Employment Contract – Restriction on Job Application – Validity – Government servant’s right to apply for another post restricted for five years by employer – Court held such restriction is valid and not opposed to public policy – Qualified employees' job hopping curbed by such clauses to prevent disruption and financial waste – Selection and training of an employee involves significant time and cost – Petition dismissed, employee must abide by terms of the employment letter [Paras 1-22].

Public Policy – Employment Restrictions – Article 14 – Court emphasized that public interest takes precedence over private interest – Restriction applicable for first five years to curb job hopping among qualified employees – Clause does not violate Article 14 or Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act – Restriction on applying for equivalent posts within five years deemed valid, does not apply to higher posts [Paras 11-12].

Procedural Fairness – Resignation Terms – Clause in employment contract requiring three months advance notice or salary for resignation – Employer's right to not accept resignation until suitable substitute arranged – Court found no procedural unfairness in enforcing such terms – Petitioner’s challenge to terms of resignation rejected as contractually agreed upon [Paras 22-24].

Judicial Precedents – Consistency – Court referred to previous judgments affirming validity of similar employment restrictions – Cases of Dr. Rahul Chawla and Dr. Anjali cited, noting restrictions upheld when statutory provisions allow – Judgment aligns with established legal principles [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Restriction on job application within five years of service valid and enforceable – Resignation terms requiring notice or salary and acceptance by employer upheld – Petitioner's plea for no objection certificate rejected, must comply with employment terms [Paras 23-24].

Selection Process – Cancellation – Advertisement Error – Recruitment process initiated on 15.12.2018 for Members of District Consumer Forums – Clerical error in minimum age criteria not initially considered an impediment – State Government proceeded without issuing corrigendum – Petitioners' names recommended after proper selection – State’s later decision to cancel process due to advertisement error deemed arbitrary – Writ allowed [Paras 1-20].

Discrimination – Similar Treatment – Presidents and Members – Selection process for Presidents of District Forums completed and appointments notified – Members not appointed despite same selection process completion – Court held State's action discriminatory and unjustified – State cannot treat similarly placed candidates differently without valid reasons [Paras 18-19].

Procedural Fairness – Judicial Review – Selection Process Completion – Statutory Selection Committee recommended appointments – State delayed and later cancelled process citing new Act and rules – Court held State's role limited post-recommendation – Selection process as per old Act should be honored – Inaction and cancellation without valid grounds arbitrary [Paras 20-23].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Cancellation of selection process and impugned order dated 01.12.2020 quashed – State directed to notify appointments within two months – Compliance with Rule 5(10)-(12) regarding verifications allowed [Para 26].

Amnesty Scheme – Interpretation – Beneficial Legislation – Petitioner filed single appeal against a common order covering multiple show-cause notices – Petitioner's single declaration for waiver under Sabka Vishwas Scheme rejected for not filing separate declarations for each notice – Court held hyper-technical approach invalid – Single appeal permitted under Rule 6A of CESTAT Rules, 1982, hence single declaration justified – Scheme aims to minimize litigation and procedural compliance must not deny substantive relief – Petition allowed [Paras 1-12].

Procedural Compliance vs. Substantive Right – Eligibility Conditions – Petitioner complied with essential conditions under Sections 123 to 125 of Finance Act, 2019 – Court emphasized substantive rights over procedural technicalities – Government's objective to reduce litigation and collect revenue without extended disputes – Hyper-technical grounds for rejection contrary to legislative intent – Relief granted to petitioner [Paras 9-11].

Judicial Precedents – Consistent Interpretation – Referenced recent Supreme Court judgment in L & T Housing Finance Ltd. v. Trishul Developers – Emphasis on substantial compliance over trivial procedural objections – Equitable relief when no prejudice caused to revenue – Coordinated approach towards beneficial legislation reinforced [Para 11].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Rejection of petitioner's declaration under Amnesty Scheme quashed – Respondents directed to issue discharge certificate upon compliance with other conditions – Procedural formalities should not obstruct substantive entitlements under beneficial schemes [Para 12].

Proclaimed Offender – Procedural Compliance – Section 82 Cr.P.C – Petitioner declared as a proclaimed person for not appearing in a case – Petitioner later surrendered before the trial court – Court held that once the accused surrenders and joins proceedings, they can no longer be described as an offender – Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. fulfilled their purpose upon petitioner’s appearance – Order declaring petitioner a proclaimed person and consequent FIR quashed [Paras 1-9].

Judicial Review – Principles – Similar Precedents – Reference to Ashish Gupta vs. State of Punjab – Legal remedy pursuit does not imply evasion of arrest – Petitioner's actions consistent with seeking legal remedies available – Proclaimed offender order deemed hasty without allowing reasonable time for petitioner to avail legal options [Para 7].

Quashing FIR – Legal Grounds – Petitioner’s Compliance – Following petitioner’s compliance with court orders, proceedings under Section 82 were rendered redundant – Legal principle that procedural steps should not result in continued detriment once compliance achieved [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Order declaring petitioner as a proclaimed person and subsequent FIR quashed – Court emphasized procedural fairness and the fulfillment of Section 82 objectives upon surrender [Para 9].

Election Law – Judicial Review – Article 226 – Power of High Court – Petitioners challenged rejection of nomination papers by the Election Returning Officer without furnishing rejection orders – Court held power of High Court under Article 226 is available where it subserves the progress of election, facilitates its completion, and furthers the election process – However, an election can only be challenged through an election petition – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Jurisdiction – Article 243ZG – No Absolute Bar – Judicial Review Permissible – Court emphasized that Article 243ZG does not curtail or oust High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 – High Court's power of judicial review can be exercised in election matters if it subserves the election process – Rejection of nomination papers falls within the domain of election petitions, and High Court intervention is limited to exceptional circumstances [Paras 11-13].

Election Process – Statutory Compliance – Section 41 of 1994 Act – Petitioners alleged violation of statutory provisions by not providing rejection orders and not displaying rejected candidates' list – Court found procedural lapses do not warrant interference at this stage and should be addressed through election petitions – Petitioners directed to avail statutory remedy under Section 74 of 1994 Act [Paras 4-6, 13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – High Court’s power under Article 226 is not ousted but limited in election matters – Petitioners' grievances regarding nomination rejection to be addressed through election petitions – Petition dismissed without prejudice to petitioners' right to challenge through election petition [Paras 13-14].

Technical Bids – Rejection – Judicial Review – Petitioner, a sole proprietorship, challenged rejection of technical bid due to experience certificate issued in the name of a former partnership firm – Court held technical qualifications must be assessed as per tender documents – Previous partnership experience cannot be bifurcated and counted towards individual qualifications – Jurisdiction limited to checking arbitrariness or bias – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-44].

Experience of Partners – Bidding Eligibility – Petitioner sought to rely on experience from partnership firm where the proprietor held 50% share – Court rejected argument that partnership experience could be claimed proportionately – Different partners have different skill sets; experience of firm not divisible – Previous firm’s experience deemed irrelevant for current sole proprietorship bid [Paras 10-12].

Legal Precedents – Tender Authority Discretion – Court reiterated that interpretation of tender documents and assessment of qualifications is primarily within the domain of the issuing authority – Judicial interference warranted only if decision arbitrary or biased – Tender rejection upheld as decision-making process found rational and justified [Paras 34-44].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Rejection of technical bid upheld – Experience from former partnership not applicable to sole proprietorship – No arbitrariness or bias found in tender authority’s decision – Petition dismissed with no relief to petitioner [Paras 1-44].

Transfer and Deputation – Regulatory vs. Commercial Wings – Rules Compliance – Petitioners, Transport Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors, challenged orders transferring them between Regulatory and Commercial wings – Court held that Haryana Transport Department (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998 did not permit such transfers – The Rules of 1998 did not include the phrase "any department under the control of the government," which is present in the 2016 Rules – Since 1998 Rules apply, reliance on 2016 general rules is impermissible – Orders of transfer/deputation invalid [Paras 29-36].

Reasonableness and Rationality – Wednesbury Principles – Administrative Action – Court found no justification for transfer orders purportedly to address corruption – No specific disciplinary proceedings initiated against any named individuals – Transfer orders failed Wednesbury principles of reasonableness – Administrative action deemed unsustainable [Paras 28-30].

Organizational Structure – Bifurcation Impact – Independent Units – Petitioners belonged to Regulatory Wing; transferred to Commercial Wing (Haryana Roadways) – Bifurcation in 2002 created separate independent units – Rules and rationale for separating wings at top level apply throughout hierarchy – Cross-wing transfers undermine operational integrity and original bifurcation intent – Such transfers, therefore, invalid [Paras 10-32].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – Transfer/deputation orders quashed – Regulatory and Commercial wings to maintain independent staff – Petitioners reinstated to original positions within respective wings – Orders set aside on grounds of statutory non-compliance and lack of administrative rationality [Paras 36-37].

Election Law – Rejection of Nomination Papers – Judicial Review – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Petitioner's nomination papers rejected on grounds of illegal occupation of government land – Court held writ petition not maintainable – Election disputes to be addressed through election petitions as per Article 243ZG of the Constitution and Sections 74 and 89 of Punjab Election Commission Act – Supreme Court precedents mandate that election process once started should not be interrupted by writ petitions – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Nomination Process – Scope of Judicial Review – Petitioner’s claim of non-occupation of government land required factual determination – Court emphasized that factual disputes related to elections should be resolved through election tribunals – Nomination rejections fall within election process, thus writ petitions barred unless exceptional circumstances proven [Paras 4-19].

Statutory Provisions – Compliance and Disqualifications – Sections 11(q) and 11(r) of the Punjab Election Commission Act – Petitioner’s disqualification based on unauthorized occupation and non-payment of municipal taxes – Court upheld statutory compliance by election authorities – Specific statutory grounds for disqualification applicable, writ jurisdiction limited in election matters [Paras 21-26].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Writ petition challenging rejection of nomination papers not maintainable – Validity of election process to be questioned through election petitions – Petitioner at liberty to file an election petition as per statutory provisions [Para 30].

Transfer of IAS Officers – Discretion and Administrative Exigencies – Rule 7 of IAS Cadre Rules, 1954 – Petitioner, 100% visually impaired IAS Officer, challenged transfer as discriminatory – Court held transfer is an incident of service, no vested right to specific posting – Transfer orders based on administrative exigencies and public interest, not discriminatory – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-27, 40-43].

Statutory Compliance – Tenure and Recommendations – Rule 7(3) and 7(5) – Petitioner’s transfer within two years challenged for non-compliance with minimum tenure – Court found compliance with statutory provisions; Civil Services Board recommended transfer – Extraordinary COVID-19 circumstances justified administrative decisions – No violation of statutory rules established [Paras 23-35].

Judicial Review – Limits on Interference – Administrative Decisions – Court emphasized limited scope of judicial review in administrative transfers – Absence of mala fides or violation of statutory rules restricts court interference – Administrative discretion and public interest paramount – Orders of CAT upheld, transfer order valid [Paras 21, 41].

Career Progression – Field Experience Requirement – Petitioner's grievance on inadequate field experience addressed – Court noted petitioner completed requisite field experience for central deputation eligibility – Primary grievance resolved, no further merit in claims [Paras 17-19, 39].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Transfer order from Deputy Commissioner to Director position upheld – Statutory rules complied, no discrimination or mala fides found – CAT order affirmed, petition dismissed [Paras 42-43].