Recruitment Criteria – HTET Requirement – Transitional Provisions – Petitioners sought exemption from HTET for second recruitment after the notification of the 2012 Rules – Court held that the transitional provision allowed exemption only for the first recruitment post-notification – Petitioners were given several opportunities to qualify HTET in 2017 and 2018 but failed – No right to claim exemption as a matter of right – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Eligibility – Requirement of Qualification – Petitioners failed to clear HTET by the date of interview – Exemption granted in first recruitment does not apply to subsequent recruitments – Eligibility criteria of HTET/STET common for all subjects under the 2012 Rules – Petitioners' ineligibility for interview upheld as per recruitment rules [Paras 5-10, 14].

Judicial Review – Consistency with Recruitment Rules – Court emphasized adherence to statutory recruitment criteria – Relaxation provisions under Rule 19-A allowed State discretion but not as a matter of right – Petitioners' reliance on initial exemption misconceived – Petitioners’ claim for interview without HTET qualification rejected [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners not eligible for interview without HTET qualification – Exemption granted for first recruitment not applicable – State's decision upheld – No merit in the petition [Paras 16-18].

Education Law – Revaluation of Answer Sheets – Online Examinations – Petitioners challenged the University’s decision to disallow revaluation of answer sheets from online examinations conducted due to COVID-19. Court held that revaluation regulations framed by the University Senate apply to all forms of examinations unless explicitly excluded. Controller of Examination's decision to disallow revaluation based on an interpretation of minutes of a committee meeting was set aside [Paras 1-19].

Jurisdiction of University Authorities – Regulation Amendment – Court emphasized that the University Senate, as the supreme authority, has the power to frame regulations, including those for revaluation. The Controller of Examination does not have the authority to amend these regulations. The decision to exclude revaluation for online exams was beyond the Controller’s jurisdiction and not supported by any explicit decision [Paras 2-3, 7-12, 18].

Regulation Consistency – Various Examination Modes – University regulations for revaluation were intended to cover all examination modes, including online exams, unless specifically excluded. Court noted that even online exams involved handwritten submissions, maintaining the integrity of the revaluation process. Regulations governing traditional exams apply equally to online formats unless explicitly modified [Paras 10-11, 15-16].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Court directed Panjab University to re-evaluate the answer sheets as requested by the petitioners. Controller of Examination’s decision to exclude revaluation for online exams was set aside. Petitioners entitled to the same revaluation rights as traditional examination candidates [Paras 19-20].

Pension and Financial Assistance – Denial Based on Conviction – Unrelated Offence – Petitioner denied pension and financial assistance due to her conviction in a murder case unrelated to her husband's death – Court held denial unsustainable as the conviction was not related to her husband's death – Order denying benefits set aside – Mandamus issued for payment of arrears with interest [Paras 1-14].

Rules Interpretation – Family Pension – Good Conduct Clause – Punjab Civil Services Rules 2.2(a) – Good conduct requirement applies to pensioners, not family members receiving financial aid – No misconduct clause in Haryana Rules of 2006 affecting family members' entitlement to financial assistance – Court emphasized the beneficial intent of the Rules, aimed at assisting the deceased employee’s family [Paras 3-5, 9-10].

Judicial Precedents – Pension Recovery Limits – Consistent with precedents, complete pension cannot be withheld – Maximum one-third of gross pension recoverable for pecuniary loss to the Government – Family Pension Rules' disqualification clause applies only if the Government employee was murdered by the family member claiming pension – Similar rulings from other High Courts upheld [Paras 6-8, 11-12].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Denial of pension and financial assistance to the petitioner based on unrelated conviction is invalid – Respondents directed to pay arrears of monthly financial assistance and process family pension claim – Simple interest at 6% per annum on arrears awarded – Compliance required within two months [Paras 13-14].

Amnesty Scheme – Liberal Interpretation – Enquiry Initiation Date – Petitioners' declarations under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme rejected due to ongoing enquiry – Court held that any enquiry/audit/investigation initiated after the scheme commencement on 01.09.2019 cannot disqualify a declarant – Scheme aims to reduce litigation and recover dues – Liberal interpretation emphasized to fulfill legislative intent – Rejection of declarations on procedural grounds deemed improper – Petitions allowed [Paras 1-17].

Beneficial Legislation – Application Scope – Sections 123, 124, 125 of Finance Act, 2019 – Dispute on cut-off date for voluntary disclosure – Petitioner argued 30.06.2019 as cut-off date – Respondents contended ineligibility due to enquiry initiation post-01.09.2019 – Court favored petitioners' interpretation, supporting broad and liberal application of the scheme [Paras 5-6, 12-13].

Circulars and Guidelines – Board Clarifications – Circulars from Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs extended scheme benefits even to those excluded by Section 125 – Liberal interpretation endorsed by recent Supreme Court judgment in Brahampal @ Sammay v. National Insurance Company – Scheme’s success reliant on avoiding strict interpretations [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Held – Rejection of declarations under the Amnesty Scheme set aside – Enquiries initiated post-scheme commencement irrelevant for disqualification – Liberal interpretation to advance scheme’s purpose endorsed – Orders for declaration rejection quashed [Para 17].

Panchayati Raj Act – Suspension of Sarpanch – Registration of FIR – Section 20 – Court held pendency or registration of FIR itself not sufficient for suspension – Director must form opinion on likelihood of embarrassment in duties or involvement of moral turpitude or character defect – Impugned suspension order not meeting statutory requirements set aside [Paras 1-12].

Judicial Review – Procedural Requirements – Director’s Order – Director’s suspension order did not specify how FIRs would cause embarrassment or involve moral turpitude – Court found Director only stated public interest without statutory grounds – Suspension order invalid as per statutory provision [Paras 7-8].

Acquittal and Pendency of FIRs – Impact on Suspension – Petitioner acquitted in several FIRs, some FIRs pending for years without progress – FIRs predate election, and latest FIR under investigation – Director’s order failed to account for these aspects – Suspension for long duration unjustified [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Suspension order and affirmation by Financial Commissioner set aside – Elected representative cannot be suspended for prolonged period without meeting statutory criteria – Orders dated 26.08.2019 and 19.12.2019 quashed [Paras 11-12].

Employee’s Compensation – Jurisdiction – Section 21 – Deceased driver killed during employment – Commissioner at Nuh awarded compensation – Appellant contended lack of jurisdiction as incident occurred in Mathura, UP – Court held jurisdiction valid where dependents reside or employer has registered office – Procedural notice irregularity does not prejudice claimants – Jurisdiction upheld [Paras 4-5].

Interest on Compensation – Section 4A – Award of 12% interest from date of incident – Appellant challenged interest from incident date – Court upheld interest award as per Section 4A for defaults in compensation payment – Statutory interest justified from date compensation fell due [Para 6].

Cause of Death – Connection with Employment – Gunshot Injury – Appellant argued death unrelated to employment – Court rejected argument – Death during employment course meets compensation criteria under Section 3(1) – Employer liable for compensation regardless of injury cause if connected to employment [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Review – Substantial Question of Law – Appeal under Section 30 requires substantial law question – Court found no substantial question of law in appeal – Commissioner’s award upheld as reasoned and justified [Para 9].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Jurisdiction and compensation award by Commissioner at Nuh affirmed – No substantial question of law for appellate review – Appeal dismissed in limine, compensation to be released to claimants [Paras 10-12].

Industrial Disputes Act – Contractual Employees – Retrenchment – Alternative Remedy – Appellants working as Data Entry Operators under Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhiaran (HSVP) – HSVP is a statutory authority, not a housing apartment – Appellants prima facie covered under definition of "workmen" – Single Judge’s decision to relegate appellants to alternative remedy under ID Act upheld – Reliance on MGT Som Vihar’s case misconceived as facts differ – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-7].

Right to Continuation of Services – Contractual Employees – Retrenchment Criteria – Principles derived from precedents:

'Last Come First Go' Principle – Applicable in retrenchment but not if initial appointment is against public policy or work/conduct unsatisfactory.

Work and Conduct Evaluation – Unsatisfactory conduct nullifies seniority; services can be terminated per terms of employment.

Contractual Protection – Contractual/temporary employees have no protection against termination unless action is illegal, perverse, unreasonable, unfair, or irrational.

Renewal of Contract – Not a right; depends on management's perception of employee's usefulness and need for position [Paras 17-18].

**Judicial Review – Scope – Validity of Termination – Court examines legality, reasonableness, and fairness but does not act as appellate authority – Contractual terminations can be upheld if not vitiated by procedural infirmities [Paras 16, 19].

**Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Single Judge’s order upheld; Appellants to seek remedy under Industrial Disputes Act – Initial appointments against public policy; terminations justified – No merit found in appeal [Paras 18-20].

Examination – Re-evaluation of Answer Sheets – Absence of Provision – Petitioner requested re-evaluation of answer sheets for English language and Criminal Law papers in PCS (JB) 2019 – Court held that re-evaluation is not permitted in absence of relevant rules/instructions – Clause 11 of the advertisement explicitly disallowed re-evaluation – Petition dismissed as the request does not meet the established criteria [Paras 1-19].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Precedent Cases – Court referenced Supreme Court judgments including Pramod Kumar Srivastva, Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination v. Khushboo Srivastva, and H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur – Consistent position that re-evaluation not permitted unless explicitly provided by relevant rules – Petitioner’s case did not merit deviation from established judicial norms [Paras 16-18].

Delay in Filing – Procedural Lapse – Petitioner sought answer sheets under RTI, received them in September 2020, but delayed raising grievances until December 2020 – Court found this delay undermined the merit of the petition – Absence of timely action further justified dismissal [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – No provision for re-evaluation in the advertised rules – Previous Supreme Court rulings reaffirm non-entitlement to re-evaluation without specific provisions – Petition dismissed with no merit [Paras 18-19].

Proclaimed Offender – Procedural Compliance – Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner declared proclaimed offender for theft – Notice of proclamation issued but not published as per statutory requirement – Period between proclamation and hearing less than prescribed 30 days – Court found procedural lapses in compliance with Section 82 – Proclamation order quashed due to non-compliance [Paras 1-12].

Judicial Review – Scope and Application – Quashing FIR – From a perusal of the FIR, prima facie cognizable offence established – No ground for quashing FIR – Procedural lapses in declaring petitioner proclaimed offender addressed separately – Judicial review emphasized adherence to procedural mandates to avoid miscarriage of justice [Paras 8, 11-12].

Decision – Petition Partly Allowed – Held – FIR not quashed; Order declaring petitioner proclaimed offender quashed – Petitioner to surrender before trial court within four weeks – Trial court directed to consider bail application promptly [Para 12].