Seniority – Promotees vs. Direct Recruits – Promotees and direct recruits appointed in the same recruitment year (1997-1998) for the post of ACOs – Seniority list prepared by the State giving higher seniority to direct recruits challenged – High Court ruled in favor of promotees – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision [Paras 1-28].

Application of Rules – Rule 18 and Rule 19 of the 1992 Rules – Require combined select list and cyclic order of seniority – First name in the list to be a promotee – Seniority list dated 29th July 2005 giving undue benefit to direct recruits found unsustainable in law [Paras 17-27].

Retrospective Seniority – Not Permissible – Seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of vacancy and given retrospectively unless expressly provided by the service rules – Any departure must be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeals Dismissed – Held – Seniority list dated 29th July 2005 quashed – Combined select list to be prepared in accordance with Rules 18 and 19 of the 1992 Rules – Promotees to be placed above direct recruits for the recruitment year 1997-1998 [Paras 28-29].

Bond Forfeiture – Excessive Amount – Appellant, a daily-wage earner, furnished a bond of Rs. 500,000 under Section 107 CrPC for keeping the peace during Panchayat Elections – Allegations of illegal construction and obstruction of officials – Magistrate ordered forfeiture of the entire bond amount – High Court and Revisional Court upheld the order – Supreme Court emphasizes preventive nature of Section 107 CrPC and proportionality of bond amount [Paras 1-16].

Preventive Measures – Purpose of Bond – Chapter VIII of CrPC aims to prevent breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquillity – Bond should not be excessive or punitive – Court has discretion under Section 446 CrPC to remit part of the bond amount [Paras 11-14].

Reasonable Amount – Considering appellant's financial status and nature of alleged acts – Court finds Rs. 500,000 excessively high – Reduced amount payable to Rs. 5000 to meet ends of justice [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeal Allowed in Part – Held – Forfeiture amount reduced to Rs. 5000 – Appellant directed to deposit the amount within six weeks [Para 18].

Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Inadmissibility of TIP Conducted with Police Presence – Evidence of TIP is not substantive and is meant to corroborate in-court identification – TIP must be conducted without undue delay and without the accused being seen by witnesses beforehand – TIP conducted with police presence or after the accused is shown to witnesses invalidates its reliability [Paras 1-29].

Eyewitness Credibility – Inconsistent Statements – Witnesses admitted to seeing the accused before the TIP – TIP conducted in the presence of police and with an imbalanced ratio of suspects to non-suspects – Judicial Magistrate did not ensure separation of suspects and witnesses prior to TIP – High possibility of witnesses identifying accused based on photographs seen in media or during police custody [Paras 30-45].

Conviction Based on TIP – High Court's failure to consider the validity of the TIP – Mere reliance on TIP without assessing its credibility – Convictions under Sections 143, 147, 148 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(e) of PDPP Act based on invalid TIP and unreliable witness testimony [Paras 46-57].

Decision: Appeals Allowed – Held – Convictions and sentences set aside – Acquittal of all charges – Appellants' bail bonds discharged – High Court's judgment and Trial Court’s conviction quashed due to unreliable TIP and insufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 57-58].

Bail Cancellation – Exercise of Suo Motu Powers – Appellant granted bail by Trial Court – High Court canceled bail citing appellant’s absconding behavior – Supreme Court emphasizes the requirement of cogent and overwhelming circumstances for bail cancellation – High Court's action deemed over-expansive for not considering the peculiarity of appellant's situation and the procedural requirements under Section 439(2) CrPC [Paras 2-21].

Regular Bail – Considerations for Grant – Appellant a 55-year-old woman, responsible for minor child after daughter-in-law's suicide – Regular bail granted by the Sessions Court referencing co-accused's pre-arrest and regular bails – Supreme Court notes that there was no misuse of bail conditions by appellant [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court’s order canceling bail set aside – Original bail order by First Additional Sessions Judge Jaura District Morena restored – Clarified that this order does not affect the merit consideration by the Trial Court [Paras 21-23].

Market Value Determination – Public Auction – Section 47A – The provision under Section 47A of the Act does not apply to properties sold through public auctions conducted under court supervision – Public auctions ensure transparency and reflect the true market value, thus the Registering Authority cannot reassess or dispute the market value determined through such auctions [Paras 1-18, 22-32].

Auction Process and Market Value – Even if the auction price is slightly lower due to the legal complexities involved, the price obtained through a transparent auction process is considered the market value – The Registering Authority has no jurisdiction to challenge or revise this value as it is derived through a judicial process [Paras 22-32].

Objective of Section 47A – The intent of introducing Section 47A was to address under-valuation of property to prevent loss of revenue for the State – It targets private transactions where there is a risk of dual pricing, not court-monitored public auctions [Paras 22-24].

Judicial Precedents – Analysis and Differentiation – The decision references various cases (e.g., V.N. Devadoss, P. Laxmi Devi) to highlight the distinction between private sales and public auctions in determining the applicability of Section 47A – Emphasizes that court-monitored auctions do not warrant Registering Authority's intervention in determining market value [Paras 10-27, 30-31].

Decision: Appeals Dismissed – Held – Section 47A of the Stamp Act does not apply to properties sold through court-monitored public auctions – The market value determined through such processes is final and cannot be revisited by the Registering Authority – No order as to costs [Paras 31-34].

Civil Jurisdiction – Bar under RDB Act – Section 9 CPC confers jurisdiction upon Civil Courts to determine all disputes of civil nature unless barred under statute – RDB Act provides jurisdiction to Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) for bank debt recovery, not explicitly barring civil suits initiated by borrowers against banks – Civil Courts retain jurisdiction in borrower-initiated suits [Paras 18, 45-46].

Counterclaims and Set-Off – Section 19 RDB Act – Permits defendants in DRT applications to claim set-off or counterclaims – Independent suits by borrowers not mandatorily transferred to DRT – Civil Courts can continue to hear such suits – Defendant’s choice to file independent suit or counterclaim [Paras 15-16, 45].

Judicial Precedents – Conflicting Views – Previous judgments (Abhijit Tea Co., Ranjan Chemicals) suggesting transfer of borrower suits to DRT not upheld – Judgments in Indian Bank and Nahar Industrial Enterprises affirming civil court jurisdiction validated, except for transfer provisions [Paras 40-41, 60].

Decision: Appeals Dismissed – Held – Civil Court jurisdiction to try borrower-initiated suits affirmed – No power for civil courts to transfer suits to DRT without legislative provision – DRT proceedings to proceed independently without being impeded by civil suits [Paras 56-60].

Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) Benefits – Respondent initially appointed as a Lecturer in a temporary post, but with necessary approval and continuously worked from 1998 to 2011 – Regulation 10.1(f) of UGC Regulations allows counting previous ad hoc or temporary service of more than one year for CAS benefits, provided certain conditions are met [Paras 6-6.3].

Continuous Service and Promotions – Respondent's service included continuous work and promotions to Assistant Professor and Associate Professor in regular pay-scale – Her service from 1998 to 2011 to be counted for CAS benefits [Paras 6-6.3].

High Court's Decision – Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court directed the University to grant the benefit of CAS by counting the respondent's earlier service – Supreme Court found no error in this decision [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Held – High Court's judgment upheld – Respondent entitled to CAS benefits after counting her service from 1998 to 2011 [Paras 7-8].

Recognition of B.Ed. Colleges – State Government's Policy – State Government took a policy decision not to grant recognition to new B.Ed. colleges based on statistics showing that the number of B.Ed. graduates far exceeded the need for teachers, leading to unemployment – High Court quashed this decision as arbitrary – Supreme Court found the decision based on valid reasons and necessary statistics, thus not arbitrary [Paras 1-9].

NCTE Regulations Compliance – Under Rule 7(5) of NCTE Regulations 2014, the State Government is required to provide detailed reasons and necessary statistics if not in favor of granting recognition – State Government's decision aligned with this requirement – High Court's interference with the policy decision held unsustainable [Paras 8-9].

Precedents – Supreme Court referred to similar cases, including Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State of Maharashtra, affirming the State's right to restrict new colleges based on employment prospects and necessity [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court's judgment quashing the State Government's decision set aside – State's policy decision upheld – No order as to costs [Para 9].

Review Petition – Judge Availability – Bombay High Court Rule 3(1) stipulates that a review application should be heard by the same Judge who decided the original matter, unless the Judge is no longer available – Application for transferring the review petition to be heard by the same Judge rejected on judicial side instead of administrative side [Paras 1-16].

Administrative Powers of Chief Justice – Proviso to Rule 3(1) empowers the Chief Justice to assign a review petition to another Judge if the original Judge is unavailable – Matter should have been referred to the Chief Justice on the administrative side [Paras 15-16].

Procedural Requirements – Procedural rules require that applications for review be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders – Judicial decision to reject the transfer application found improper [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Held – Impugned order set aside – Registry directed to place the application before the Chief Justice on the administrative side for appropriate orders [Para 16].