Appointment of Election Officer – Jurisdiction of Registrar – Rule 11 of the 2004 Rules – Interpretation and Applicability – The petitioners challenged the removal of the Election Officer (Surja Ram Bishnoi) and the appointment of a new Election Officer (Manju Saharan) under Rule 11 of the 2004 Rules, arguing that Rule 11 applies only to elections under Section 26 of the Act, not Section 13, which governs subsequent elections – Court held: Rule 11 of the 2004 Rules is transitory, intended for the first elections under Section 26, but due to legislative omission (casus omissus), the court read Rule 11 as applicable to elections under Section 13 as well to avoid absurdity – The Registrar's intervention in the election process was valid [Paras 60-101].

Violation of Natural Justice – Non-Issuance of Notice to Election Officer – Rule 11(6) of 2004 Rules – Petitioners argued that the removal of the Election Officer without notice violated natural justice – Court held: Though Rule 11(7) does not explicitly require issuing notice, principles of natural justice should have been followed – Failure to issue notice made the order arbitrary [Paras 69-70].

Public Place for Elections – Definition and Compliance with Rule 11(6) – The respondents alleged that the election venue chosen (Virasat Vidhyapeeth, a private school) was not a public place as required by Rule 11(6) – Court held: A private school can qualify as a public place for election purposes unless there is a concern about transparency – The Registrar could have changed the venue but not removed the Election Officer based on venue concerns alone [Paras 110-115].

Doctrine of Casus Omissus – Filling Legislative Gaps – Rule 11 Applied to Subsequent Elections – Court applied the doctrine of casus omissus, holding that the absence of a provision analogous to Rule 11 for subsequent elections under Section 13 was an inadvertent legislative error – To avoid absurdity and chaos, the court read Rule 11 as applicable to elections under Section 13 [Paras 73-101].

Election Conducted by Both Election Officers – Legality – Elections were held by both the removed and the newly appointed Election Officers, leading to two competing elected bodies – Court held: Both elections were illegal – The earlier Election Officer (Surja Ram Bishnoi) should not have conducted elections after his removal, and the appointment of the new Election Officer (Manju Saharan) was also illegal following the quashing of the impugned order [Paras 122-123].

Decision: Order dated 24.05.2024 quashed – The court declared the removal of the Election Officer and the appointment of a new Election Officer illegal – Both sets of elections conducted by the removed and newly appointed Election Officers were invalid – The court directed fresh elections to be conducted under the supervision of the original Election Officer (Surja Ram Bishnoi) from the stage of filing nominations, with the Registrar appointing a new observer [Paras 120-129].

Grace Marks in MBBS Examinations – Applicability of New Guidelines – UGMEB Guidelines 2023 Prevail – Grace Marks Denied – Petitioners contended that the previous 2019 regulations allowed for grace marks, which should continue despite new guidelines. Held: The court ruled that the 2023 UGMEB Guidelines, effective from August 2023, which eliminated grace marks, apply to the January 2024 examinations. The 2019 regulations ceased to apply once the new guidelines were promulgated. Grace marks cannot be awarded under the superseded regulations [Paras 15-40].

Examination Standards – Dynamic Evolution of Educational Policies – Petitioners Cannot Demand Continuation of Previous Standards – The court emphasized that students have no vested right in the continuity of examination or evaluation standards existing at the time of their admission. Changes in evaluation methods or the elimination of grace marks, as in the 2023 Guidelines, were deemed necessary for elevating educational standards. The petitioners' argument that older standards should apply was rejected [Paras 33-37].

Challenge to University Ordinance – Validity Upheld – Ordinance Governing Evaluation Process Stands – The petitioners' challenge to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences' Ordinance on revaluation, which followed a dual-evaluation system, was rejected. The court upheld the validity of the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022, affirming the university's right to establish its evaluation policies. Multiple prior decisions upholding the same ordinance were cited, and the court refrained from reopening settled issues [Paras 41-50].

Revaluation Requests – Court Cannot Supplant Academic Policy – Petitioners sought further revaluation of their answer scripts. The court held that such matters fall under the purview of the university's academic policy, as already established by its Ordinance, and declined to intervene or issue orders contrary to the procedures laid out in the Ordinance [Paras 52-53].

Decision:

The petitions were dismissed, and the relief sought by the petitioners was denied.

Illegal Appointment – Claim for Salary – Appointment Against Non-Existent Post – The appellant was appointed as a stipendary teacher, but the post she was appointed to had already been filled – Held: The appointment of the appellant was against a non-existent post, rendering her appointment illegal, and thus, she is not entitled to claim any salary for the period of her service [Paras 10-13, 16, 19].

Quantum Meruit – Salary for Services Rendered – Applicability – The appellant argued that she should be entitled to some compensation for the services rendered based on the principle of quantum meruit – Held: In public service, statutory entitlements such as salary only arise from a valid and legal appointment – Since the appointment was illegal, the claim for salary cannot be sustained under quantum meruit [Paras 27-30].

Writ of Mandamus – Judicial Limits in Directing Payment of Salary for Illegal Appointments – The appellant sought a writ of mandamus for the release of her salary – Held: The court cannot issue a mandamus directing payment of salary for an illegal appointment made against a non-existent post [Paras 23, 31].

Departmental Consideration – Non-Payment of Salary – Screening Committee’s Role – The appellant’s case was examined by the respondent authorities in accordance with the directions of the court, but she was found ineligible for salary as her appointment was against a non-existent post – The appellant was also not recommended by the Screening Committee for regularisation of her service – Held: The appellant’s claim for salary is unsustainable as her appointment was not recognised by the Screening Committee [Paras 14-17].

No Challenge to Initial Appointment – Lack of Dispute on Facts – The appellant did not dispute the fact that she was appointed against a non-existent post – Despite having the opportunity to challenge the findings in the writ petition, she failed to provide any material to counter the position taken by the respondent authorities – Held: The appellant's failure to challenge the validity of her initial appointment precludes her from making any claim for salary [Para 21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The court upheld the decision of the learned single Judge that the appellant's appointment was illegal, and as such, she is not entitled to claim any arrears of salary – The principle of quantum meruit is not applicable to this case, and the appellant cannot claim compensation for her services as her appointment was invalid from the outset [Paras 24-32].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Dismissal of Bank Officer – Disciplinary Findings Upheld – The petitioner, a Branch Manager, was charged with various irregularities, including sanctioning loans in violation of banking norms and misappropriating funds, leading to significant financial loss for the bank. Despite being acquitted in a related criminal case, the petitioner was dismissed after a departmental enquiry found him guilty based on documentary evidence – Held: The disciplinary proceedings were conducted following principles of natural justice. The findings and penalty of dismissal were based on strong evidence and were not perverse. The writ petition was dismissed [Paras 17, 26-27].

Distinction Between Criminal Acquittal and Departmental Proceedings – Different Standards of Proof – Departmental Findings Stand Despite Criminal Acquittal – The petitioner argued that his acquittal in a criminal case related to the same charges should result in exoneration in the disciplinary proceedings. The court held that the standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings differ. While criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, departmental proceedings are based on a preponderance of probability – Held: The criminal acquittal does not affect the findings of the disciplinary authority, which were based on adequate evidence [Paras 23, 25].

Natural Justice – Fair Conduct of Disciplinary Proceedings – Petitioner's Rights Protected – The petitioner claimed that the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice. However, the court found that the petitioner was given opportunities to examine witnesses, access documents, and present his defense – Held: The disciplinary authority followed due process, and the petitioner’s rights were adequately protected [Paras 4-5, 19].

Proportionality of Punishment – Dismissal Appropriate for Misconduct Involving Financial Loss – The petitioner contended that his dismissal was disproportionate to the charges. The court held that the magnitude of the financial loss caused by the petitioner’s misconduct justified the penalty of dismissal, especially given his position of responsibility in a nationalized bank – Held: The penalty was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct [Paras 20, 25].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, rejecting his claim for reinstatement and other benefits. The court found that the disciplinary authority's decision was well-reasoned and based on sufficient evidence [Paras 26-27].

Rejection of Plaint - Partnership Act – Bar on Unregistered Firm Filing Suit – Applicability of Section 69 – Applicant (defendant) contended that the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent (plaintiff) was barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act as the plaintiff firm was not properly registered, and the person filing the suit was not a partner at the time of filing – Court held: Deeds of Reconstitution of the firm (2001, 2020) showed Vishal Kele was inducted as a partner prior to the suit, and the certificate from the Registrar of Firms retroactively confirmed his status as a partner – Hence, there was no bar under Section 69 – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed [Paras 7-10].

Partnership Act – Retroactive Effect of Registration – Validity of Suit – Respondent firm’s registration certificate, showing the name of Vishal Kele as a partner, was updated after filing the suit but with retroactive effect from 2001 – Court noted that the retroactive entry of Kele’s name as a partner in the Register of Firms was valid and did not bar the filing of the suit – Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Gwalior Oil Mills vs. Supreme Industries, the court observed that the firm's registration and the retrospective entry in the Register were sufficient for compliance with Section 69 [Paras 9-10].

Specific Performance Suit – Statutory and Common Law Rights – Section 69 Not a Bar – Even if the registration of the firm were in question, the court cited Supreme Court rulings to hold that suits for enforcing statutory or common law rights, such as specific performance of a contract, are not barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act – The court emphasized that the respondent firm’s suit was for enforcing its business dealings, which was permissible even without strict registration compliance [Paras 11-12].

Rejection of Plaint – Grounds for Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 – The applicant's request for rejection of the plaint on grounds of non-registration of the partnership firm and lack of standing was dismissed – The court found that the grounds raised did not meet the criteria for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, and no legal infirmity was found in the lower court’s decision to proceed with the suit [Paras 6, 12].

Decision – Civil Revision Application dismissed – Trial court’s order rejecting the application for rejection of plaint upheld [Para 12].

Money Laundering – Section 45 PMLA – Twin Conditions and Long Incarceration – Applicant filed for bail in an ongoing PMLA case where he is accused of siphoning ₹71.78 Crore from a cooperative bank – Applicant had completed over half of the maximum sentence, i.e., 3 years and 6 months in custody – Held: Despite the rigors of Section 45 PMLA, constitutional protections under Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) must prevail when the trial is significantly delayed and the accused has completed a substantial portion of the potential sentence – Bail granted under Section 436A Cr.P.C. [Paras 8, 10-13, 17].

Applicability of Section 436A Cr.P.C. – Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention – The applicant had completed over half of the potential 7-year sentence in custody – Under Section 436A Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court’s decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh emphasizes that statutory restrictions on bail should not infringe the fundamental right to liberty, especially in cases of extended pre-trial detention – Bail was granted after considering the applicant’s health and prolonged custody without trial conclusion [Paras 12-16, 18].

Health Concerns and Incarceration – Applicant, aged 72 and suffering from stage-4 colon cancer, argued for bail based on medical grounds and prolonged incarceration – The court acknowledged these factors, noting that keeping the applicant in custody for longer would be disproportionate given his age, health, and the period already spent in jail [Paras 5, 19-20].

Recovery of Proceeds and Attachment of Properties – The ED attached and auctioned properties worth ₹60.49 Crore, and a substantial recovery was made – This recovery, alongside the applicant’s submission that he had deposited ₹75 Lakhs, was considered when granting bail, as it indicated cooperation with the investigation [Paras 6, 19].

Conditions for Bail – Risk Mitigation – While granting bail, the court imposed several conditions, including restrictions on the applicant's movement, mandatory weekly reporting to the police station, surrender of his passport, and prohibiting any contact with witnesses or tampering with evidence – These conditions ensure that the applicant will not misuse his liberty or impede the trial process [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹5,00,000/- with sureties, subject to conditions including restricted movement outside District Pune, weekly reporting to the police, surrendering of passport, and cooperation with trial proceedings [Paras 23-24].

Criminal Law – Education Rights of Prisoners – Petitioner, an accused in a criminal case involving serious charges under the Indian Penal Code and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, seeks direction to grant admission to the LL.B. course in Siddharth College of Law – Petitioner appeared for the Maharashtra CET law examination under permission from the Special Court, passed the examination, and was provisionally allotted a seat – Held: Imprisonment does not restrict the right to pursue education, and denying the petitioner admission despite following due process would violate fundamental rights – The court allowed the petitioner to take admission, subject to the university and college rules on attendance and eligibility [Paras 1-9].

Right to Education – Fundamental Right – Petitioner argued that education is a fundamental right and sought permission to complete the admission process while being in jail – Respondents opposed the petition, citing mandatory attendance requirements for the LL.B. course, stating the petitioner would be unable to meet the 75% attendance requirement due to his incarceration – The Court held that denying admission on this ground would violate the petitioner's right to education – However, no exemption from attendance requirements was granted, and the petitioner is subject to all rules applicable to other candidates, including attendance [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Directions to University and Law College – The Court directed Siddharth College of Law to consider allowing the petitioner's authorized representative to complete the admission process or to take the petitioner’s signature on necessary documents from the prison – Clarified that the petitioner is not exempt from fulfilling attendance or other course requirements, and the college may refuse permission to sit for exams if criteria are unmet – Petition allowed in these terms [Paras 9-11].
 

Specific Performance – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Bar of Limitation – The Plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement from 1989, cancellation of a sale deed from 2011, and declaration of ownership of the suit property. The defendant filed for rejection of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the suit was barred by limitation, as the agreement was undated, unstamped, unregistered, and mentioned a mobile number which did not exist in 1989. Held: The suit was clearly barred by limitation as it was filed after 31 years, and the agreement was prima facie fabricated – Application under Order VII Rule 11 allowed – Suit dismissed [Paras 3-4, 7-10].

Declaratory Relief and Specific Performance – Delay in Filing Suit – The plaintiff claimed ownership based on an agreement from 1989 but did not act on it until 2020, even after the original owner’s death in 1996 and subsequent mutation entries. The court held that the plaintiff’s inaction for over three decades and failure to challenge mutation entries was fatal to the claim – The delay indicated the plaintiff's lack of rights over the property, and the suit was barred by limitation [Paras 3.2, 8-9].

Limitation Act – Issue of Limitation as a Mixed Question of Law and Fact – The trial court had refused to dismiss the suit under Order VII Rule 11, holding that the issue of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact. The High Court rejected this reasoning, stating that when facts are clear and undeniable from the pleadings, the suit can be dismissed at the threshold without leading evidence – Limitation is not always a mixed question of fact and law [Paras 6, 10.1].

Fraudulent Claims and Vexatious Litigation – The court noted that the plaintiff's case appeared to be an attempt to create nuisance and extract concessions from the defendant by reviving a long-dormant and likely fabricated claim – Such vexatious claims must be dismissed at the outset to prevent abuse of the legal process [Paras 10, 10.1].

Agricultural Land Act – Section 43A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 – The suit property was governed by the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, which required permission for sale under Section 43A. The purported 1989 agreement did not mention obtaining such permission, further rendering the agreement invalid [Paras 3.2, 8].

Decision: The impugned order of the trial court dated 10.04.2023 rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 is set aside – The suit is rejected as it is barred by limitation – The Civil Revision Application is allowed [Paras 11-13].

Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty, Adultery, and Desertion – Appellant sought divorce on allegations of cruelty, adultery, and desertion by the respondent – Held: The allegations made by the appellant were vague, unsubstantiated, and lacked specific dates, times, and evidence – The appellant failed to prove cruelty or adultery, and the court found that the respondent was willing to return to the matrimonial home, negating the ground of desertion – Divorce cannot be granted based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations [Paras 14-20, 22-23].

Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Proceedings – Appellant solemnized a second marriage after obtaining an ex parte divorce decree, which was later set aside by the High Court – Held: The appellant's second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage was unjustified, and the allegations of cruelty and desertion were fabricated to justify the second marriage – The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court’s judgment refusing divorce was upheld [Paras 6, 22-23].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Judgment of the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition affirmed – The appellant’s allegations were vague and unproven, and the respondent expressed willingness to continue the marriage [Para 24].