Civil Writ - Recruitment – Eligibility Criteria – One-Year LLM Degree – Arbitrary Exclusion – Provisional Selection List Quashed – Petitioner, though securing first rank in written exam, excluded on ground that her LLM was of one-year duration – Notification did not specify LLM must be of two-year duration – Held: Arbitrary to exclude candidate where UGC recognizes one-year LLM; No valid basis for discrimination between equivalent courses [Paras 5–11].

UGC Recognition – One-Year LLM Programme – Valid for Public Appointments – LLM from National Law School, Bangalore, a reputed institution – UGC approval suffices – Petitioner eligible as per existing norms – Court held that once accepted for Ph.D. enrolment, cannot be disqualified for public post [Paras 7–13].

Judicial Precedents – Division Bench Binding – Clarified Educational Patterns – Followed in Parandhaman and Suganya Jeba Sarojini cases – Held: Educational pattern (10+2+5+1) valid; one-year LLM cannot be disqualified on this basis – Pattern-based disqualification without statutory backing is untenable [Paras 8–10].

Discrimination in Selection – Merit Ignored – Violation of Fairness – Petitioner outranked selected candidates yet excluded due to non-existent restriction – Held: Such exclusion violates principles of merit and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution [Paras 11–14].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Selection List Quashed – Court directed appointment of petitioner with retrospective notional seniority and all consequential service and monetary benefits – Respondents directed to act within eight weeks [Paras 15–16].
 

Civil Law – Declaration, Joint Possession, and Permanent Injunction – Plaintiffs (respondents) filed a suit against petitioners (defendants) challenging sale deeds and claiming joint possession and injunction over ancestral property – Plaintiffs, daughters of Paramvir Singh, alleged that the property was joint Hindu family property and the sale deeds executed by their brother Sukhjinder Singh were illegal – Trial Court dismissed the defendants’ application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, holding that plaintiffs need not pay ad valorem court fee as they were not executants of the sale deeds and claimed to be in possession [Paras 2-3].

Court Fees – Applicability of Ad Valorem and Fixed Court Fee – Defendants contended that since plaintiffs sought joint possession, court fee on market value under Section 7(iv)(c) and 7(v) of the Court Fees Act was payable – Trial Court held plaintiffs were in possession and no such court fee was needed – High Court noted that plaintiffs had cleverly drafted the plaint to appear in possession while also seeking joint possession relief – Held: Court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) and 7(v) is indeed payable, dominant relief being joint possession and not mere declaration or cancellation of sale deeds [Paras 9-11].

Maintainability of Revision Petition – Plaintiffs argued that the question of court fee was between plaintiffs and the State and not maintainable under revision by defendants – High Court clarified that the revision was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Section 115 CPC – Held: Revision is maintainable, defendants have the right to challenge the order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC [Para 8].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 03.12.2024 set aside – Plaintiffs directed to pay court fee as per Section 7(iv)(c) and 7(v) of the Court Fees Act within six weeks if not already paid – Pending applications disposed of [Para 11].
 

Industrial Dispute – Reference by Appropriate Government – Reference Held Defective – The court held that while referring the industrial dispute, the Appropriate Government worded the reference in a manner suggesting a pre-declared conclusion that the contract system is “sham and bogus” – This prejudiced the adjudication and restricted the Industrial Tribunal from independently deciding the existence and validity of the contract – Held: Reference suffers from a material infirmity and is liable to be set aside [Paras 15-20].

Binding Settlements – Effect of Existing Long-Term Settlements – Validity Unaffected – The existence of prior settlements under Sections 12(3) and 2(p) of the I.D. Act between the contractors and the unions, which were not challenged earlier, cannot operate as an absolute bar to raising a fresh dispute – However, the factual existence of such settlements is relevant for the tribunal in deciding the sham contract issue and entitlement to benefits – Held: Previous settlements alone cannot preclude adjudication if a dispute exists [Paras 9.3-10.4].

Scope of Tribunal’s Jurisdiction – Limited by Order of Reference – Tribunal Cannot Go Beyond the Reference – The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the points specifically referred and matters incidental thereto – A reference which pre-supposes the outcome of disputed facts like the existence of sham contracts is legally unsustainable – Such determination must be left open for full adjudication by the Tribunal based on evidence [Paras 18-20].

Employer-Employee Relationship – To Be Determined by Tribunal – The Court clarified that whether the contract system is genuine or sham and whether the workers are employees of the petitioner or the contractors is a pure question of fact and cannot be predetermined by the Appropriate Government – The Tribunal is the competent authority to decide this issue after trial [Paras 17-18].

Final Decision – Reference Order Set Aside – The Court quashed the impugned reference orders passed on 18.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 – Directed the Appropriate Government to re-frame the reference terms properly without pre-judging the issue within 45 days – Writ Petitions disposed accordingly [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Complaint - Defamation – Reporting Public Figure’s Statement – Fair and Truthful Reporting – Summoning Set Aside - Petitioners being editors and journalists had truthfully reported the statement made by MP Bhagwant Mann regarding alleged monetary inducement to the complainant MLA – Court held that the news report merely reproduced the speech without distortion and lacked any independent imputation by petitioners – Mens rea for defamation absent – Petitioners’ actions fall under First Exception to Section 499 IPC – Summoning order quashed [Paras 9-13].

Section 499 IPC – Requirement of Intention or Knowledge to Defame – Not Satisfied – Proceedings Quashed - Held: Essential ingredients of defamation include intention, knowledge or reasonable belief of harming reputation – No such material found in the complaint or preliminary evidence against petitioners – Magistrate's finding without evidentiary basis – Summoning order is unsustainable [Paras 9-11].

First Exception to Section 499 IPC – Accurate Reporting of True Statement in Public Interest – Journalistic Protection Available - Reporting of public figures’ statements without embellishment or distortion, when relevant to public interest, is protected – Petitioners’ act of publishing unaltered version of MP's statement falls within legal protection – No offence made out [Paras 8-12].

Quashing of Proceedings – Power under Section 482 CrPC Invoked – Abuse of Process Prevented - In the absence of essential ingredients of defamation, summoning petitioners to trial would result in abuse of process and miscarriage of justice – Complaint and proceedings quashed in exercise of inherent powers [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Criminal Complaint and Summoning Order Quashed – Bail/Surety Discharged [Para 13].

Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving – Revision against conviction - Appreciation of Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioner convicted by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court for causing death by rash and negligent driving – Revision filed challenging conviction – Held: Evidence of eyewitnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 found unreliable as their presence at accident site was doubtful – Contradictions between medical evidence and eyewitness testimony – Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report did not corroborate prosecution’s version – No proper identification of petitioner as driver – Accident possibly caused by improper riding of two-wheeler by P.W.1 – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 2-8].

Rashness and Criminal Negligence – Requirement of Proof – Concept Explained – Mere occurrence of accident or death not sufficient to infer criminal rashness or negligence – Necessity of proving reckless or grossly negligent conduct – Prosecution failed to establish rashness or negligence to the required degree – Petitioner entitled to acquittal [Paras 5-8].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court and confirmed by Appellate Court set aside – Petitioner acquitted of all charges – Legal Aid Counsel appreciated for efforts [Paras 9-11].

Criminal Law - Rape – Consent Based on Promise to Marry – Victim Major – Conviction Set Aside – Alleged victim engaged in consensual relationship with appellant under belief of future marriage – High Court found from ossification test (PW6) that victim was approximately 25 years old at time of incident – No evidence to show that promise was false from inception – Held: Consent not vitiated – Ingredients of Section 375 IPC not attracted [Paras 6–12, 21–25]. 
 
Delayed FIR – Lack of Prompt Disclosure – Inference of Consent – FIR filed after 5 months of pregnancy – Victim did not inform anyone immediately post incident – Court held delay and continued sexual relationship point to voluntary participation, not coercion or rape [Paras 11–13, 20, 23]. 
 
Ossification Test – No Proof of Minority – No Documentary Birth Record – Age determined as 25 years with ±2 years – Court relied on ossification test in absence of credible documentary proof – Victim held to be major at time of alleged incident – Section 375 ‘sixthly’ not applicable [Paras 9, 21]. 
 
Witness Discrepancies – Material Contradictions – Victim’s Testimony Unreliable – Court noted inconsistency in victim’s deposition and prior statements under Section 161 CrPC – Other key witnesses not examined – Medical evidence did not support forceful intercourse – Conviction held unsustainable [Paras 14–16, 24–25]. 
 
False Promise to Marry – Not Sufficient to Vitiate Consent – Awareness of Nature of Act – Victim knowingly consented to sexual act – Consent under such belief not legally invalid where no evidence of fraud or deception from inception – Relationship found consensual [Paras 22–23]. 
  
Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged – Trial Court records to be returned immediately [Paras 26–27]. 
 

Civil - Excise License – Fraudulent Transfer of FL-II License – License Restored – Collector’s Cancellation Upheld – Petitioners alleged impersonation and forgery in the transfer of their liquor license to Respondents 4 & 5 – Court found forged Aadhaar Card, mismatched signatures, and impersonation established by Excise Department’s inquiry – Transfer held void ab initio and Collector’s cancellation order restored [Paras 1–10, 16–24, 30–31].

Impersonation and Forgery – Excise Inquiry Confirmed Fabricated Documents – Petitioners established that affidavits, power of attorney, and ID proofs were falsified to impersonate original license holder – Excise Inspector admitted error in identity verification – Findings of Deputy Superintendent Inquiry accepted by Court [Paras 17–23].

Fraud Vitiates All – Authority Has Inherent Power to Recall Fraudulent Orders – Court invoked principles from Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres and A.V. Papayya Sastry – Held: Even in absence of express review power, fraud permits recall – Fraudulently secured license cannot be legitimized by administrative oversight [Paras 24–26, 28–29].

Revisional Authority’s Failure – Non-Application of Mind – Decision Set Aside – Revisional Authority relied on vague police report, ignoring documentary proof of impersonation and Excise findings – Court held this to be a perverse and legally unsustainable approach [Paras 27, 30].

Relief – Restoration to Status Quo Ante – License Returned to Genuine Holder – Impugned orders quashed – License to be reinstated in petitioner’s name – Stay refused considering fraud proved on record [Paras 30–33].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) – Orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities quashed – License to be restored to the petitioners – Request for stay rejected [Paras 30–33].
 

Civil Writ - Challenge to Selection Process – Alleged Irregularities in Evaluation – Dismissed – Petitioners contended that there were discrepancies in marks, improper scaling, and procedural irregularities – Court held that the selection process was conducted as per rules and in absence of specific material irregularities, challenge was liable to be rejected [Paras 39-48].

Reservation Policy – Implementation of Horizontal Reservation – Properly Applied – Petitioners alleged violation of horizontal reservation for female, EBC, SC, and ST candidates – Court held that the Commission had correctly applied horizontal reservation in compliance with rules and government instructions [Paras 49-58].

Equivalence of Degrees – B.Tech Degree Holders Treated as Graduates – Valid – Petitioners raised objection regarding qualification criteria and equivalence of B.Tech degree – Court affirmed that B.Tech degree is equivalent to a graduate degree for the purpose of eligibility – Petitioners’ contention rejected [Paras 59-64].

Errors in OMR Evaluation and Rechecking – Commission's Stand Accepted – Petitioners challenged the Commission’s refusal to permit rechecking of OMR sheets – Court held that under the Rules, there is no provision for rechecking of OMR and evaluation was conducted correctly – Commission's process upheld [Paras 65-69].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process – Selection process affirmed – All petitions dismissed with no interference called for [Paras 70-72].
 

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Appeal against conviction - Firing in Open Court – Conviction Upheld – Heinous Act – Appellant, present in courtroom during cross murder trial, fired from close range at PW2 Ram Bharose Lal with country-made pistol – Court held act was intentional and premeditated, backed by enmity – Held: Appellant rightly convicted under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act – No case made for sentence reduction [Paras 1–6, 34–41].

Eyewitness & Injured Witness – Credibility of Testimony – Relatives Not Disqualified – Court reaffirmed that testimony of injured victim (PW2) and nephew (PW1) could not be discarded merely due to relationship – PW2's presence undisputed, bullet still lodged in body during statement recording – His testimony corroborated by medical and investigative evidence – Held: Reliable and sufficient for conviction [Paras 23–30, 34–39].

Weapon Recovery – Arrest on Spot – Close Range Injury – Evidentiary Chain Intact – Appellant caught with loaded firearm inside courtroom – Recovery of five live cartridges and spent shell corroborated by seizure memo – Charring and tattooing on wound confirmed close-range shot – Held: Recovery and medical evidence strengthened prosecution case [Paras 4–6, 35–37].

Defective Investigation – Not Fatal – Courtroom Attack With Eyewitnesses – Alleged lapses like missing ballistic report or police staff testimony held immaterial in light of direct, cogent, and prompt evidence – Reliance placed on multiple SC precedents confirming that defective investigation alone doesn't vitiate trial where guilt is otherwise established [Paras 30–34, 39].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC (life imprisonment) and Section 25 Arms Act (three years RI) upheld – Sentences to run concurrently – No scope for leniency given the gravity and setting of the crime – Courtroom attack considered a severe threat to the justice system [Paras 43–45].