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.

Contempt of Court – Scope – Preferential Right in Re-engagement – High Court in earlier judgment (O.P.(KAT) Nos. 564 & 565 of 2024) directed that if fresh temporary hands are recruited in the place of petitioners, such appointments shall not be made without giving petitioners preferential right for engagement on daily wage basis – Petitioners alleged violation on basis of subsequent appointment order dated 12.06.2025 – Held: Contempt jurisdiction attracted only on wilful and deliberate disobedience of specific direction – No prima facie case made out [Paras 1, 8–9].

Daily Wage Engagement – Replacement – Distinction Between Fresh Scheme and Replacement – Appointments made pursuant to notification dated 18.02.2025 under special scheme “Karunya Arogya Surakhsha Padhathi (KASP)” for 179 days – Age criteria 21–42 years – Petitioners not within prescribed age group – Engagement not in posts earlier held by petitioners – Held: Appointments not “in the place of the petitioners” as contemplated in earlier judgment [Paras 7, 9].

Compliance with Judgment – Interpretation – Earlier judgment clarified that petitioners, being daily wage workers without sanctioned posts, cannot claim continuity – Protection limited to preferential right only if fresh temporary hands are recruited in their place – Since impugned appointments were under a distinct notification and scheme, no violation established [Paras 8–9].

Contempt Proceedings – Standard of Proof – Court must be satisfied of clear, wilful disobedience – Where respondents demonstrate appointments were under separate scheme and not replacement, contempt not made out [Paras 7–9].

Decision: No prima facie case of wilful disobedience established – Contempt Cases (C) Nos. 1992 and 2011 of 2025 closed.

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].

Temporary Injunction – HUF Property – Burden to Prove Joint Family Nucleus – Plaintiff alleged that disputed property “Shanker Godam” purchased in 1943 in name of Gaya Prasad was from HUF funds – No documentary evidence of existence of HUF in 1943 or of adequate joint family nucleus produced – Estate duty assessment order of 1974 insufficient to establish title – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case of HUF ownership [Paras 27–34, 41–42].

Hindu Law – Presumption of Joint Family Property – Mere existence of joint family does not raise presumption that property standing in name of member is joint – Initial burden lies on person asserting coparcenary character – Only upon proof of adequate nucleus does onus shift – In absence of proof of nucleus in 1943, no presumption attracted [Paras 33–34].

Admission – Effect on Title – Reliance placed on estate duty assessment proceedings wherein share of deceased noted as 20% in HUF – Held: Title cannot pass by mere admission – Assessment order not conclusive proof of ownership – Photocopy inadmissible and information supplied by third party not binding [Paras 37, 42].

Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury – Plaintiff neither sought declaration of title nor partition – Property already sold to third parties during pendency and construction raised – Held: No prima facie right shown – Balance of convenience not in plaintiff’s favour [Paras 45–46].

Suppression of Material Facts – Earlier Suits – Prior suits (O.S. No. 259 of 1991 and O.S. No. 156 of 2024) involving same property and similar reliefs not disclosed – Discretionary relief of injunction can be declined on ground of concealment [Para 44].

Precedent – Distinguishable Facts – Judgment in Writ-B No. 6108 of 2014 relating to different plot (No. 1866, purchased in 1956) held not applicable to property purchased in 1943 – No identity of subject property established [Paras 35–36, 43].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretionary Orders – Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) – Appellate Court can interfere only if order is perverse, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to settled principles – If view taken by trial court is a possible view on material, interference not warranted – No perversity found [Paras 38–40, 47].

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Order dated 29.08.2025 rejecting injunction applications 6-C2 and 31-C2 affirmed – Trial court directed to decide suit preferably within six months – Observations confined to disposal of appeal [Paras 48–50].

University Administration – Removal of Vice-Chancellor – Section 11A MSBU Act, 2012 – Scope and Nature – Vice-Chancellor removed after enquiry into financial and administrative irregularities – Held: Section 11A is a special, self-contained provision governing suspension and removal of Vice-Chancellor – Being a statutory office-holder, Vice-Chancellor is not governed by general service or disciplinary rules applicable to other employees – Action under Section 11A to be tested within statutory framework and not under Article 311 jurisprudence [Paras 55-57, 60, 64, 68].

Natural Justice – “Reasonable Opportunity” – Interpretation – Contention that full-fledged departmental enquiry with formal charges, oral evidence and cross-examination mandatory – Rejected – Expression “reasonable opportunity” is contextual and cannot be equated mechanically with elaborate disciplinary proceedings under service rules – Statute requires notice of material, opportunity to submit explanation and personal hearing – On facts, enquiry report supplied, time granted for reply, personal hearing afforded and reply reconsidered – Compliance established [Paras 59-65].

Suspension Pending Enquiry – Validity – Suspension under first proviso to Section 11A(1) based on preliminary report disclosing prima facie irregularities – Held: Suspension preventive in nature and within statutory competence – After removal order, suspension merged and challenge became academic [Para 58].

Inquiry under Section 9(2) – Whether could form basis for removal under Section 11A – Contention that visitation inquiry cannot be converted into disciplinary proceeding – Held: Section 11A permits action “on the report of the State Government or otherwise” – Expression “otherwise” of wide amplitude – No statutory bar against acting upon material emerging from inquiry under Section 9(2) – Notice clearly indicated action under Section 11A contemplated – Objection misconceived [Para 66].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Removal of Vice-Chancellor – Court not to reappreciate evidence or sit in appeal over factual findings of enquiry committee – Interference limited to jurisdictional error, procedural illegality, mala fides or perversity – On record, Chancellor acted within jurisdiction, consulted State Government, afforded opportunity and based decision on inquiry reports – No manifest arbitrariness or mala fide established [Paras 67, 74].

University Autonomy – Accountability – Argument that action undermines autonomy – Rejected – Autonomy does not exclude statutory supervision by Chancellor – Exercise of power in accordance with statute cannot be termed interference [Para 73].

Administrative Responsibility – Vacancies of Registrar/Financial Controller – Defence that lapses attributable to vacant posts – Held: Vice-Chancellor, as principal executive authority, bears ultimate supervisory responsibility – Administrative vacancies cannot justify irregular exercise of statutory and financial powers [Paras 69, 49 (submissions noted)].

Speaking Order – Whether removal order non-speaking – Held: Removal order to be read with inquiry reports and entire record forming basis of decision – Where reasons are reflected in inquiry material known to affected person, concise order not vitiated [Para 71].

Precedents – Reliance on coordinate bench judgments and interim orders – Distinguished – Judgment in Dr. Balraj Singh not to operate as precedent as per Division Bench – Interim order in Dr. Arun Kumar carries no precedential value – No assistance to petitioner [Para 72].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Suspension order dated 28.03.2025 held valid – Removal order dated 11.11.2025 upheld – No interference warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Pending applications disposed of.

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging forgery and tampering of complainant’s ACR to obstruct promotion to IFS – Held: As per Bhajan Lal principles, FIR can be quashed only where allegations do not disclose any offence or are absurd on face of record – Defence pleas and disputed questions of fact cannot be examined at this stage – Prima facie material including statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclose commission of cognizable offences – Petition dismissed [Paras 9-11, 15-16].

Forgery – Manipulation of ACR – Prima Facie Evidence – Statements of co-accused Superintendent and Clerk indicated that forged remarks were inserted in ACR at behest of petitioner – Allegation of payment to secure favourable FSL report – Held: Such material creates grave suspicion sufficient to proceed to trial – Motive and comparative merit in promotion list are matters of evidence to be adjudicated during trial [Paras 7, 15].

Sanction – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Public Servant – Fabrication of Record – Petitioner contended sanction required prior to framing of charges – Held: Forgery or conspiracy to fabricate ACR of colleague cannot be said to be act done in discharge of official duty – Protection under Section 197 not available where act not integrally connected with official functions – Sanction not required [Paras 12-13, 15].

Framing of Charges – Standard – Grave Suspicion – Court reiterated that at stage of framing charges, existence of grave suspicion is sufficient – Detailed appreciation of defence impermissible – Material on record adequate to frame charges under IPC and PC Act [Paras 14-15].

Successive Petition – Withdrawal of Earlier Quashing Petition – Petitioner earlier withdrew petition with liberty to raise pleas before Trial Court – No new material shown – Five prosecution witnesses already examined – Held: No ground to exercise inherent powers at advanced stage of trial [Para 16].

Decision: Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – FIR No. 201 dated 30.07.2011 and order framing charges dated 03.12.2018 upheld – Trial Court directed to expedite proceedings and conclude trial preferably within six months – Pending applications disposed of.

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 – Challenge to Constitutional Validity of Service Rules – Petitioners initially appointed as Warders under Rules of 1976 – After repeal, Rules of 1998 introduced circle-wise seniority and promotion – Petitioners exercised circle option pursuant to circular dated 28.02.2011 and accepted promotion as Head Warders between 2014–2019 – After six years, challenged Rules 35, 36 and 39 as violative of Articles 14 and 16 – Held: Petitioners failed to establish lack of competence, constitutional violation or manifest arbitrariness – No ground made out to declare rules ultra vires [Paras 31–35].

Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate – Acceptance of Benefits under Statutory Framework – Petitioners consciously opted for circle under Rule 35, accepted circle-wise seniority list dated 08.09.2011 and subsequent promotions under Rules of 1998 – Later challenged same rules as unconstitutional – Held: A litigant cannot accept benefits of a statutory regime and subsequently assail it when inconvenient – Doctrine squarely applicable – Petitioners estopped from challenging Rules after availing promotion [Paras 28–30].

Judicial Review of Subordinate Legislation – Scope and Parameters – Presumption of constitutionality – Subordinate legislation can be struck down only on limited grounds such as lack of legislative competence, violation of constitutional provisions or manifest arbitrariness – Mere hardship or dissatisfaction with seniority position does not render rules unconstitutional – Court reiterated principles from Goa Glass Fibre Ltd., Cellular Operators Association of India and P. Krishnamoorthy [Paras 33–34].

Seniority – Circle-wise vs State-wise – Change of Criteria after Repeal of Earlier Rules – Rules of 1998 shifted basis of seniority from State-level to Circle-level for promotion to Head Warder – Petitioners contended earlier Rules of 1976 should govern – Held: After repeal and long acquiescence, petitioners cannot claim promotion under repealed rules after 28 years – Seniority finalized in 2011 and promotions made in 2014 cannot be unsettled after long lapse of time [Paras 26–27, 35].

Non-impleadment of Necessary Parties – Challenge to Seniority List – Petitioners sought quashing of seniority list dated 28.07.2020 affecting promoted officers – None of affected persons impleaded – Held: Relief cannot be granted in absence of necessary and proper parties [Para 36].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – Challenge to Rules 35, 36 and 39 of Rules of 1998, circular dated 28.02.2011 and seniority list rejected – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

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].