Criminal Procedure – DNA Test Order – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the trial court's order for DNA testing to ascertain paternity in a maintenance claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Applicant argued against the legality of forced DNA testing without consent – Court upheld the order emphasizing that DNA testing is necessary to establish truth in paternity disputes impacting maintenance claims – Reference made to Section 53 Cr.P.C. and relevant case laws supporting the use of DNA tests [Paras 1-24].

Paternity Dispute – Maintenance Claim – Applicant contested paternity and responsibility for maintenance of children – Opposite party provided evidence including birth certificates and school records naming the applicant as the father – Court held that DNA testing is crucial for determining paternity and ensuring the welfare of the children, overriding objections to consent based on scientific advancements and legal precedents [Paras 11-21].

Decision: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of – Order for DNA test upheld – Applicant directed to either provide maintenance or undergo DNA testing to resolve paternity dispute [Para 23-24].

Recruitment Process – Estoppel – Appellant challenged the selection process for Medical Technologist post at SKIMS after participating in it – Contention that only 15 candidates applied for 20 advertised posts, hence, written test and interview were unnecessary – High Court upheld the selection process – Appellant estopped from challenging the process after participation [Paras 10-20].

Doctrine of Appropriation and Reprobation – Candidates who participate in selection without objection cannot later challenge it – Cited Supreme Court precedents affirming this principle – High Court rejected appellant’s claims based on settled legal position [Paras 12-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge – No legal infirmity found in the selection process or in the judgment under appeal.
 

Administrative Law – Right to Education – Disciplinary Proceedings – Petitioner seeks permission to travel abroad to commence an MBA course while facing disciplinary proceedings – Court balances the petitioner's right to education with the need to ensure his participation in the ongoing investigation – Pro tem arrangement allows petitioner to commence studies without compromising the investigation [Paras 1-8].

Interim Arrangement and Undertakings – Respondents propose, and the petitioner agrees to, an arrangement ensuring the preservation of the property in question and the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation – Petitioner to deposit property documents, provide an undertaking not to alienate the property, and maintain communication with authorities during his study period abroad [Paras 2-4].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of by consent – Petitioner allowed to travel abroad subject to undertakings and conditions ensuring his participation in the disciplinary process and preservation of disputed property – The arrangement includes depositing property documents, providing a dedicated email for communication, and appearing electronically or in person as required [Paras 5-8].

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Petition challenging recruitment and transfer process for Range Forest Officers – Petitioner ineligible based on service duration at notification time – Tribunal's dismissal upheld – High Court emphasizes strict adherence to eligibility criteria and procedural rules in recruitment [Paras 1-11].

Public Service Commission Rules – Interpretation of Rules 13 and 14 – Notification indicated provisional vacancies subject to change – High Court supports filling vacancies arising during ranked list's currency – Tribunal's reliance on procedural rules validated [Paras 12-17].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 16 – Challenge against procedural rules and vacancy notification under Articles 14 and 16 – Petitioner's ineligibility at notification time nullifies locus standi – Tribunal and High Court reject constitutional challenge based on procedural compliance and petitioner's non-eligibility [Paras 9-19].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Tribunal's order upheld – High Court underscores necessity of meeting eligibility criteria at notification time and procedural compliance for valid recruitment challenges [Para 19].
 

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellants convicted for the murder of Jayaraj @ Rajesh – Trial court's judgment affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court examines issues of dying declaration, witness hostility, and causal connection between injuries and death – The Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the cause of death as directly linked to the injuries sustained, leading to the acquittal of the appellants [Paras 1-24].

Evidence Act – Section 32(1) – Dying Declaration – Trial court relied on statements made by the deceased to police officers as dying declarations – High Court finds no evidence linking the death directly to the injuries sustained – Emphasizes that statements under Section 32(1) require a clear causal connection with the cause of death [Paras 19-30].

Procedure under Cr.P.C. – Sections 207, 232, 235(1) – Prosecution's failure to prove homicidal death – Reliance on inadmissible evidence – High Court underscores the necessity for strict adherence to procedural rules in criminal trials, ensuring evidence meets statutory requirements [Paras 5-12].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted and to be released forthwith unless required in other cases – High Court emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence in sustaining convictions [Para 24].
 

Land Acquisition – Change of Public Purpose – Petitioner's challenge to acquisition for a mandi, later repurposed for a school playground and building – Court holds repurposing still serves public purpose – No merit in petitioner's claim for land release [Paras 1-10].

Procedural Lapse and Delay – Petition dismissed on grounds of delay and latches – Previous writ petitions on similar grounds dismissed – No merit found in current petition due to lack of new evidence or substantial argument [Paras 3-9].

Representation and Speaking Order – Failure of competent authority to pass speaking order on petitioner’s representation – Petitioner's failure to seek remedy or file contempt petition indicates waiver of grounds [Paras 5-6].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000 to be deposited by the petitioner with the Treasurer of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association. Notifications and awards upheld and affirmed [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Health Condition – Petitioner, a 75-year-old woman with advanced carcinoma, sought anticipatory bail. The Court considered her critical health condition and allowed her to join the investigation through video conferencing instead of traveling from the USA to Amritsar, Punjab [Paras 1-6].

Custodial Interrogation – Not Required – Court noted that the case was primarily based on documentary evidence, with no allegations of the petitioner’s personal interaction with co-accused, making custodial interrogation unnecessary [Para 8].

Bail Conditions – Digital Surety Bonds – Court permitted petitioner to furnish bail bonds digitally, considering her inability to travel. The petitioner was allowed to join the investigation through video conferencing and furnish personal and surety bonds through her counsel [Paras 19-20].

Judicial Precedents – Bail Principles – Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the principles of granting bail, including the balance between personal freedom and the need for investigation, and the presumption of bail over jail except in certain circumstances [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Anticipatory Bail Granted – Petition allowed with conditions for digital submission of bail bonds and video conferencing for investigation [Paras 11-27].
 

Kidney Transplantation – Non-Near Relatives – Petitioners seeking approval for kidney transplantation where donors are not near relatives – Hospital hesitated to forward applications to the Authorisation Committee – Court allowed petitioners to submit applications directly to the Committee – Directed the Committee to scrutinize and decide on applications within four weeks [Paras 2-28].

Role of Hospitals – Clarification of Responsibilities – Court clarified that hospitals are not required to forward transplantation applications – Applications can be submitted directly by donors and recipients to the Authorisation Committee [Para 8].

Evaluation by Authorisation Committee – Guidelines for Consideration – Emphasized that Authorisation Committees should consider applications without assuming commercial intent – Evaluations should include absence of financial transactions and verification of donor's altruistic intent – Aligned with provisions of the Act and Rules [Paras 11-19].

Protection of Donor Rights – Ensuring Donor Welfare – Highlighted need for medical insurance coverage for donors – Suggested measures for post-operative care and financial security of donors – Encouraged development of comprehensive guidelines to protect donor interests [Paras 23-27].

Decision:

Petitioners are permitted to submit applications directly to the Authorisation Committee. The Committee is directed to scrutinize and decide on the applications within four weeks from the date of submission. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Specific Performance – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation and Forgery Allegations - The appellants sought specific performance of a sale agreement regarding property sold by the first respondent to the deceased K.S.N. Manoharan. The trial court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, based on allegations of forgery and limitation. The High Court reversed this decision, holding that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, requiring a full trial [Paras 12-14, 20].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Rejection of Plaint Improper - The Court observed that limitation in specific performance suits is a mixed question of fact and law, especially when allegations of fraud and misrepresentation by counsel are involved. The trial court erred in dismissing the suit at the threshold without framing issues and conducting a trial [Paras 25-28].

Doctrine of Laches – Litigant Should Not Suffer Due to Counsel’s Negligence - The appellants argued that the delay in filing the suit was caused by the negligence of their previous advocate, who failed to refile the suit. The High Court accepted this argument, emphasizing that a litigant should not be penalized for the mistakes of their advocate, particularly when fraud by the advocate is alleged [Paras 30-34].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Case Remanded for Trial - The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and remanding the case for trial. The trial court was directed to frame issues and decide the case on merits within six months [Para 35].