Service Law – ACP Scheme – Stepping Up of Pay – The case involved a pay anomaly where juniors were drawing higher pay due to upgradation under the ACP Scheme – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's direction to step up the pay of seniors to match that of their juniors to remove the anomaly – The principle under Fundamental Rule (FR) 22 allows for such adjustments to ensure equity among employees [Paras 1-7].

Fundamental Rule 22 – Anomaly in Pay – Removal of anomaly by stepping up the pay of a senior promoted or appointed to a higher post who draws less pay than a junior promoted or appointed subsequently to the same post – Such adjustment is necessary to maintain uniformity and avoid pay disparity [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s order upheld – The appellant directed to step up the pay of the respondents to remove the anomaly, ensuring their pay matches that of their juniors from the date the juniors started drawing higher pay [Paras 7].

Recruitment – Shortlisting Criteria – Minimum Qualifying Marks – The imposition of minimum qualifying marks for interviews by the Goa Public Service Commission without specific authorization under the Rules is invalid – The selection process should be governed by the aggregate marks obtained in written exams and interviews as per Rule 12 of the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016 [Paras 1-22].

Article 320 of the Constitution – Commission's Powers – While the Commission has a role under Article 320 to conduct examinations and interviews, it cannot impose additional qualifications or criteria beyond those prescribed by the statutory rules [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s order upheld – Commission directed to prepare the select list based on aggregate marks without applying the disputed minimum qualifying marks for interviews [Paras 20-22].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Market Value – Small plots/parcels of land cannot offer the same market value as large tracts of land – Sale instances of small plots are generally not comparable to large extents of land for determining compensation – The High Court erred in using small plot sale instances to determine compensation for a large area [Paras 1-22].

Development Charges – Deduction – Appropriate deduction towards development charges must be considered based on utilization and cost – The High Court's deduction of 33.33% was deemed insufficient, and a 40% deduction was found appropriate [Paras 20-22].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – High Court’s judgment modified – Compensation for acquired land fixed at Rs. 6/- per square foot subject to 40% deduction towards development charges with all statutory benefits [Paras 21-22].

Right to Property – Article 300-A – Forcible Dispossession – The right to property is no longer a fundamental right but remains a constitutional right under Article 300-A – Forcible dispossession without following due process of law violates human rights and constitutional rights – The State's actions in dispossessing the appellants without legal authority were held unlawful [Paras 13-25].

Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – The State cannot evade its legal responsibility based on delay and laches when the dispossession of property is a continuing wrong – The appellants' delay in seeking legal recourse does not bar their right to justice given the State's arbitrary action [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – State directed to treat the subject lands as deemed acquisition and disburse compensation within four months – Appellants entitled to consequential benefits of solatium and interest from the date of notification till the date of judgment – State to pay legal costs of ₹50,000 to the appellants [Paras 26-27].

Academic Policy – Judicial Review – The petition under Article 32 challenges the cut-off date for internship completion for NEET-PG 2022 as set by the National Board of Examination – The Supreme Court held that such matters lie within the policy domain of academic and regulatory authorities and are generally not open to judicial review unless shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory [Paras 9-14].

Internship Completion Date – Extension – Although the deadline was extended from 31 May 2022 to 31 July 2022 due to the hardships caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, further extension would disrupt the educational schedule and disadvantage other students – Requests to consider the period spent on Covid duties towards internship requirements were rejected to avoid micro-managing the curriculum [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Petition dismissed – The Court upheld the decision of the regulatory authorities, emphasizing that judicial intervention in academic matters should be minimal and based on clear evidence of arbitrariness or discrimination [Paras 16-17].

Amalgamation – Validity of Assessment Orders – Assessment order issued against Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. (MRPL) post-amalgamation with Mahagun India Private Limited (MIPL) – Revenue's contention that defects are curable under Section 292B – Supreme Court holds that issuance of assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation – High Court's order set aside, matter remitted to ITAT for hearing on merits [Paras 1-43].

Procedural Deficiencies – Section 292B – Revenue argued that mentioning both amalgamating and amalgamated companies in assessment order cures defects – Supreme Court rejects this argument, emphasizing the need for orders to reflect the correct legal entity – Merely mentioning both entities does not cure the substantive defect [Paras 7-13].

Participation in Proceedings – Estoppel against Law – Participation of amalgamated company in assessment proceedings does not validate the assessment order issued in the name of a non-existent company – Consistent representation of amalgamated company does not estop it from challenging the order [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Assessment order quashed – Matter remitted to ITAT for hearing on merits excluding the issue of nullity of the assessment order [Para 43].

Service Law – Suppression of Information – Respondent concealed involvement in a criminal case while filling the verification roll – Supreme Court finds suppression of material information constitutes a serious misconduct justifying removal from service – High Court’s interference with quantum of punishment held unjustified [Paras 1-17].

Article 226 – Judicial Review of Administrative Action – The court emphasized that judicial review does not permit interference with the administrative decision unless it is disproportionate or arbitrary – In cases of suppression of material information, interference with the quantum of punishment should be minimal [Paras 3-4, 12-13].

Employment Law – Non-disclosure of Criminal Case – Respondent's non-disclosure of pending criminal case led to removal from service – Supreme Court held that such non-disclosure undermines the trust and discipline necessary in service, upholding the principle of non-disclosure as ground for termination [Paras 11-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Original punishment of removal from service reinstated [Paras 16-17].

Preventive Detention – Standard for Public Order – Detention order under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 challenged – Supreme Court held that a mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is insufficient to meet the standard of adversely affecting the "maintenance of public order" – Detention order based on stale material and lack of application of mind by the detaining authority – Two FIRs registered against the detenu, but no unrest reported post bail – Detention order quashed [Paras 1-19].

Constitutional Safeguards – Article 22 – Emphasis on strict constitutional safeguards to prevent the arbitrary exercise of state authority under preventive detention laws – The personal liberty of an accused cannot be sacrificed merely due to involvement in a criminal proceeding – Case demonstrates non-application of mind by detaining authority and the importance of evaluating the fairness of detention orders against lawful standards [Paras 15-17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and the detention order set aside – The ordinary course of criminal law to address the allegations [Para 18].

Housing Law – Transfer of Property – Discrepancies in Name – Appellant's grandfather was allotted a house on a rental basis in 1968 – Following his death, the tenancy was transferred to the appellant's father and subsequently converted to hire purchase – Despite discrepancies in the name and initials of the original allottee, the Supreme Court held that these inconsistencies had coexisted for five decades without dispute – Rejection of transfer request by the Housing Board deemed unfair, and Division Bench's conclusion of fraud by appellant's father was unfounded [Paras 1-8].

Legal Heirship – Lok Adalat Settlement – Following the appellant's father's death and settlement with his sisters, the appellant obtained 'No Objection' for registration of the house in his name – Housing Board's refusal based on name discrepancies overturned by Supreme Court, emphasizing the appellant's long-standing possession and payment completion [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's Division Bench judgment set aside – Learned Single Judge's judgment restored – Housing Board directed to execute the deed of transfer and register the house in appellant's name within two months [Para 8].