Service Law – Ad-hoc Appointment – Non-renewal of Contract as Discriminatory Action – The petitioner, who had served as an Assistant Professor (Forensic Science) on a contractual basis for three years, was not granted renewal of her contract, while two similarly placed candidates were retained – Held: Non-renewal of the petitioner’s contract without a formal order while renewing contracts of other similarly placed candidates amounts to discriminatory treatment and prima facie victimization – Interim relief granted directing status quo [Paras 2, 5.1].

Principle of Non-replacement of an Ad-hoc Employee by Another Ad-hoc Employee – The petitioner contended that an ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc employee – Held: The university failed to produce any formal order scrapping the recruitment process or justify non-renewal of the petitioner’s contract – Court directed maintenance of status quo concerning petitioner’s employment until further orders [Paras 5.2, 5.2.1].

Ad-Interim Relief – Absence of a Formal Termination Order – The court noted that no formal order was issued terminating the petitioner’s contract or notifying her about non-renewal – Held: In light of precedents and an earlier similar case (Brijeshkumar Sinha v. Vice Chancellor, Rashtriya Raksha University & Ors.), where status quo was granted, the petitioner deserves interim relief – Status quo directed concerning her employment [Paras 5.2.1, 5.3].

Decision: Notice issued, returnable on 11th February 2025. In the meantime, since no formal order was passed regarding the termination or non-renewal of the petitioner’s contract, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo concerning her service conditions, as if the employment contract has not been terminated or put to an end.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Retaliatory FIR – Timing of Complaint – Malicious Prosecution Inferred – The husband filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 18/10/2023, and the wife lodged the FIR shortly thereafter on 27/10/2023. No explanation was provided for the delay in filing the complaint, despite her claim of being driven out of the matrimonial home on 21/04/2023. Held, the FIR appears to be a retaliatory measure rather than a genuine grievance [Paras 6-7].

Omnibus Allegations – Lack of Specific Role Attribution – Quashing Justified – The FIR contained general allegations without assigning specific roles to the accused. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were identical and lacked independent corroboration. The charge sheet also failed to establish the role of each accused, violating the principles laid down in Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726. Held, continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process [Paras 7, 10-11].

Medical Evidence – Contradictions in Injury Report – The private opposite party alleged physical assault by the husband, but her medical report showed no external injuries. Despite this, the injury was classified as "simple" without any basis. Held, such contradictions cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations [Para 8].

Exercise of Inherent Powers – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – The High Court has the authority under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings where the allegations lack substance, and the prosecution appears to be an abuse of legal process. Held, in the absence of prima facie evidence, allowing the case to continue would be unjustified [Paras 9, 12].

Decision: The criminal revision petitions are allowed. The proceedings in G.R. Case No. 895 of 2023 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantan, Paschim Medinipur, are quashed. The petitioners are set at liberty and discharged from their bail bonds.

Writ Petition – Fake Encounter – NHRC Recommendations – CBI Inquiry and Compensation -  – Petitioner sought a CBI inquiry into the alleged fake encounter killing of five persons on 5th May 2006 – NHRC had initially recommended a CBI inquiry in its order dated 26th September 2012 – Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) initially conveyed no objection to a CBI inquiry but later retracted, citing criminal antecedents of the deceased – High Court held that an independent investigation was warranted but accepted the decision of the Lieutenant Governor (LG), who, after considering the police and DM's reports, found no need for a CBI inquiry – Held: CBI inquiry not warranted in the present case [Paras 26-30, 43-46, 62-66].

NHRC Guidelines and Inquiry – NHRC guidelines issued on 29th March 1997 and revised on 2nd December 2003 mandate a magisterial inquiry in cases of deaths in police action – Delhi Police initially opposed an independent inquiry – NHRC directed the District Magistrate (DM) to conduct an inquiry, which found inconsistencies in the police version and raised doubts about the genuineness of the encounter – DM’s report recommended a CBI inquiry, but the LG rejected this recommendation, citing involvement of the deceased in multiple criminal cases [Paras 32-34, 44-46, 65].

Compensation Awarded by NHRC – NHRC, in its final order dated 5th February 2014, despite finding serious lapses in police action, reluctantly accepted that a CBI inquiry would not be conducted – However, NHRC awarded compensation of ₹5 lakh to the legal heirs of each deceased person, stating that extra-judicial killings cannot be justified on grounds of past criminal records – Delhi Police and MHA did not challenge this order, but compensation remained unpaid for over a decade [Paras 56-58, 67].

Binding Nature of NHRC Recommendations – Court examined conflicting judicial precedents on whether NHRC recommendations are binding – Relied on decisions of the Allahabad and Madras High Courts, holding that NHRC recommendations are binding unless challenged in judicial review – Held: NHRC’s compensation order is binding, and non-payment is unjustified [Paras 48-59].

Final Decision – High Court declined to order a CBI inquiry but directed MHA to release ₹5 lakh compensation along with 18% simple interest to the legal heirs of the deceased within three months – Additional ₹1 lakh awarded as litigation costs – Compliance directed by 30th April 2025, with the matter listed for further monitoring [Paras 66-71].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – CBI inquiry denied – Compensation of ₹5 lakh with 18% interest and ₹1 lakh litigation costs awarded – Compliance directed.
 

Recruitment Process – Cancellation of Previous Selection Process – Right to Reapply – Petitioners participated in 2022 recruitment process but were unable to secure positions—Recruitment process was cancelled by AAI on 13/02/2024—A fresh recruitment process was initiated on 19/12/2024, but petitioners became over-aged under the new eligibility criteria—Held: Cancellation of the recruitment process cannot deprive eligible candidates of their right to employment—Reliance placed on A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, 1990 (2) SCC 669—Petitioners granted age relaxation to apply in 2024 recruitment [Paras 8-13].

Right to Equality in Public Employment – Article 16 of the Constitution – Petitioners contended that AAI's decision to restrict their participation violated Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution—Held: While right to employment is not a fundamental right, the principle of equal opportunity in public employment must be upheld—Denial of participation due to the cancellation of a prior recruitment process constitutes an arbitrary and unfair restriction—High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, (2022) 4 SCC 643 followed—AAI directed to extend the deadline for online applications [Paras 12-15].

Recruitment Age Limit – Judicial Interference in Eligibility Criteria – AAI argued that age criteria is fixed and cannot be relaxed—Held: While courts generally do not interfere in recruitment policies, exceptions can be made where an administrative decision unfairly excludes eligible candidates—Judicial intervention is warranted where the recruitment process is cancelled after progressing to a significant stage—Reliance placed on Nitish Kumar v. Union of India, WP(C) 2977/2023 (Delhi HC) and Santram Patel v. CRPF, WP(C) 4185/2023 (Delhi HC)—Petitioners' participation permitted [Paras 10-13].

Administrative Delay in Recruitment – Impact on Age Eligibility – Petitioners argued that if the 2022 recruitment had not been cancelled, they would not have been over-aged—Held: Candidates should not suffer due to procedural delays and cancellations beyond their control—AAI's decision to include the 32 previously cancelled vacancies in the 2024 recruitment process supports the contention that age relaxation is justified—Sachin & Others v. CRPF, WP(C) 90/2023 (Delhi HC) distinguished—AAI directed to issue a fresh notification extending the application process [Paras 13-15].

Precedential Value – One-Time Age Relaxation Not a General Rule – AAI contended that granting age relaxation would set a precedent—Held: Relaxation is granted only due to the peculiar facts of the case, where recruitment was cancelled after an advanced stage—This decision shall not serve as a general precedent for future recruitment processes [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Impugned age restriction in 2024 recruitment process relaxed—Petitioners granted eligibility to apply—AAI directed to extend application deadline and issue notification within 15 days—Decision applicable only to participants of 2022 recruitment process—Petition disposed of.
 

Service Law – Judicial Interference in Disciplinary Proceedings – Charge-Sheet Not a Punishment – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner challenged the charge-sheet on the ground that he played no role in preparing the DPR and was relieved before the Revised Technical Sanction was granted – High-Level Inquiry Committee found that the collapse of the bridge was due to faulty DPR that failed to consider the catchment area and flood discharge from Sanjay Sarovar Dam – Petitioner signed and approved the PMGSY check-list, which formed the basis for technical sanction – Held: Courts should not interfere in disciplinary proceedings at the charge-sheet stage unless issued by an incompetent authority or in violation of natural justice – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 15-19].

Service Law – Negligence vs. Misconduct – Departmental Inquiry Necessary – No Interference by Court – Petitioner argued that mere negligence in signing a faulty DPR does not amount to misconduct – High-Level Committee found that the petitioner failed to notice major discrepancies in the DPR, including the omission of a 20 km upstream dam, affecting flood calculations – Held: Whether the petitioner’s role was mere negligence or misconduct is a matter of departmental inquiry – No interference warranted at the pre-mature stage [Paras 14-17].

Service Law – Retirement and Disciplinary Action – Proceedings Can Continue – No Mala Fide Found – Charge-sheet issued three days before the petitioner’s retirement – Petitioner argued mala fide intent to harass – Court held that since the incident occurred during petitioner’s tenure, inquiry was validly instituted – Held: Issuance of charge-sheet before retirement does not automatically establish malice – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 7-11].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – Court declined to interfere in the departmental inquiry, holding that the petitioner’s role in checking the DPR, approving technical details, and signing project documents required proper examination in disciplinary proceedings – No costs imposed [Paras 18-19].

Service Law – Pensionary Benefits – Parity with Similarly Placed Employees – Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India – Direction to Consider Claims – The petitioners, retired SLR workers of the Water Resources Department, sought pensionary benefits citing discrimination as the Government had extended similar benefits to SLR workers in the Fisheries Department – The Tribunal disposed of the matter, leaving it to the Government’s discretion – The High Court observed that the Government must maintain parity in service conditions for similarly placed employees – Held: The Government is directed to reconsider the petitioners' claims in light of the Cabinet Decision dated 16/02/2011 and the Apex Court judgments, including Rajkaran Singh v. Union of India [(2004) 8 SCR 516] [Paras 4-10].

Employment Regularization – Long Continuous Service – Applicability of Apex Court Judgments – The petitioners relied on Rajkaran Singh v. Union of India and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India [(2024 INSC 332)] to argue that their continuous service of over a decade warranted reclassification as regular employees and entitlement to pension – The High Court noted that employment rights cannot be determined solely by initial terms of appointment but must consider the substantive nature of work performed over time – Held: Government must assess whether the petitioners' service conditions evolved to justify pensionary benefits and provide them an opportunity to be heard [Paras 8-9].

Judicial Review – Scope of Court’s Intervention in Policy Decisions – The Government contended that extending pensionary benefits to SLR workers in the Water Resources Department would impose a financial burden – The Court held that while fiscal considerations are relevant, they cannot override constitutional principles of equal treatment – Held: The Government must take a reasoned decision within three months while considering the Apex Court’s directives on service regularization and pension entitlements [Para 10].

Decision: – The Original Petitions are disposed of with directions to the Government to reconsider the claims of the petitioners within three months and provide them an opportunity of hearing.
 

Service Law – Recruitment Rules – Exclusion of Degree Holders for Junior Engineer (Civil) Post – Validity of Rule 8(1)(ii) and (iii) of the 2023 Rules – Petitioners challenged the exclusion of B.Tech degree holders from applying for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), arguing that a higher qualification (degree) should subsume a lower qualification (diploma) – Held: The prescription of diploma as the only eligible qualification is a policy decision of the State and cannot be interfered with unless manifestly arbitrary – Equivalence of qualifications is not a matter for judicial review but for the employer to decide – The exclusion of degree holders is justified, considering the functional requirements of Junior Engineers and available opportunities for degree holders in higher posts [Paras 46-50].

Recruitment Policy – Power of the State to Prescribe Eligibility Criteria – Judicial Review Limited – The employer has the discretion to prescribe qualifications for posts – Courts should not expand or alter the prescribed qualifications unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles – Held: Judicial review does not extend to determining equivalence of qualifications unless there is a manifest illegality – The recruitment rules were framed after due deliberation and do not suffer from arbitrariness [Paras 44-50].

Higher Qualification Not Necessarily a Substitute for a Lower Qualification – Functional Differences Between Diploma and Degree Courses – The syllabus and training provided in a diploma course are distinct from those in a degree course – Held: A degree in Civil Engineering does not automatically subsume a diploma in Civil Engineering – The classification made by the State is rational and serves the legitimate purpose of defining the job role and ensuring level-playing field for diploma holders [Paras 44-46].

Precedent – Supreme Court Decisions in Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010) & Puneet Sharma v. HP Electricity Board (2021) Distinguished – Petitioners relied on Jyoti K.K. and Puneet Sharma to argue that higher qualifications should be considered valid – Held: Those cases involved specific rules allowing higher qualifications to be treated as equivalent to prescribed qualifications – In contrast, the Bihar Recruitment Rules do not mention "minimum qualification" but specify diploma as the only eligible qualification, thus excluding degree holders – Jyoti K.K. and Puneet Sharma do not support the petitioners’ claim in the absence of an explicit rule equating degree and diploma qualifications [Paras 17-20, 41-50].

Constitutional Law – Classification Based on Educational Qualification – Reasonable and Non-Arbitrary – The classification between diploma and degree holders for Junior Engineer posts is based on functional requirements and administrative policy – Held: The State is entitled to create a distinct cadre for diploma holders without violating Article 14 of the Constitution – Exclusion of degree holders does not violate the right to equality as they have access to higher posts [Paras 47-50].

Decision: – Writ petitions dismissed. The challenge to Rule 8(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Bihar Water Resource Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2023, fails.

Labour Law - Certified Standing Orders – Exercise of Power Under Clause 28 – Non-Compliance with Clause 27 – Impersonation Allegation – Removal Set Aside – Clause 28 allows removal without following regular departmental enquiry only in limited cases such as criminal conviction or when continuation of service is against security interests – In the present case, the management failed to conduct a departmental enquiry under Clause 27, and the inquiry report did not find the petitioner guilty of impersonation – Removal based on police verification report alone was unsustainable [Paras 29-31, 38, 44].

Industrial Tribunal – Scrutiny of Enquiry under Section 11-A of the ID Act – Failure of Tribunal – Tribunal upheld removal based on police report without scrutinizing the fairness and adequacy of the enquiry report – The Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A to reassess evidence and consider whether the punishment was appropriate – Held: Award of Tribunal is perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 26, 39, 43, 51].

Impersonation Allegation – Evidence and Procedural Deficiencies – The management failed to provide evidence or conduct a proper enquiry proving that the petitioner impersonated Rohini Deshwalin, wife of Kali Deshwali – The complainant did not testify, and conflicting evidence (Form-B records, service excerpts) left the issue of impersonation unresolved – Held: The removal order was passed without proper basis and in violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 33, 35, 38-41].

Natural Justice – Removal Without Opportunity to Defend – Police verification report, relied upon to remove the petitioner, was obtained without giving her an opportunity to respond or cross-examine witnesses – Such removal is contrary to principles of natural justice and amounts to procedural impropriety [Paras 41, 45].

Back Wages – Limited Relief Due to Superannuation – Petitioner attained superannuation during the pendency of proceedings – Considering the unblemished service record prior to removal and procedural violations by the management, the Court granted 50% back wages from the date of reference to the Tribunal until superannuation, with all consequential benefits [Paras 52-53].

Decision: Writ petition allowed. Impugned award dated 30/08/2012 of the Industrial Tribunal set aside. Order of removal dated 18/03/2000 quashed. Petitioner entitled to 50% back wages from 19/09/2001 (reference date) until 10/01/2009 (date of superannuation) with all consequential benefits.
 

False Information to Authorities – Section 58(2) of the NDPS Act – Disproportionality in Sentencing – Petitioner accused of providing false information to authorities, leading to the arrest of an innocent woman (Sheela Sunny) under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act – Held: False implication in NDPS cases can have devastating consequences; penalties for such false accusations must be proportionate to the severity of harm caused – Registry directed to forward a copy of this order to the Union of India to consider legislative changes ensuring harsher penalties for such offenses [Paras 2-3, 10-11].

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Seriousness of Allegations – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that only a bailable offense under Section 58(2) NDPS Act was applicable – Held: The allegations suggest a larger conspiracy, requiring thorough investigation, including custodial interrogation – The gravity of the alleged act precludes the grant of anticipatory bail – Application dismissed [Paras 9-12, 14-16].

Investigation into Conspiracy – Role of Informants – Safeguards Needed – Allegations that the petitioner conspired to falsely implicate an innocent woman in an NDPS case for personal motives – Held: Investigating Officer directed to probe the wider conspiracy, including the petitioner’s role and his connection to the individuals involved – State Police Chief directed to form a special investigation team to complete the investigation within three months [Paras 14-17].

Delay in Chemical Analysis – Alleged Evaporation of LSD Stamps – Burden of Possession – Petitioner argued that the delay of 74 days in analyzing seized LSD stamps could have caused the substance to evaporate – Held: If proven, the petitioner and co-conspirators may also face charges under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act for possession and conspiracy – Investigation to consider all angles [Paras 15-16].

Judicial Observations on False Accusations – Need for Accountability – Court emphasized the destructive impact of false accusations on innocent individuals – Observed that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth comes to light – Urged legislative action to ensure stringent penalties and justice for victims of false implications [Paras 11, 17].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application dismissed. Petitioner directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 7 days. Investigating Officer authorized to take coercive steps in case of non-surrender. State Police Chief directed to complete the investigation within 3 months. Jurisdictional Court instructed to dispose of the case within 4 months upon filing of the final report. Registry directed to forward a copy of this order to the State Police Chief, the Union of India, and the Jurisdictional Court [Paras 17-18].