200 CrPC when no special evidence requires police investigation [Paras 32-40, 50-51].

Filing of Criminal Complaint – Whether Alternative Remedies Available – Held: Yes – Petitioner alleged collusion between police officials and accused persons and sought registration of an FIR – High Court held that mere allegations against police officials without special evidence do not justify invoking Section 156(3) CrPC – Petitioner had alternative remedies, including filing a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC – Reliance placed on Subhkaran Luharuka v. State (2013) [Paras 42-45, 50].

Inherent Powers of the High Court – Quashing of ASJ’s Order Under Section 528 BNSS (Earlier Section 482 CrPC) – Held: No Grounds for Interference – High Court emphasized that inherent powers must be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process – ASJ’s order directing Magistrate to proceed under Section 200 CrPC instead of ordering an FIR was held to be legally sound – No illegality or miscarriage of justice found to justify interference under Section 528 BNSS – Petitions dismissed [Paras 52-53].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – ASJ’s Order Upheld – Delhi High Court upheld the impugned order dated 17/07/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-01 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi – Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC by directing a DCP instead of SHO – Petitioner directed to pursue alternative remedies under Section 200 CrPC [Paras 54-55].

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Eviction Proceedings by Religious Trust – Applicability of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – Petitioners, legal heirs of the original tenant, challenged the eviction proceedings initiated by the Respondent Trust under general law, contending that Chapter II & III of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 were applicable to the trust’s property until the corrigendum issued in 2018 – Held: The notification dated 14.09.2005, which exempted the trust property, was effective from its date, and the corrigendum merely corrected a typographical error, not altering the substance – Eviction valid [Paras 3-6].

Retrospective Effect of Corrigendum – Corrective Nature of Notifications – Petitioners argued that the corrigendum dated 02.02.2018 was prospective, and thus, the Trust’s property was not exempt from the Rent Act before 2018 – The Court held that the corrigendum was curative in nature, merely rectifying the Trust’s name without altering its substantive legal effect – Applying the doctrine of nunc pro tunc, such corrections relate back to the date of the original notification – Held: Corrigendum had retrospective effect, and the property was exempt from the Act since 2005 [Paras 7-8].

Statutory Interpretation – Notifications & Corrigenda – Legal Effect – The Court relied on precedents affirming that corrigenda correcting clerical errors do not change the substantive rights but operate retrospectively – Held: Petitioners’ interpretation treating the corrigendum as a fresh exemption was flawed – Correction in notification does not create new rights but clarifies existing ones [Paras 9-10].

Reliance on Precedents – Scope of Corrigenda – Judicial Interpretation – The Court referred to various Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing that a corrigendum can only correct clerical mistakes and does not alter substantive law – Held: The corrigendum was valid and did not grant a fresh exemption but merely clarified the original notification [Para 9].

Decisions Relied Upon – Non-Applicability to Present Case – Petitioners relied on The Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Gutta Mill Workers’ Union, AIR 1953 SC 95, Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal Jaipur, AIR 1954 Raj 274, and Kapoorchand v. State of Rajasthan, 1962 Rajasthan 258 – The Court distinguished these cases as inapplicable, holding that they involved issues of delegated legislation and administrative powers, whereas the present case was merely a correction of a typographical error [Paras 10-10.3].

Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the corrigendum issued on 02.02.2018 merely corrected a typographical error in the 2005 notification and had retrospective effect. The Trust’s property was exempt from the applicability of Chapter II & III of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, since 14.09.2005. The eviction proceedings were validly initiated outside the framework of the Rent Act. The petitioners' reliance on Supreme Court and High Court decisions was misplaced, as those cases involved substantive legislative amendments rather than clerical corrections. The corrigendum did not grant a fresh exemption but merely clarified the original notification. Since the exemption applied from the date of the original notification, the eviction proceedings were legally sustainable. The plea that the corrigendum was prospective and that eviction proceedings should have been conducted under the Rent Act was held to be without merit. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
 

Labour Law - Certified Standing Orders – Exercise of Power Under Clause 28 – Non-Compliance with Clause 27 – Impersonation Allegation – Removal Set Aside – Clause 28 allows removal without following regular departmental enquiry only in limited cases such as criminal conviction or when continuation of service is against security interests – In the present case, the management failed to conduct a departmental enquiry under Clause 27, and the inquiry report did not find the petitioner guilty of impersonation – Removal based on police verification report alone was unsustainable [Paras 29-31, 38, 44].

Industrial Tribunal – Scrutiny of Enquiry under Section 11-A of the ID Act – Failure of Tribunal – Tribunal upheld removal based on police report without scrutinizing the fairness and adequacy of the enquiry report – The Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A to reassess evidence and consider whether the punishment was appropriate – Held: Award of Tribunal is perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 26, 39, 43, 51].

Impersonation Allegation – Evidence and Procedural Deficiencies – The management failed to provide evidence or conduct a proper enquiry proving that the petitioner impersonated Rohini Deshwalin, wife of Kali Deshwali – The complainant did not testify, and conflicting evidence (Form-B records, service excerpts) left the issue of impersonation unresolved – Held: The removal order was passed without proper basis and in violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 33, 35, 38-41].

Natural Justice – Removal Without Opportunity to Defend – Police verification report, relied upon to remove the petitioner, was obtained without giving her an opportunity to respond or cross-examine witnesses – Such removal is contrary to principles of natural justice and amounts to procedural impropriety [Paras 41, 45].

Back Wages – Limited Relief Due to Superannuation – Petitioner attained superannuation during the pendency of proceedings – Considering the unblemished service record prior to removal and procedural violations by the management, the Court granted 50% back wages from the date of reference to the Tribunal until superannuation, with all consequential benefits [Paras 52-53].

Decision: Writ petition allowed. Impugned award dated 30/08/2012 of the Industrial Tribunal set aside. Order of removal dated 18/03/2000 quashed. Petitioner entitled to 50% back wages from 19/09/2001 (reference date) until 10/01/2009 (date of superannuation) with all consequential benefits.