Civil Writ - NEET-PG Merit List – Incentivised Marks – State Merit List Preparation Found Defective - State Merit List for NEET-PG 2024 prepared by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) for Madhya Pradesh was challenged on the ground that incentivised marks awarded to in-service candidates were added to raw scores instead of normalised scores – Held: Adding incentivised marks to raw scores compounded discrepancies caused by the varying difficulty levels of multiple shifts, leading to a distorted ranking – The methodology adopted was erroneous and contrary to principles of fairness in competitive examinations [Paras 19-24].

Normalisation of Scores – Statistical Process Explained – NBEMS Directed to Correct Methodology - Normalisation, a statistical process to equalise scores across multiple shifts, was adopted for NEET-PG 2024 to account for varying difficulty levels between shifts – The court held that adding incentivised marks to normalised scores ensures a level playing field for all candidates and prevents compounded benefits based on raw scores – NBEMS was directed to prepare a fresh State Merit List by awarding incentivised marks to normalised scores [Paras 20-24, 34].

Relative Performance – Logical Inconsistencies in Merit List Highlighted – State Merit List Quashed - State Merit List showed candidates ranked higher in the All India Merit List ranked lower in the State Merit List compared to the same individuals – This inconsistency arose due to flawed methodology and could not be reconciled – Held: Rankings based on relative performance in the same examination cannot differ between lists – The court quashed the State Merit List and directed NBEMS to prepare a new list [Paras 28-31].

Notification of Methodology – Failure to Notify State Merit List Criteria – Violation of Fair Examination Principles - methodology adopted for preparing the State Merit List, including the addition of incentivised marks to raw scores, was never notified to candidates – Held: The lack of transparency violated principles of fairness in examinations – The court reiterated the importance of notifying methodologies to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary processes [Paras 16, 32-33].

Decision: The State Merit List for NEET-PG 2024 for Madhya Pradesh was quashed – NBEMS was directed to prepare a fresh State Merit List by awarding incentivised marks to normalised scores instead of raw scores – The revised merit list must be prepared as expeditiously as possible – Writ Petition allowed with no order as to costs.
 

Permanent Injunction – Possession in Dispute – Ownership Not Established – Suit Dismissed – In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiffs must establish possession independent of ownership – Concurrent findings by both the Trial and Appellate Courts demonstrated that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession or ownership over the suit property, as the defendants were found to be in occupation and use of the property – The High Court upheld the dismissal of the suit, holding that the findings were supported by evidence [Paras 6-8].

Vacant Land – Presumption of Possession with Ownership – Not Applicable in Presence of Contradictory Evidence – Injunction Denied – The argument that possession follows ownership for vacant land was rejected, as evidence showed the land had constructions used by the defendants – Courts emphasized the need for concrete proof of possession in such cases – Appeal dismissed due to lack of such proof [Para 7].

Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as both lower courts provided well-reasoned judgments based on evidence – Regular second appeal dismissed for being devoid of merit [Para 8].

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Bail Application – Expedited Consideration Sought – Interim Measures Permissible - The petitioner, a juvenile, sought a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board to decide his bail application on the same day of surrender – Held: A juvenile should not be unnecessarily detained in an observation home pending a bail decision – As per Sections 10(2) and 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, if bail is not refused, juveniles may be placed in the custody of parents/guardians instead of being sent to observation homes – Decision: Petition allowed with a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board to consider the bail application on the same day of surrender [Paras 6-8, 10].

Juvenile in Conflict with Law – Custody Pending Bail Proceedings – Non-Mandatory Detention in Observation Home - The Juvenile Justice Act provides that juveniles may be placed under parental or guardian custody pending bail proceedings, especially when offences are not heinous – Held: Sending the juvenile to an observation home should not be automatic and must only follow a bail rejection order – Juvenile Justice Board may ascertain antecedents through probation officer reports without mandatory detention – Decision: Petition disposed of with specific directions to the Board [Paras 6-10].

Juvenile Justice Board Procedure – Probation Officer Reports – Permissible Interim Custody - The Court clarified that while the Board may obtain probation officer reports for assessing antecedents, such procedural steps should not result in unwarranted detention – Instead, interim custody with parents or guardians is permissible under Rule 9 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules – Decision: Juvenile to be placed under parental custody if bail is not refused on the same day [Paras 7-9].
Decision: The Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, is directed to consider the bail application of the petitioner on the same day of surrender. The Board is further instructed to avoid sending the juvenile to an observation home unless bail is specifically rejected, and interim custody with parents/guardians is not feasible. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
 

Transfer of Proceedings – Section 24 CPC – Distinct Causes of Action – Transfer Denied – The petitioner sought transfer of two rent petitions, one under Section 13-B (NRI eviction) and the other under Section 13 (non-payment of rent), to the same court. The Court held that although the premises in dispute were the same, the causes of action were distinct, and the applicable procedures were entirely different. Hence, the transfer was not warranted. [Paras 6-7, 9]

Summary Nature of Section 13-B Eviction Proceedings – Special Procedure under Section 18-A – Transfer Not Justified – Proceedings under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act are to be conducted summarily as per the procedure laid down in Section 18-A of the Act, whereas proceedings under Section 13 follow a regular trial process. The Court emphasized that the difference in the nature and procedure of the two petitions militated against their consolidation. [Paras 6, 8]

Convenience of Parties – No Common or Joint Issues Between Petitions – Convenience Not a Ground for Transfer – The petitioner argued that transferring the petitions to the same court would be convenient for both parties. The Court rejected this argument, observing that the two petitions were based on different causes of action and involved no overlapping issues or potential conflicts in judicial findings. [Para 6]

Non-Payment of Rent vs. NRI Eviction Rights – Distinct Grounds – The rent petition under Section 13-B was based on the special right of eviction granted to NRIs, while the petition under Section 13 was based on non-payment of rent. The Court held that these grounds are distinct and unrelated, further justifying the decision to keep the proceedings separate. [Paras 5-6]

Tenant's Obligation Under Section 18-A – Summary Procedure in NRI Cases – Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act mandates a summary procedure for Section 13-B petitions. The Court highlighted that the tenant's application to contest such petitions must meet specific procedural requirements, and the matter could not be equated with proceedings under Section 13, which involve a full-fledged trial. [Paras 6, 8]

Decision – The Court upheld the District Judge's order refusing the transfer of proceedings. It found that the transfer application lacked merit and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. [Para 9]

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicle Accident – Negligence – Determination of Liability – Insurer's Liability Affirmed – The accident resulted from the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the first respondent – First respondent, despite notice, failed to contest the case or depose – Insurer held liable to pay compensation under the terms of the insurance policy but with liberty to recover the amount from the first respondent – Held: Insurer to pay compensation of ₹42,03,960/- with interest and recover the same from the first respondent via execution petition – Award upheld [Paras 13-16, 22(ii)].

Insurance – Recovery Rights – Insurer Granted Recovery Rights Against Tort-Feasor – The Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants due to the negligent riding by the insured’s vehicle – Since the insured violated policy terms by not cooperating, the insurer was permitted to recover the awarded amount directly from the tort-feasor – Decision: Insurer to recover from the first respondent without filing a separate suit [Paras 16, 22(ii)].

Quantum of Compensation – Multiplier and Age – No Interference – Though the Tribunal erred in calculating the multiplier based on the deceased’s age per post-mortem instead of transfer certificates, the claimants did not challenge the award amount – Held: No alteration in the compensation quantum of ₹42,03,960/- awarded by the Tribunal [Paras 21].

Tribunal’s Findings – Claimants' Choice to Sue Either Party Erroneous – The Tribunal wrongly allowed claimants to sue either the lorry driver or the motorcyclist – Claim lies solely against the tort-feasor – Held: First respondent, the tort-feasor, was liable for the accident; not a case of composite negligence – Award Upheld [Paras 17, 22(ii)].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed: Compensation of ₹42,03,960/- upheld with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the petition filing date. Insurer directed to deposit compensation within 45 days and recover from the tort-feasor (first respondent) through execution petition without a separate suit. Apportionment of compensation among claimants unchanged. No costs awarded; connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Labour Law – Dismissal without Inquiry – Lump Sum Compensation Awarded – The Labour Court awarded Rs. 5,00,000 as lump sum compensation to the dismissed worker who served over 14 years without conducting an inquiry – Held: The Labour Court’s findings were reasoned, and no reinstatement was granted due to the worker's age of superannuation and lapse of 24 years since dismissal – The compensation awarded was upheld with an enhancement of 20% [Paras 7, 12].

Scope of Judicial Review – Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Limited Interference – The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate – Errors of fact cannot be reappreciated unless jurisdictional errors or principles of natural justice are violated – Held: The Labour Court’s order was not palpably erroneous or without jurisdiction, warranting no interference [Paras 8, 12].

Compensation Instead of Reinstatement – Worker’s Long Separation and Superannuation – Referring to precedents, the Court observed that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic in cases of procedural lapses like violation of Section 25-F – Compensation was held as an appropriate relief considering the worker’s age, long separation, and nature of dismissal [Paras 9-10].

Interest on Compensation – Enhancement Awarded – The Court increased the awarded amount by 20% due to delays in payment but reduced the interest rate to 9% per annum for further delays, balancing both parties' conduct [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Both petitions (management and worker) were dismissed – Lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 was upheld with an enhancement of 20%, to be paid within 8 weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum would apply [Paras 14-15].
 

Regular Bail – Delay in Lodging FIR – Custody Duration Considered – Bail Granted – The petitioner sought bail in a case registered four years ago, contending a 10-day delay in lodging the FIR and insufficient evidence linking him to grievous injuries under Section 308 IPC – The petitioner has already undergone seven months and 16 days in custody, and the investigation is complete – No prior criminal record was presented, showing that he is not a habitual offender – The court granted bail, emphasizing the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception [Paras 3-5].

Presumption of Innocence – Overcrowding in Prisons – Article 21 Considerations – Bail Allowed – Emphasizing the constitutional mandate under Article 21 and the Supreme Court’s guidance in cases like Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the court reiterated that prolonged incarceration of undertrials violates their right to a speedy trial – Held: The petitioner cannot be detained indefinitely, and bail was granted with appropriate conditions [Paras 4-6].

Right to Speedy Trial – Trial Delays Cited – Bail Upheld – With a significant number of pending prosecution witnesses and no immediate likelihood of trial completion, the court held that prolonged custody without conviction is unwarranted – Petition for bail was allowed to prevent undue hardship to the petitioner [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Bail Granted - Petitioner was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The court clarified that this order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case [Para 5].
 

Public Servant – Necessity of Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19 of PC Act and Section 197 of CrPC – Charges Quashed – The petitioner, who was the Sarpanch at the time of the alleged offense, was charged under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act, and Sections 409 and 467 IPC, for misappropriation of public funds and forgery in connection with the construction of a public facility – Held: Sections 19 of the PC Act and 197 of CrPC mandate prior prosecution sanction before a court can take cognizance of such offenses committed by a public servant in discharge of official duties – In the absence of such sanction, the trial court's decision to frame charges was unsustainable – Framing of charges against petitioner No. 1 was quashed [Paras 19-23].

Reasonable Connection Between Act and Official Duty – Protection Under Section 197 CrPC – The alleged acts had a direct and reasonable nexus with the discharge of the petitioner’s official duties as Sarpanch, making prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC mandatory – It was established that the alleged acts of forgery and misappropriation were committed in the course of performing official functions, thus falling under the protection afforded by Section 197 CrPC [Paras 17-20].

Prosecution Sanction – Safeguard Against Malicious Prosecution – Section 19 of the PC Act is a legislative safeguard to protect public servants from vexatious or frivolous prosecution – The lack of prosecution sanction rendered the proceedings against the petitioner invalid, barring the trial court from framing charges or proceeding further [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Revision petition was partly allowed – Framing of charges against petitioner No. 1 (Kesar Singh) quashed for want of prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of CrPC – Dismissed as withdrawn with respect to petitioners No. 2 (Bhanwar Singh), No. 3 (Mohan Lal Jat), and No. 4 (Rajendra Singh) [Para 24].
 

Criminal Law – POSCO – Rape – Conviction Set Aside - Age Determination of Victim – Hierarchical Standards under Section 94 of JJ Act – Trial Court Erred in Relying on Birth Certificate Alone – As per Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12(3)(a) of the JJ Rules, age determination must follow a hierarchical process, prioritizing a matriculation certificate, followed by the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, and lastly, the birth certificate issued by a municipal authority or gram panchayat – The prosecution failed to produce the school certificate despite the victim attending school up to Class 9 – Held: The trial court erred in relying solely on the birth certificate when better evidence was available and not procured, rendering the finding of minority unsustainable [Paras 16-23].

Victim’s Consent – Victim Above 18 Years – No Case Under Section 376 IPC or POCSO Act – Both the victim and her mother testified that the victim was over 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident – The victim admitted to a consensual relationship with the accused and denied any rape – Held: In the absence of evidence establishing the victim’s minority and given her consent, no offence under Section 376 IPC or Section 6 of the POCSO Act is made out against the accused [Paras 23-24].

Section 164 CrPC – Not Substantive Evidence – Trial Court Erred in Considering it for Conviction – A statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can only be used to corroborate or contradict testimony given in court – The victim turned hostile during the trial, and her Section 164 CrPC statement could not be relied upon to convict the accused – Held: The trial court’s reliance on the Section 164 CrPC statement was misplaced, and the conviction cannot stand [Paras 25-27].

Investigative Lapses – Non-Compliance with JJ Act Provisions – Directions Issued – The investigating officer failed to collect relevant evidence regarding the victim’s age as mandated under Section 94 of the JJ Act – Held: Directions issued to the Director General of Police to ensure compliance with Section 94 of the JJ Act and ensure the availability of age determination documents in such cases [Paras 30-33].

Decision: The appeal was allowed – The conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were set aside – The fine, if deposited, was ordered to be refunded – Directions were issued to the Director General of Police and Director of Prosecution to ensure compliance with Section 94 of the JJ Act in future investigations.