Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Adultery, Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition – Allegation that wife developed illicit relationship and fled with alleged paramour – No specific pleading or cogent evidence of voluntary sexual intercourse – Witnesses gave generalized statements based on suspicion – No proof of continuous desertion for statutory period – Held: Findings of Family Court well-reasoned and not perverse – Appeal dismissed [Paras 32-50, 63-67, 79-81, 82-85].

Adultery – Standard of Proof – Section 13(1)(i), Hindu Marriage Act – Though matrimonial proceedings governed by preponderance of probabilities, charge of adultery being grave requires high degree of probability – Bald and generalized allegations without specific instances or corroborative evidence insufficient – No proof of adulterous act or continuing adulterous relationship at time of petition – Allegations based on suspicion and surmises – Divorce rightly refused [Paras 35-42, 44-47].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act – Allegation that wife stopped physical relations and frequently left matrimonial home – No specific act of misconduct proved – Ordinary marital discord and quarrels do not amount to cruelty – No evidence that conduct was so grave and weighty as to render cohabitation unsafe or impossible – Finding of no cruelty upheld [Paras 51-62, 64-67].

Desertion – Essential Ingredients – Factum of Separation and Animus Deserendi – Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act – Petition filed within two months of alleged departure of wife – Statutory requirement of continuous desertion for not less than two years immediately preceding presentation of petition not satisfied – Desertion ground not maintainable [Paras 68-76, 79-81].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 19, Family Courts Act – High Court can reappreciate evidence both on facts and law – Interference warranted only if findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law – No perversity found in appreciation of evidence by Family Court – Judgment affirmed [Paras 23-31, 49-50, 83-84].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.2022 and 03.11.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Suit No. 75 of 2021 affirmed – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Stamp Act – Instrument of Partition – Final Decree – Section 2(15) – Final decree in partition suit directed drawing up of decree by making Commissioner’s partition plan and registered conveyance part of decree – Structural engineer reported that physical partition was not feasible – Parties accepted plan and decree without challenge – Held: Final decree answers description of “final order for effecting a partition” under Section 2(15) – Exigible to stamp duty under Article 45 of Schedule 1A [Paras 14, 18-21, 26-28, 30].

Partition Suit – Preliminary and Final Decree – Distinction – Order XX Rule 18 CPC and Order XXVI Rules 13-14 CPC considered – Preliminary decree declares shares – Final decree passed after inquiry and incorporation of Commissioner’s report – Once decree drawn and accepted, suit stands finally disposed of – Decree cannot be recharacterised as non-final to avoid stamp duty [Paras 15-18, 20-21, 25-26].

Physical Impossibility of Partition – Effect – Mere fact that property could not be physically partitioned by metes and bounds does not denude decree of character as final decree – Parties chose not to seek sale under Section 2 of Partition Act, 1893 – Acceptance of plan and decree indicates intention to conclude partition proceedings – Stamp duty liability unaffected [Paras 21-24].

Stamp Duty – Creation of New Rights – Irrelevant Consideration – Stamp duty on instrument of partition is attracted irrespective of whether new rights are created – Final decree is formal record of division of shares – Levy sustainable [Para 29].

Judicial Review – Assessment of Stamp Duty – Article 226 – Interference warranted only if action is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, patently illegal or violative of natural justice – No such infirmity made out – Writ court declined to interfere with Collector’s assessment retaining Rs. 45,000/- under Article 45 [Para 31].

Decision: WPO 506 of 2025 dismissed – Final decree dated 29.11.2023 held to be an “instrument of partition” within meaning of Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Levy of stamp duty under Article 45 of Schedule 1A upheld – No costs.

Education Law – RTE Act, 2009 – Teacher Redeployment – Validity of G.O. dated 14.11.2025 – Government Order issued to maintain prescribed pupil–teacher ratio under Section 25 of the 2009 Act – Challenge on grounds of arbitrariness, mid-session transfer and absence of procedure – Held: G.O. is supplemental and curative in nature, issued to ensure strict statutory compliance and cannot be termed arbitrary or ultra vires – Policy decision in furtherance of Article 21-A – Valid [Paras 71–79, 103–109, 132].

Service Law – Transfer – Incidence of Service – Scope of Judicial Review – Transfer within same district pursuant to policy for rationalization – No mala fides or statutory violation established – Courts do not sit in appeal over administrative transfers – Interference confined to cases of mala fide, arbitrariness or breach of statutory rules – Petitioners failed to demonstrate such infirmity – Limited judicial restraint reiterated [Paras 93–100, 124, 136–137].

RTE Act – Section 25 – Pupil-Teacher Ratio – Continuing Obligation – Rule 21 of 2011 Rules provides annual review before July – Not an absolute embargo on corrective measures thereafter – State retains power to issue executive instructions in November to address emergent shortages – Obligation to maintain PTR is continuing and overrides timing objection [Paras 82, 88–90].

Administrative Law – Arbitrariness – Procedural Compliance – Though G.O. not arbitrary per se, implementation must be data-driven and transparent – Non-preparation of consolidated verified list of surplus/deficit schools or improper inclusion of Shiksha Mitras contrary to law may render action arbitrary – Issue relates to improper implementation, not absence of power – Individual grievances to be examined by District Level Committee [Paras 112–115, 138–142].

Policy Decisions – Judicial Restraint – Education Policy – Court reiterates that in matters affecting policy and administrative exigencies, judicial review is limited to legality of decision-making process – Courts cannot substitute executive wisdom unless action is unconstitutional, mala fide or contrary to statute – Transfers to achieve statutory mandate of RTE Act fall within executive domain [Paras 122–129].

Natural Justice – Mass Adjustment – Opportunity of Representation – Though transfer is incidence of service, fairness requires affected teachers be permitted to submit objections where large-scale rationalization undertaken – Directions issued to file individual representations before District Level Committee – Speaking orders to be passed [Paras 118–121, 145].

Data Verification – UDISE Portal – Necessity of Accurate Institutional Data – Apparent non-verification of sanctioned strength and working strength necessitates calibrated judicial intervention – Authorities directed to verify and update authentic data and ensure redeployment strictly as per RTE Act [Paras 138, 143–147].

Directions:

(i) Government Order dated 14.11.2025 upheld – Challenge rejected

(ii) Petitioners to submit separate representations within one week before District Level Committee

(iii) Committee to decide objections by reasoned and speaking orders within one month

(iv) Status quo to be maintained for one month or till decision, whichever earlier

(v) Authorities to verify and update UDISE data and ensure maintenance of prescribed pupil–teacher ratio in accordance with the RTE Act, 2009

(vi) Writ petitions disposed of with observations and directions [Paras 145–148].

Criminal Law – Withdrawal from Prosecution – Section 321 CrPC – Dismissal of State's Revision Upheld – FIR No. 53/2018 registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 332, 333, 353, 336, 307 and 436 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act arising from stone-pelting by protesters during "Bharat Band" on 02.04.2018 at Raniwada, Jalore – During trial, State filed application under Section 321 CrPC for withdrawal from prosecution – Trial court dismissed the same by order dated 16.01.2021 – State preferred revision (S.B. CRLR No. 953/2021) – Accused's revision (S.B. CRLR No. 444/2024) dismissed as not pressed – Held: Trial court's order refusing consent to withdrawal neither perverse nor illegal – Revision petition devoid of merit – Order dated 16.01.2021 affirmed [Para 4-5].

Role of Public Prosecutor – Independent Discretion – Not a Postman of the State – Section 321 CrPC structures the withdrawal provision in three parts: (i) prosecution part — who can apply; (ii) judicial part — consent of court; and (iii) victim part — rights of unattended complainant – Public Prosecutor must exercise independent legal discretion before filing withdrawal application and must not act as a mere delivery agent or postman of the executive – An application filed under an incorrect provision of law (Section 311 CrPC instead of Section 321 CrPC) conclusively demonstrates non-application of mind and utter disregard to legal parameters – Held: Public Prosecutor cannot abdicate independent judgment merely to relay State Government's resolution [Paras 18-29].

Grounds for Withdrawal from Prosecution – Section 321 CrPC – Four Valid Grounds Enumerated – Following grounds recognized in Sheonandan Paswan (supra) for seeking withdrawal: (1) bleak possibility of successful prosecution bearing in mind evidence; (2) incrimination of individuals born out of political or personal vendetta; (3) inexpediency of prosecution for reasons of State and public policy; (4) unfavourable impact of continued prosecution on public interest in light of altered scenario – In the present case, none of the four grounds existed — evidence showed prospects of successful prosecution, no signs of political vendetta, no public policy impediment, and continued prosecution would not cause pernicious impact on public interest [Paras 30-31].

Judicial Check and Balance – Court's Role – Consent Not a Rubber Stamp – Section 321 CrPC vests supervisory, not merely adjudicatory, function in the Court — Court must satisfy itself that: (a) application is made in good faith in the interest of public policy and justice; (b) application does not suffer from improprieties causing manifest injustice; (c) grant of consent sub-serves administration of justice; and (d) permission not sought with ulterior purpose unconnected with vindication of law – Court cannot act as a mere stamp or rubber stamp while granting consent and must guard against executive interference in judicial process – Trial court that allowed withdrawal merely because State did not wish to continue, without independent application of mind, deserves deprecation [Paras 44-57].

Victims' Rights – Prosecution Withdrawal – Non-Participation Tantamounts to Denial of Access to Justice – Wrongful withdrawal from prosecution leads to: (i) denial of victims' rights; (ii) loss of public faith in legal system; (iii) encouragement of impunity; (iv) weakening of deterrence; (v) wrong perception and threat to majesty of law – Victim's right to review prosecution withdrawal decisions, as available under England's VRR scheme and recognised in R Vs. Christopher Killick [2011] EWCA Crim 1608, could be adopted in India to fulfil fundamental right of access to justice under Articles 14 and 21 – Non-participation of victim in withdrawal proceedings amounts to deviation from "Access to Justice" [Paras 60-68].

Decision: S.B. CRLR No. 444/2024 dismissed as not pressed – S.B. CRLR No. 953/2021 dismissed as devoid of merit – Order dated 16.01.2021 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 14/2020 (FIR No. 53/2018) refusing withdrawal from prosecution hereby affirmed.

Service Law – Recovery of Excess Payment – Retired Employee – Petitioner retired on 30.11.2005 – Objection regarding pay scale raised at fag end of service on 02.07.2005 – Impugned order dated 08.06.2007 directed recovery of Rs.2,80,000/- from pension on ground that petitioner had not acquired B.Ed. qualification within prescribed period – No allegation of fraud or misrepresentation – Held: Recovery from retired employee is impermissible in view of law laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and Shyam Babu Verma – Direction of recovery quashed [Paras 10–12].

Service Law – Pay Fixation – Graduate Primary Teacher – Requirement of B.Ed. Qualification within Five Years – Respondents contended that under Government Resolution dated 14.11.1979 petitioner ought to have obtained B.Ed. qualification within five years from 01.08.1985 – Though recovery barred, employer not precluded from correcting erroneous pay fixation for purpose of pension – Held: Pension can be re-fixed strictly in accordance with applicable Rules, but such re-fixation shall operate prospectively and shall not result in recovery of amounts already paid [Para 12].

Pension – Statutory Right – Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 – Pension governed by applicable Rules – While excess payment made due to employer’s mistake cannot be recovered after retirement in absence of fraud, employee cannot insist on continuation of incorrect pay fixation contrary to statutory provisions – Court balanced equities by restraining recovery and permitting prospective re-fixation [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Impugned order dated 08.06.2007 quashed to extent of recovery – Respondents restrained from recovering any amount already paid during service or from pensionary benefits – Liberty granted to re-fix pension prospectively within eight weeks – No order as to costs – Rule made partly absolute.

Service Law – Recruitment – Change of Eligibility Criteria Midway – Advertisement prescribed 10+2 with Diploma in Knitting from ITI – During selection, Board issued clarification extending eligibility to Diploma in Knitting/Textile from recognized Institution/ITI – Selected candidates possessed qualifications like Diploma in Handloom Technology and Textile Technology (Spinning) not borne out from advertisement or draft Recruitment Rules – Held: Board clandestinely added qualification not notified to candidates – Change of criteria midway violative of Articles 14 and 16 – Selection vitiated ab initio [Paras 27-31, 34-35].

Recruitment – Draft Recruitment Rules – Legal Sanctity – Selection sought to be justified on basis of un-notified draft Rules – Even draft Rules did not include certain qualifications considered for selection – Held: Un-notified draft Recruitment Rules cannot override advertisement – Selection dehors notified criteria unsustainable [Paras 25, 29, 31].

Estoppel by Participation – Unsuccessful Candidate Challenging Selection – Respondent participated in interview but challenged selection after result – Where selection process suffers from glaring illegality and undisclosed criteria – Held: Doctrine of estoppel by participation not applicable – Candidate cannot be estopped from challenging unconstitutional and arbitrary process [Paras 30, 32-33].

Natural Justice – Service of Notice – Plea of being condemned unheard – Notices issued through registered post – Deemed service under Section 27 of General Clauses Act – Held: In absence of proof of wrong address or non-issuance, service deemed valid – Plea rejected [Paras 14-17].

Judicial Review – Scope – Tribunal quashed select and wait list for post of Knitting Instructor – High Court found no perversity or illegality in Tribunal’s reasoning – Where illegality in process is widespread and affects entire selection, Court need not segregate beneficiaries – Matter left to competent authority for remedial steps [Paras 35-37].

Equality in Public Employment – Non-Arbitrariness – Inclusion of ineligible candidates and deviation from notified criteria renders selection arbitrary – Selection failing test of non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 cannot be sustained [Paras 29, 35].

Decision: Impugned Order dated 16.11.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench in TA No. 61/6718/2020 upheld – Select list and wait list for post of Knitting Instructor, Divisional Cadre Jammu quashed – Both Writ Petitions dismissed – Interim directions vacated – Matter left to competent authority to take steps in accordance with law.

Rape – Consent on Promise of Marriage – Discharge – Prosecutrix alleged physical relations on false assurance of marriage – Record revealed long-standing relationship of two years – Single incident alleged – Delay in complaint and FIR – No material indicating force, coercion or false inducement from inception – Held: No prima facie material to show consent was vitiated under Section 90 IPC – Trial Court rightly discharged accused under Section 376 IPC [Paras 12-17].

Section 90 IPC – Misconception of Fact – Scope – For consent to be vitiated on ground of false promise of marriage, prosecution must prima facie show that promise was false at inception and intended solely to obtain consent – In present case, parties were in consensual relationship and prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied accused – No grave suspicion of deception or fraudulent inducement made out [Paras 15-17].

Discharge – Standard under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C. – Court at stage of charge to assess whether material gives rise to “grave suspicion” and not merely suspicion – Where two views possible and evidence gives rise only to suspicion, discharge justified – Trial Court cannot conduct mini-trial but must evaluate whether essential ingredients of offence are disclosed – Impugned order consistent with principles laid down in Prafulla Kumar Samal [Paras 6, 18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., interference warranted only in case of patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error – Where Trial Court’s view is plausible and based on record, High Court not to substitute its own view – No glaring perversity or illegality found in discharge order [Paras 19-20].

Delay and Conduct – Relevance at Stage of Charge – Prosecutrix lodged complaint nearly one month after alleged incident and FIR registered thereafter – No allegation of repeated acts – Conduct of parties, including voluntary travel and continued communication, relevant in assessing existence of grave suspicion at threshold stage [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Order dated 31.05.2017 discharging respondent from offence under Section 376 IPC upheld – No interference warranted in revisional jurisdiction.

Service Law – Departmental Enquiry – Competent Authority – Applicability of Service Rules – Petitioner appointed as Superintendent in autonomous medical college in Pay Band 15600-39100 + 5400 GP – Held: Petitioner governed by Autonomous College Rules of 2018 and not Super Specialty Hospital Rules of 2018 – Under Rule 13.4, CEO/Dean competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and issue charge-sheet – Objection regarding lack of competence rejected [Paras 27–29].

Departmental Proceedings – Premature Interference – Allegation of Non-Supply of Documents – Enquiry not concluded and petitioner called upon to submit explanation to enquiry report – Dispute regarding supply of documents is factual in nature – Held: Issue premature at this stage – Liberty granted to petitioner to raise such grounds before disciplinary authority [Para 17].

Departmental Enquiry – Role of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer – Impartiality – Enquiry Officer acts as quasi-judicial authority and must remain unbiased – Presenting Officer functions as prosecutor – Joint issuance of charge-sheet by Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and joint signing of enquiry report impermissible – Creates impression of bias and vitiates proceedings [Paras 31–37].

Natural Justice – Bias – Enquiry Officer acting in collusion with Presenting Officer – Charge-sheet dated 21.11.2025 issued jointly by Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer – Later withdrawn – Enquiry report dated 31.12.2025 again jointly signed – No evidence led by Presenting Officer – Findings recorded by Enquiry Officer on his own without formal proof of documents – Held: Principles of natural justice given complete go-by – Proceedings vitiated [Paras 34–38, 40].

Service of Charge-Sheet – Failure to Prove Prior Service – Charge-sheet dated 30.10.2025 allegedly issued by Dean not shown to have been served before 16.12.2025 – No material produced to establish earlier service – Irregularity noted [Paras 30, 36].

Departmental Enquiry – Procedural Fairness – Conduct of Enquiry by Person Not Versed in Procedure – Plea that Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer being doctors were unaware of disciplinary procedure – Held: Ignorance of procedure cannot justify breach of natural justice – Departmental enquiry cannot be treated as casual exercise [Paras 39–40].

Judicial Review – Scope – While courts ordinarily do not interfere at charge-sheet stage, interference warranted where enquiry proceedings ex facie vitiated by violation of natural justice and bias – Reliance on State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha and Union of India v. Naseem Siddiqui – Proceedings quashed from stage of service of charge-sheet [Paras 31–33, 42–43].

(i) Charge-sheet dated 30.10.2025 upheld as having been issued by competent authority

(ii) Entire enquiry proceedings conducted by respondent nos.4 & 5 and enquiry report dated 31.12.2025 quashed

(iii) Dean directed to proceed afresh from stage of service of charge-sheet

(iv) If required, Dean may appoint a competent Enquiry Officer well-versed with enquiry procedure

(v) Petitioner entitled to copies of relied upon documents and other relevant documents

(vi) Petition partly allowed [Paras 43–44].

Criminal Law – Defamation – Section 199 Cr.P.C. – “Person aggrieved” – Complaint filed by Bharatiya Janata Party represented by State Secretary – Authorization issued by President of State Unit – No material to show authorization by National Party – Held, complaint not instituted by competent person representing alleged aggrieved entity – Proceedings vitiated [Paras 20-21].

Defamation of Political Party – Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC – Imputation against identifiable body required – Advertisement referred to constitutional functionaries and Government schemes – No specific imputation against political party as identifiable collection of persons – Party cannot be treated as “person aggrieved” on vague or inferential allegations – Complaint not maintainable [Paras 28-31].

Issuance of Process – Requirement of Prima Facie Material – Advertisement contained only photograph of accused No.4 – No material showing publication at his instance or requisite mens rea under Section 499 IPC – Essential ingredient of intention to harm not established – Mere presence of photograph insufficient to fasten criminal liability [Paras 22-25, 33].

Electronic Evidence – Tweet Allegedly Forwarding Advertisement – Not marked as exhibit – No Section 65B certificate produced – Trial Court while issuing process relied only on Ex.C1 to C14 which did not include tweet – Held, absence of tweet on record at stage of cognizance renders material insufficient to connect accused No.4 – Subsequent production cannot cure defect [Paras 26-27, 34].

Section 202 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Enquiry – Accused residing outside territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate – No enquiry conducted before issuance of summons – Non-compliance prejudicial and reflects casual approach – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Para 32].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Where continuance of proceedings amounts to abuse of process – High Court justified in quashing complaint insofar as accused No.4 concerned [Para 35].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No.7399/2024 (P.C.R. No.3878/2023) set aside insofar as petitioner/accused No.4 – Continuance of proceedings held to be abuse of process of law.