Preferential Qualification – Weightage and Merit – Petitioner possessed essential qualification and a postgraduate degree in Criminology, which was a preferential qualification for the post of Deputy Superintendent Jails – Claimed he was not selected due to non-weightage for preferential qualification – Respondents argued preferential qualifications only come into play when candidates score equal marks – Court held preferential qualifications do not entitle a candidate to preference independent of overall merit – Preferential qualification tilts the balance only when marks are equal – Selection process upheld, petition dismissed [Paras 1-13].

Preferential Qualification and Reservation – Judicial Precedents – Court referred to Supreme Court judgment in The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu &ors., which established that preferential qualifications tilt the balance only when marks are equal, and do not constitute reservation – Merit must not be compromised by considering preferential qualifications as a separate block [Paras 10-11].

Decision:- Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner not entitled to preference based on preferential qualification of Criminology – Petitioner correctly awarded 2 marks for higher qualification, not 5 marks as claimed [Paras 12-13].

Parole – Involvement in Other Cases – Threat to Public Order –

Petitioner’s application for parole denied due to involvement in other NDPS Act cases and apprehension of engaging in drug activities if released – Held, likelihood of committing a similar offense while on parole is not sufficient to establish an active and real threat to the security of the state or maintenance of public order – Temporary parole of four weeks granted [Paras 1-7].

Judicial Reasoning – Precedent and Parole Criteria –

Court referenced CRWP-2156-2019, Jeet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, and CWP No.19340 of 2019, Manjit Singh @ Ladu v. State of Punjab and others, which held that involvement in other cases under NDPS Act alone is insufficient to deny parole absent concrete evidence of threat to state security or public order – State’s apprehension not supported by record – Parole granted subject to conditions [Para 6].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order set aside – Petitioner granted temporary parole for four weeks subject to furnishing bonds/surety – Additional conditions imposed include providing a mobile number and undertaking not to engage in illegal drug activities – Authorities granted liberty to take action for any breach of conditions [Para 7-8].

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – Personal Interest – Petitioner, claiming to be a social worker, challenged the appointment of a constable in the Indian Army, alleging fraud and submission of forged documents – Held, petitioner failed to disclose his credentials, motive, or interest in the case – No evidence showing how he obtained the documents or his pursuit of social activism – Petition dismissed as filed for oblique purpose and personal vendetta [Paras 1-12].

Evidence and Procedure – Right to Information Act Compliance – Petitioner did not follow the stipulated procedure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to obtain the documents presented – Failed to demonstrate the public interest element – Documents indicated personal vendetta rather than genuine public interest – PIL filed without substantial evidence [Paras 6-8].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Public interest litigation found to lack bona fides and dismissed for being filed with an oblique motive – Emphasis on the need to discourage frivolous PILs to prevent misuse of judicial time and resources [Paras 11-13].

Proclaimed Offender – Procedural Irregularities – Petitioner challenged the order declaring him as a proclaimed offender – Affixation of proclamation was carried out before it was entrusted to the serving officer – Issuance of proclamation did not meet the mandated 30-day period under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. – Held, procedural lapses in issuance and affixation of proclamation vitiate the order – Impugned order set aside subject to conditions [Paras 1-14].

Mandate of Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Non-compliance – Affixation of proclamation cannot precede its entrustment to the serving officer – Issuance of proclamation on 01.07.2017 for appearance on 20.07.2017 does not satisfy the 30-day period required by Section 82 of Cr.P.C. – Order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender quashed [Para 12].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Impugned order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender quashed – Petitioner directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- as costs with the PGIMER Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Sector 12, Chandigarh – Petitioner to submit an undertaking to appear before the trial court on all dates unless exempted and not to cause any delay in proceedings – Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation of bail upon breach of conditions [Para 14].

Lease Agreement – Return of Possession – Landlord’s Obligation – Tenant Bank offered possession after lease expiry – Landlord refused due to condition of premises – Court held landlord has no right to refuse possession for any reason after lease expiry – Delay in transfer caused by landlord’s refusal – Landlord not entitled to rent/arrears for period after lease expiry until possession taken – Right to approach Civil Court for grievances against tenant upheld [Paras 1-21].

Lease Terms – Condition of Premises – Clause Interpretation – Clause 2(j) of lease deed required premises to be returned in condition consistent with lease terms – Court found Bank complied by offering possession with RCC structure as per lease – Landlord’s refusal based on structure’s presence unjustified – Lease conditions not breached by Bank [Paras 16-17].

Judicial Review – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Court’s duty to correct misappreciation of evidence – Concurrent findings disrupted due to incorrect interpretation of lease terms and misappreciation of evidence by lower courts – Second appeal allowed to rectify injustice [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – Held – Judgments and decrees of lower courts reversed – Landlord not entitled to rent for delay caused by their own refusal to take possession – Costs awarded to appellant [Paras 21-24].

Employment Law – Withdrawal of Resignation – Bank Policy – Petition challenging the reversal of the trial court’s decision, which had declined interim injunction to reinstate the respondent. Bank policy allowed withdrawal of resignation through physical mode even if initially accepted online. The bank permitted the respondent to work until the last date mentioned in his resignation notice, thus, recognizing his continued employment. Held, respondent had the right to withdraw his resignation up to the last date mentioned in his resignation notice. Petition dismissed, upholding respondent’s right to withdraw resignation and continue employment [Paras 1-15]​​.

Decision: Petition dismissed. The respondent’s right to withdraw his resignation before the last date mentioned in the resignation notice is upheld. The respondent is reinstated as per the order of the Appellate Court​​.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction – Petition challenging the rejection of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The trial court dismissed the application, emphasizing that the plaint must be read as a whole along with its accompanying documents. The challenge was to the conveyance deed and municipal assessment entries, not to any notice or proceedings under the Haryana Municipal Act. Held, there was no statutory bar to the civil court’s jurisdiction, and the rejection of the plaint was justified due to the involvement of public interest in the property's transfer and usage by the Municipal Committee [Paras 1-18]​​.

Decision: The present revision petition is dismissed. The order by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meham, rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is upheld​​.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Serious Allegations – Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving serious allegations under multiple sections of IPC, SC/ST Act, and IT Act. Allegations included rape, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, and recording and storing objectionable material. Held - given the gravity of the charges and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. The petitioner’s suppression of his criminal past further negates his eligibility for discretionary relief. Petition dismissed [Paras 1-13]​​.

Decision: Petition dismissed. The court held that the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail is not meant for a person who suppresses facts about his criminal past and approaches the court with tainted hands​​.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Compromise – Petition filed for quashing of DDR under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC in FIR under Sections 323, 324, 325, 148, 149 IPC, and the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. Statements of parties recorded before SDJM, confirming the compromise was voluntary. The petitioner appeared before the trial court and was granted bail. Held, the purpose of Section 82 Cr.P.C. is to secure the presence of the accused, which has been achieved. Therefore, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender ceases to operate. Petition allowed and the impugned DDR and order quashed [Paras 1-9]​​.

Power of High Courts – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Compounding of Offences – High Court possesses wide powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs or complaints in cases having a predominantly civil nature or involving matrimonial and family disputes where parties have resolved their issues. Even in non-compoundable offences, compounding can be allowed during appeal or after conviction [Para 6]​​.

Decision: Petition allowed. DDR dated 24.10.2007 and the order dated 21.01.2010 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender, along with all subsequent proceedings, are quashed​​.