Education Law – Deemed University – Recognition of Diplomas – Petitioner obtained a diploma in Civil Engineering from Maharishi Markandeshwar Engineering College, a deemed university – Applied for Junior Engineer (Civil) post – Rejected due to lack of recognition by HSBTE – Held, deemed university recognized under UGC Act, 1956, does not require HSBTE's recognition – Diploma valid for government employment – Petitioner entitled to appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil). [Paras 1-35]

UGC and AICTE Approvals – Analysis – Held – Deemed universities have autonomy to award degrees and diplomas without need for state board affiliation – UGC and AICTE guidelines ensure standards – Haryana's 2008 Act advisory in nature and cannot override central regulations – Misinterpretation of legal framework by HSBTE and state authorities. [Paras 27-33]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court sets aside impugned orders – Directs respondents to offer appointment to petitioner based on merit – Appointment to be made within two months – Petitioner entitled to benefits from date of joining. [Paras 36-38]

Land Dispute – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Permanent Injunction – Respondent filed suit for injunction against installation of mobile tower on land claimed to be co-shared – Appellants argued land belonged to them, adjacent to respondent’s land – Local Commissioner appointed to resolve land identity dispute – Appellants contended appointment illegal, as the Commissioner was below the status of Kanungo – Held, appointment of Local Commissioner attained finality as earlier challenged and dismissed – Report has evidentiary value as part of court record, even without Commissioner’s examination in court. [Paras 1-22]

Evidentiary Value of Commissioner’s Report – Analysis – Held – Local Commissioner’s report admissible and forms part of court record – No legal requirement for Commissioner’s examination unless objections are raised and substantiated by dissatisfied party – Appellants failed to summon and cross-examine Commissioner, making report valid evidence – Lower Appellate Court justified in relying on report. [Paras 18-20]

Decision – Dismissing Appeal – Substantial question of law regarding Local Commissioner’s appointment answered against appellants – Appointment and reliance on Commissioner’s report upheld – Appeal dismissed as meritless. [Paras 21-22]

Civil Procedure – Evidence Act – Negotiable Instruments – Limitation – Recovery of Loans – Appellant (defendant) denied borrowing money from respondent (plaintiff firm) – Plaintiff firm maintained regular accounts inspected by tax authorities – Defendant’s signature on account books supported by wife and witness signatures – Held, books of account have evidentiary value under Section 34 of Evidence Act – Suit within limitation as filed the day after expiry due to the previous day being a holiday – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit. [Paras 1-14]

Evidence and Limitation Analysis – Held – Defendant’s simple denial insufficient to disprove oral and documentary evidence – Defendant's signatures in account books validate borrowings – Limitation period appropriately considered by the lower courts – Suit filed within permissible period considering the holiday on the last day of the limitation period. [Paras 12-13]

Decision – Dismissing Appeal – Court upheld the findings of both lower courts – Confirmed the evidentiary value of properly maintained account books – Suit correctly held within limitation period – No error found in the judgments of the courts below – Appeal dismissed as meritless. [Para 14]

Criminal Law – Possession of Fake Currency – Knowledge Presumed – Respondent was acquitted by the trial court despite being found with 399 fake currency notes of ₹500 denomination – State appealed against acquittal – Held, knowledge that notes were fake presumed under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act – Recovery of significant number of high denomination notes implies knowledge of forgery – Trial court's reasoning based on discrepancies found to be conjectural – Acquittal set aside and respondent convicted under Section 489-C IPC. [Paras 1-20]

Evidence and Knowledge of Forgery – Analysis – Held – Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, facts especially within the knowledge of the person must be proven by them – Respondent's possession of 399 fake notes indicates knowledge of their counterfeit nature – Discrepancies in witness statements regarding the number of notes immaterial given the actual recovery – No independent witness required given recovery location and conditions – Conviction justified as all ingredients of Section 489-C IPC fulfilled. [Paras 10-17]

Decision – Allowing Appeal and Convicting Respondent – Trial court's judgment acquitting respondent set aside – Respondent convicted under Section 489-C IPC – Sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹5,000, with six months additional imprisonment for default in payment – Directions for immediate arrest and commitment to jail to serve remaining sentence. [Paras 20-21]

Land Acquisition – Public Purpose – Allegations of Favoritism – Petitioners challenged the acquisition of approximately 2 acres of their land for a road construction project, alleging the acquisition primarily benefited a real estate developer, respondent No. 5 – Held, proposed acquisition was for 386.53 acres and included a significant portion of land from respondent No. 5 as well – No evidence to suggest acquisition was solely to benefit respondent No. 5 – Acquisition aimed at public purpose of constructing a road to decongest traffic, not motivated by favoritism – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Master Plan and Public Consultation – Analysis – Held – Master Plan prepared and notified with public consultation – No objections raised during the notification period – Master Plan not challenged and thus final – Decision to construct road in line with Master Plan, valid and cannot be contested – Acquisition for legitimate public purpose, compliant with finalized Master Plan. [Paras 16-17]

Inter-State Cooperation and Project Continuation – Analysis – Held – Initial reluctance of Haryana Government to participate in acquisition addressed – Haryana Government confirmed continued participation in the project – Acquisition valid as inter-state project to decongest traffic, benefiting public. [Paras 12]

Decision – Dismissing Writ Petition – Court finds no malafide intent in acquisition proceedings – Acquisition for public purpose and in compliance with statutory provisions – Writ petition dismissed – Interim stay granted up to April 6, 2015. [Para 30]

Family Law – Divorce by Mutual Consent – Lien Over Ancestral Property – Appellant and respondent obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent – Appellant paid maintenance to respondent for herself and their minor daughter – Trial court issued directions that the daughter would retain a lien over ancestral property of the appellant and his father – Held, trial court acted beyond its scope by addressing an issue not raised or consented to by the parties – Directions set aside as they were not part of the mutual consent agreed upon under Section 13-B. [Paras 1-11]

Court's Jurisdiction and Consent Terms – Analysis – Held – Directions regarding lien over property should only be made if the issue was raised and consented to by the parties – Trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions not discussed or agreed upon in the mutual consent petition – Consent terms under Section 13-B should strictly reflect what parties have agreed to. [Paras 6-9]

Decision – Allowing Appeal – Court sets aside the trial court's directions regarding the lien over ancestral property – Emphasizes that decrees under Section 13-B should strictly follow mutual consent terms without extraneous directions. [Paras 8-11]

police inspector, alleged to have disproportionate assets – Inquiry revealed expenditure of ₹16,75,329 against income of ₹4,82,695 – Held, mere acquisition of property not constituting offence, but failure to satisfactorily Prevention of Corruption – Disproportionate Assets – Acquittal – Appellant, aaccount for such possession – Appellant explained sources including salary, rent, lease money, and gifts – Defence more probable than prosecution version – Evidence produced by appellant reliable – Prosecution failed to prove assets disproportionate to known income – Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted. [Paras 1-37]

Evaluation of Evidence – Analysis – Held – Appellant provided credible explanations for assets, including income from ancestral property, rent, and gifts – Prosecution did not consider all sources of income – Appellant’s evidence showed total income exceeding expenditure – Trial court’s finding of disproportionate assets based on incomplete assessment – Appeal allowed. [Paras 22-37]

Decision – Acquittal – Court finds investigation flawed and biased – Defence evidence establishes legitimate sources of income – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Bail bonds discharged. [Para 37]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Vicarious Liability – Quashing of Complaint – Petitioner, a Director of M/s. Santur City (P.) Ltd., signed cheques drawn in the name of the company – Complainant filed a complaint for dishonour of cheques under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner without impleading the company as a party – Held, cheques issued by the company and signed by the petitioner on its behalf – Company shall be deemed to have committed the offence – Without arraigning the company as a party, the complaint is not maintainable against the director – Section 319 Cr.P.C. not intended to cure such defects in proceedings. [Paras 1-31]

Impleading Company in Criminal Proceedings – Analysis – Held – Company must be arraigned as a primary accused for vicarious liability to attach to its directors – Impleading directors alone without the company renders the complaint defective and unsustainable – Section 319 Cr.P.C. permits adding co-accused identified during trial, but cannot cure initial defects in maintaining proceedings against other accused – Directors’ liability contingent on prosecution of company. [Paras 24-30]

Decision – Quashing Complaint and Summoning Order – Court sets aside the complaint and summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner – Maintains that absence of the company as a party renders proceedings against the director non-maintainable – Petition allowed. [Para 31]

Service Law – Disability During Service – Non-Discrimination – Petitioner's husband, a Library Attendant, suffered an attack and remained in a coma, later granted premature retirement and family pension under Rule 5.11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules – Petitioner argued services could not be dispensed with under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act – Respondent contended premature retirement and pension were granted on petitioner’s request – Held, disability acquired during service entitles employee to protections under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act – Disability pension and retirement do not negate these rights – No estoppel against statute – Order for granting all benefits under Section 47 of the Act – Arrears to be paid within four months with interest at 9% per annum on default. [Paras 1-27]

Legal Principles and Estoppel – Analysis – Held – The Disabilities Act is a beneficial legislation imposing obligations on the employer and conferring rights on the employee acquiring disability during service – Employer cannot dispense with services or reduce rank without adhering to the Act – Premature retirement under service rules does not override statutory protections under the Disabilities Act – Estoppel cannot negate statutory rights – Comprehensive relief must align with beneficial legislative intent. [Paras 23-25]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court directs the reinstatement of petitioner's husband with all service benefits as per Section 47 of the Disabilities Act – Respondents to pay arrears within four months or incur 9% interest per annum until actual payment – Emphasizes duty of department heads to inform disabled employees of their statutory rights. [Paras 26-28]