Criminal Procedure – Adverse Remarks – Appellant, a judicial officer, challenged the adverse remarks and strictures passed against him by the High Court – High Court had forwarded its judgment to the Chief Justice for consideration of disciplinary proceedings – Supreme Court noted that adverse remarks cannot be made without giving an opportunity to the concerned officer to explain their conduct – Supreme Court expunged the remarks, stating they were neither justified nor called for, and emphasized the need for careful consideration before passing strictures against judicial officers [Paras 1-14].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Principles of Natural Justice – Court reiterated the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice before making adverse remarks or initiating disciplinary proceedings – Highlighted that judges often work under pressure and their decisions are subject to appeals and revisions – Remarks and strictures should be avoided unless absolutely necessary for the decision of the case [Paras 6-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Adverse remarks and strictures passed by the High Court against the Appellant were set aside – Supreme Court emphasized that harsh or disparaging remarks should not be made unless essential for the decision [Para 14].

Administrative Law – Preparation and Publication of Panel – Appellant challenged the appointment of the Respondent as Headmaster based on an alleged selection panel – Supreme Court noted that no panel was prepared or published as required under the West Bengal School Service Commission Regulations – Held that preparation and publication of a panel is essential for transparency and probity – No vested right is created by the inclusion of a name in an unpublished or non-existent panel [Paras 1-17].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Exercise of Discretionary Powers – Court emphasized that discretionary powers under Article 226 must be exercised judiciously and equitably – High Court's direction to appoint Respondent on basis of non-existent panel was erroneous – Decision of Single Judge dismissing the writ petition upheld [Paras 6-17].

Employment Law – Right to Appointment – Inclusion in a Select List – Court reiterated that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment – Select list only indicates eligibility for appointment and can be scrapped for valid reasons – Appointments must adhere to statutory rules and constitutional mandates [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order directing appointment of Respondent set aside – Respondent allowed to continue as Headmaster till fresh selection is made – Entitled to monetary benefits for period of service – No equity or weightage in future selection process [Para 19].

Administrative Law – Preparation and Publication of Panel – Appellant challenged the appointment of the Respondent as Headmaster based on an alleged selection panel – Supreme Court noted that no panel was prepared or published as required under the West Bengal School Service Commission Regulations – Held that preparation and publication of a panel is essential for transparency and probity – No vested right is created by the inclusion of a name in an unpublished or non-existent panel [Paras 1-17].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Exercise of Discretionary Powers – Court emphasized that discretionary powers under Article 226 must be exercised judiciously and equitably – High Court's direction to appoint Respondent on basis of non-existent panel was erroneous – Decision of Single Judge dismissing the writ petition upheld [Paras 6-17].

Employment Law – Right to Appointment – Inclusion in a Select List – Court reiterated that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment – Select list only indicates eligibility for appointment and can be scrapped for valid reasons – Appointments must adhere to statutory rules and constitutional mandates [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order directing appointment of Respondent set aside – Respondent allowed to continue as Headmaster till fresh selection is made – Entitled to monetary benefits for period of service – No equity or weightage in future selection process [Para 19].

Land Acquisition – Challenge to Acquisition Proceedings – Appeals challenging the land acquisition by RIICO for industrial development – Respondent society sought release of land claiming discrimination as other similar lands were released – Supreme Court held that the Respondent society's purchase post-Section 4 notification was void – Agreement to sell did not create any title – Held that the acquisition proceedings attained finality, and the High Court's order releasing the land was erroneous – High Court's failure to consider objections and lack of comparative analysis of facts led to the reversal of its decision [Paras 1-34].

Article 14 – Discrimination Claim – Court emphasized that Article 14 cannot be used to perpetuate illegality or fraud – Discrimination must be justified with detailed comparable cases – Found that Respondent society failed to provide sufficient evidence to claim discrimination – High Court's observations were not based on the material on record [Paras 12-16, 30].

Administrative Law – Validity of Circulars and Policies – Court held that executive instructions cannot override statutory laws – Circulars issued by the state for releasing acquired land were inconsistent with acquisition laws and amounted to fraud upon statutes – Such circulars cannot be considered in the court’s decision [Paras 19, 23, 32].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order directing the release of land in favor of Respondent society set aside – Land acquisition by RIICO upheld [Paras 34].

Land Acquisition – Cancellation of Allotment – Appellant-RIICO canceled the allotment of land to Respondent due to non-completion of the project within the stipulated time – Supreme Court held that the cancellation was justified as the Respondent failed to complete construction and start production within five years – The lease deed was executed on an "as-is-where-is" basis, placing no obligation on RIICO to provide an access road – High Court's direction to provide access road and restore the canceled allotment was erroneous [Paras 1-34].

Contractual Disputes – Writ Jurisdiction – Court reiterated that contractual disputes should not be resolved through writ jurisdiction – Relief based on contract terms cannot be sought through a writ petition – Emphasized that parties must rely on remedies available under the contract, including arbitration and appeal processes [Paras 12-15, 31].

Interpretation of Contract – As-is-where-is Clause – The lease deed's terms clearly placed the responsibility of developing infrastructure, including access roads, on the Respondent – Interpretation of terms should be literal and as per the contract, not based on implied obligations or equitable grounds – High Court misinterpreted the contractual obligations and the impact of the amendment to Rule 11-A of the Rules, 1959 [Paras 16-22, 27-28].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Order of cancellation of allotment by Appellant-RIICO restored – No costs [Para 32].

Civil Procedure – Substantial Question of Law – High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law – Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court must point out material evidence ignored by the lower courts which would lead to an opposite conclusion – High Court erred in re-evaluating evidence and reversing findings without identifying substantial questions of law [Paras 6-11].

Property Law – Title and Possession – Dispute over the title and possession of land sold without specific khasra numbers – Trial and first appellate courts found the Appellants in lawful possession based on sale deeds and delivery of possession – High Court's reversal on the basis of its own assessment of evidence was beyond its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC [Paras 3-11].

Judicial Review – Exercise of Jurisdiction – Court reiterated that High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC judiciously and within the scope of addressing substantial questions of law only – Emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural limitations to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court dismissing the Respondent's suits restored – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 13].

Land Acquisition – Successive Notifications – Court held that successive notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act supersede previous notifications – The third notification dated 26.3.1983 and the corresponding declaration dated 30.5.1983 superseded earlier notifications – As no award was made within the stipulated period under the Act, these notifications lapsed, rendering the acquisition proceedings invalid [Paras 6-9].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Appellant was dispossessed from land during the period when the right to property was a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 31A of the Constitution – Court declared the dispossession without valid acquisition as a violation of the appellant's constitutional rights [Paras 9-10].

Eminent Domain – Compensation – Court directed that, given the long lapse of time and development on the land, possession could not be restored – Instead, the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to treat the Section 4 notification as issued on the date of the judgment and make an award within four months – Appellant entitled to all statutory benefits [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments of the High Court set aside – Directions issued for making an award and providing statutory benefits to the appellant – In the connected appeal (C.A. No. 203 of 2004), the appeal was dismissed following the same reasoning [Para 13-14].

Recovery of Debts – Tribunal's Rejection of Applications – Canara Bank filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for the recovery of debts – Appellant sought production of documents which the Tribunal rejected as attempts to delay proceedings – Tribunal's order was challenged under writ jurisdiction instead of the statutory appeal provided by the Act – High Court erred in interfering under Article 226 when an alternative remedy was available under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act [Paras 1-9].

Jurisdiction of High Court – Article 226 and Statutory Remedies – Supreme Court held that powers under Article 226 should not be invoked when a statutory remedy is available unless there is a statutory violation or the action is arbitrary and unreasonable – Emphasized the purpose of Debt Recovery Tribunals for expeditious resolution and noted the delays caused by unwarranted writ petitions [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's interference under Article 226 was not justified – Emphasized reliance on statutory appeals provided under the Act for resolving such disputes [Para 10].

Representing Advocates:

S. Thananjayan for the Appellant.

Public Employment – Judicial Review of Selection Process – Appeal against the Delhi High Court’s decision finding fault with the selection process for Security Assistants Grade-II – Supreme Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, highlighting that courts should not impose their own standards over those set by the selecting authority – Uniform application of criteria deemed fair and non-discriminatory [Paras 1-29].

Selection Criteria – Marks Allocation – Court upheld the splitting of interview marks (25 marks in total) to include marks for desirable qualifications such as NCC/Sports and Computer certificates – Call letters had informed candidates about the importance of these certificates, negating any claims of arbitrariness or prejudice [Paras 8-25].

Precedent and Consistency – Earlier High Court decisions in similar cases (e.g., Mahesh Kumar case) upheld similar selection processes – Supreme Court reiterated the importance of consistency and the need to avoid re-evaluating settled procedural norms unless there is a clear statutory violation [Paras 19-20, 28].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgments set aside – Original selection process upheld as fair and consistent with advertised requirements – No costs awarded [Para 29].