Employment Law - Recruitment Process – Systemic Manipulation – Mass Fraud – Cancellation of Entire Selection Process Upheld - WBSSC’s 2016 recruitment process for Assistant Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff was vitiated by large-scale fraud including unauthorized engagement of private agencies, tampering of OMR sheets, rank-jumping, out-of-panel appointments, appointments after expiry of panels and destruction of OMR records – Court held that such widespread irregularities fatally undermined the integrity of the entire process – Cancellation upheld [Paras 20-42].

Natural Justice – En Masse Cancellation – Individual Hearing Not Mandatory - Principles of natural justice are flexible – When the recruitment process itself is shown to be wholly vitiated and segregating tainted from untainted candidates is impossible due to destruction of records, individual hearing is not obligatory – Service of notice and opportunity to inspect data already provided during proceedings – En masse cancellation valid [Paras 7-19, 43-44].

Segregation of Candidates – Impossible Due to Missing Records – Total Cancellation Justified -

Destruction of OMR sheets, non-maintenance of mirror copies and admitted inability of WBSSC to segregate affected candidates from genuine ones rendered the entire selection process incurably tainted – Court rejected WBSSC’s argument for partial saving of appointments [Paras 27-33].

CBI and Justice R.K. Bag Committee Reports – Findings of Systemic Fraud Accepted - Investigation and Committee reports established unauthorized data handling, manipulation of marks, unauthorized counselling, and collusion of officials – Emails, hard-disks and forensic analysis corroborated the findings – Material relied upon despite objections of tainted candidates – Cover-up attempts by WBSSC noted [Paras 21-26, 32-36].

Delay, Laches and Estoppel – Not Applicable - Objection of delay and estoppel rejected – Illegalities and fraud came to light only in 2021–2022 after CBI investigation – Public interest requires that fraud on selection process is not condoned on technical plea of delay [Para 43].

Relief – Partial Modification - Tainted candidates required to refund salaries and benefits – Untainted candidates’ appointments stand cancelled but without liability to refund payments – They may seek re-employment with their original departments without break in service but without back wages – Fresh recruitment process to be initiated [Paras 45-47].

Disabled Candidates – Equitable Relief - Differently-abled candidates permitted to continue in service until fresh recruitment process is concluded – They shall be entitled to age relaxation and other applicable concessions during fresh recruitment – However, blanket exemption from cancellation declined [Paras 48-49].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – High Court Judgment Sustained with Modifications - Entire selection process of 2016 cancelled – Fresh recruitment directed – Unaffected by pending criminal proceedings – State’s plea against investigation into supernumerary posts kept open [Paras 50-53].

Service Law – Appointment – Regularization of Ex-Casual Labour – Respondent claimed benefit under APSEB policy dated 18.05.1997 for appointment as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) – Application rejected citing non-genuineness of service certificate and lack of typewriting qualification – High Court directed reconsideration of appointment ignoring typewriting requirement – Review Committee again rejected appointment citing lack of vacancy under BC-B quota and questioned genuineness of service certificate – Subsequent appointments of candidates with fewer man-days challenged – High Court allowed review petition and directed consideration on parity with other candidates – Division Bench affirmed – Supreme Court upheld High Court's direction to consider respondent's case afresh but allowed consideration of other relevant factors including genuineness of certificate and vacancies – Direction to complete reconsideration within 6 weeks [Paras 1 to 16]​.

Seniority List – Appellant argued that list relied upon was not a seniority list – Supreme Court rejected this contention – Held that the list was titled as seniority list and arranged based on dates of first engagement – Other candidates with fewer man-days and lower in the list were appointed under Court’s direction – Respondent’s case to be treated on par with similarly situated candidates [Paras 10 to 11]​.

Judicial Review – Scope – Supreme Court declined to adjudicate on genuineness of service certificate and existence of vacancy – Directed appellant to consider these aspects while deciding respondent’s case afresh [Para 15]​.

Decision – Appeal disposed of – Appellant to reconsider respondent’s appointment in six weeks considering all relevant factors – No costs [Paras 16 to 18]​.

Criminal Law – Transfer of investigation - CBI Investigation – Exceptional Circumstances – Not Made Out – Mere allegation that accused impersonated as an IPS officer and had acquaintance with local police officers is insufficient to warrant CBI investigation – No substantiated claim against investigating officers – Held: The High Court erred in transferring the investigation to CBI at the threshold stage [Paras 5, 8-9].

Multiple FIRs – Distinction in Cause of Action – Earlier FIR Quashed – The FIR registered in Himachal Pradesh against the appellant was quashed due to lack of material – However, the present FIR registered in Haryana was found to be factually distinct – Held: Quashing of the first FIR has no bearing on the validity of the second FIR, which may be investigated by local police [Paras 4-6].

Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights Case – Principles Reiterated – Constitutional courts must direct CBI investigations sparingly and only in exceptional cases where credible material justifies such transfer – Mere suspicion, vague assertions or rivalry does not justify CBI probe [Paras 7-9].

Contempt – CBI Officer’s Apology Accepted – Despite stay of the High Court’s order, CBI registered an FIR – Officer explained that it happened due to inadvertence – Held: Unconditional apology accepted and contempt petition disposed of [Paras 12].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Order transferring the investigation to CBI set aside – Investigation to continue by local police of Haryana – Contempt petition disposed of without further action [Paras 10, 12-14].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Cheating – FIR under Section 420 IPC – Dispute regarding unpaid dues for coal supplied – Appellant, a businessman, entered into commercial transactions with respondent for supply of coal – Payments defaulted due to business losses – Subsequent notarized agreement for repayment not honoured – High Court refused to quash FIR – Held: Mere failure to repay debt or breach of contract does not constitute cheating – No evidence of dishonest intention at inception or inducement to part with property – Dispute purely civil – FIR quashed [Paras 2 to 23]​.

Commercial Disputes – Scope of Criminal Offence – Held: For offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC, it must be shown that inducement was made with dishonest intention at inception – Representation of being a ‘creditworthy businessman’ alone insufficient – Material shows appellant had genuine commercial transactions and suffered business setbacks – No false inducement established – Criminal law cannot be used for debt recovery [Paras 10 to 20]​.

Principles – High Court’s power to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – Held: If FIR discloses only civil wrong without ingredients of criminal offence, criminal proceedings should be quashed – Mere breach of promise without fraudulent intention is not cheating – Criminal law must not be misused to settle civil disputes [Paras 9 to 22]​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – FIR No. 80/2022 under Section 420 IPC quashed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 23 to 24]​.

Civil Law - Dealership - Retail Outlet Dealership – Declaration of Group in Application – Change Not Permissible – Respondent Bound by Own Declaration – Respondent initially applied under Group 2 for BPCL dealership but later sought change to Group 1 claiming error – Held: Selection guidelines, advertisement, and application form strictly bind applicants by their original declaration and supporting documents – No provision allows subsequent change of group – High Court erred in permitting change [Paras 35, 15-18].

Writ Jurisdiction – Limited Interference in Contractual Matters – Courts to Refrain from Rewriting Contractual Terms – Held: Tender conditions constitute binding rules – Judicial interference permissible only when arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of Article 14 is proved – No such violation found – Respondent took a chance and cannot seek correction after submission [Paras 12-14].

Doctrine of Public Trust – Applicability in Dealership Selection – Strict Compliance Required – Held: Petroleum and natural resources are governed by public trust doctrine – BPCL obligated to adhere strictly to prescribed norms to ensure fairness and transparency – Relaxation of conditions for individual sympathy is impermissible [Paras 16-17].

Sympathy Not Ground for Relaxation – Repeated Litigation Deprecated – Held: Prolonged and repeated writ petitions filed by respondent on untenable grounds wasted judicial time and delayed public interest project – Sympathy alone cannot justify deviation from mandatory selection norms [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Orders Set Aside – BPCL Directed to Continue Dealership Selection as per Rules without Entertaining Respondent’s Application Under Group 1 [Paras 18-19].

Recruitment Qualification – Requirement of Current Lascar’s Licence – Higher

Qualification Not Equivalent – Appointment Invalid – The appellant, holding a Syrang’s licence (a higher certificate), was appointed as Boat Lascar without possessing a current Lascar’s licence as required by the advertisement and Rule 6 of the Special Rules – The Tribunal and High Court rejected his appointment – Held: Higher qualification does not substitute the specific requirement of a current Lascar’s licence and selection in violation of statutory rules is illegal [Paras 20-24, 29-31]

Non-joinder of Necessary Party – Effect of Non-impleadment of Appellant Before

Tribunal – Does Not Save Appointment – The appellant, though a necessary party, was not impleaded in the proceedings before the Tribunal – Held: Despite being a necessary party, the appellant, having failed to timely challenge the Tribunal’s order and having responded to the show cause notice, is disentitled from seeking relief on non-joinder ground [Paras 15-19]

Equality in Public Employment – Enlargement of Zone of Consideration – Director’s Letter Cannot Override Statutory Rules – Appointments Set Aside – The Director’s communication treating Syrang’s licence as equivalent to Lascar’s licence was not given wide publicity nor incorporated in the recruitment process – Held: Equality of opportunity under Article 16 was breached as eligible candidates were deprived from applying, leading to vitiation of the entire process [Paras 26-28]

Higher Qualification – When Not a Substitute for Statutory Requirement – Doctrine of Over-Qualification Not Applicable – Held: Higher qualifications may not automatically make a candidate eligible if specific statutory qualifications are prescribed – Appellant’s case distinguished from Parvaiz Ahmed Parry and Chandra Shekhar Singh cases – Requirement of ‘current’ Lascar’s licence is mandatory and non-negotiable [Paras 32-36]

Article 142 of the Constitution – No Relief When Appointment Found to be Illegal

– Power Not Exercised – Held: No palpable injustice established – Power under Article 142 not exercised to regularize an illegal appointment contrary to the statutory rules [Paras 37-40]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Appointment of appellant rightly cancelled for lack of prescribed qualification and violation of recruitment rules [Paras 41-42]

Labour Law – Bonus – Applicability of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 – Appellant trust engaged in rehabilitation of leprosy-cured and specially-abled persons – Since 1985 also engaged in commercial manufacturing of automobile and industrial parts generating profits – Workers, though beneficiaries of rehabilitation, employed in manufacturing activities in factories covered under Factories Act – Tribunal, Single Judge, and Division Bench of High Court held that Bonus Act applies – Appellant not entitled to exemption under Section 32(v)(a) or (c) of the Bonus Act – Workers entitled to minimum bonus of 8.33% subject to adjustment of already paid ex-gratia [Paras 3 to 19]​.

Exemption – Claim of exemption under Section 32(v) – Appellant claimed to be like Indian Red Cross Society or institution established not for profit – Held: Appellant severed links with Red Cross in 1989 – Since engaged in commercial activities with profit generation – Factories governed by labour laws – Cannot claim exemption merely due to charitable objects – Bonus Act applicable [Paras 12 to 16]​.

Bonus vs Ex-Gratia – Appellant contended existing ex-gratia payments substitute bonus – Held: Ex-gratia is voluntary, bonus is statutory – Payment of bonus under Bonus Act mandatory irrespective of ex-gratia – Adjustment of ex-gratia permissible as directed by High Court [Paras 17 to 18]​.

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Appellant directed to pay bonus from 1996-97 onwards within one month – Workmen entitled to statutory bonus in accordance with law [Paras 19 to 22]​.

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt – Sections 118 & 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption Operated - The accused admitted the signature on the cheque but claimed the cheque was lost – The intimation of loss was found to be doubtful as it was lodged one year after the alleged loss – The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption of existence of legally enforceable debt – Held: The complainant is entitled to rely on the statutory presumption in the absence of a probable defence [Paras 14-18].

Capacity to Lend – Not Required to be Proved Initially – Burden on Accused – It is not mandatory for the complainant to initially prove capacity to lend – The burden shifts to the accused only when the capacity is specifically challenged – Held: High Court erred in holding that the complainant was obliged to prove withdrawal of funds in the absence of any challenge by the accused during trial [Paras 21-22].

Maintainability – Complaint Against Partner Without Arraigning Partnership Firm – Not Fatal – The signatory of the cheque (Partner) is a person in charge of the firm – Held: The proceedings against respondent no.2 are maintainable even without impleading the firm – Sunita Palita and Aneeta Hada harmonized [Paras 19-20].

Revision Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence to Upset Concurrent Findings Without Sufficient Grounds – Held: High Court erred in interfering with well-reasoned concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court which found the accused guilty [Paras 14, 23].

Sentence – Modified on Compassionate Grounds – Considering the accused’s age and family circumstances, sentence modified from imprisonment and fine to fine only – The accused directed to pay Rs.32,00,000/- within four months failing which original sentence will revive [Paras 24-25].

Arbitration – Power to Grant Interest – Clause 22 – No Express Bar on Pendente Lite Interest – The clause barring the contractor from claiming interest on payments, arrears or balances due does not amount to an express bar on the arbitrator’s power to award pendente lite interest – Held: Under the 1940 Act, absence of a specific prohibition on the arbitrator’s power suffices to sustain such interest – Reliance Cellulose and First Ambica Construction cases applied [Paras 14-15].

Interpretation of Clause – Strict Construction Required – Bar on interest must be expressly linked to disputes or arbitrator’s jurisdiction – Clause 22 only restricts contractor’s entitlement to claim interest directly under the contract, but does not oust the arbitrator’s power – Held: Arbitrator was competent to award pendente lite interest [Paras 9-15].

Arbitration – Modification of Interest Rate – Discretion Exercised – Considering the passage of time, partial payments already made, and post-award interest paid, Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction under the 1940 Act to reduce the pendente lite interest from 15% (as awarded by the arbitrator) to 9% – Directed payment within 60 days [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court and District Judge’s orders set aside – Arbitral award restored with modification in interest rate – Pendente lite interest payable @ 9% from 18.12.1991 till 07.03.1995 [Para 16].