Civil Services – Preference in Selection – Respondent applied for multiple posts through a single advertisement, giving preference to Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) – Found ineligible for DSP due to height requirement – High Court directed consideration for next preferred post (CMO) – Supreme Court held respondent's initial preference and selection in main list precludes consideration for other posts – Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside [Paras 1-20].

Eligibility Criteria – Binding Declarations – Respondent declared he met all eligibility criteria including physical measurements – Found ineligible for DSP due to height – Selection process and rules clear; candidate's preference and declaration binding – Allowing reconsideration for other posts would disrupt administrative process and affect other candidates [Paras 10-19].

Literal vs. Beneficial Interpretation – Court emphasized adherence to explicit rules and declarations in selection process – Beneficial interpretation of rules not applicable where candidate’s own declarations and preferences are clear and binding [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Respondent not entitled to consideration for next preferred post – Writ Petition dismissed [Para 20].

Murder – Cancellation of Bail – High Court granted bail to the accused without adequate reasoning – Accusations are serious, involving murder and attempted murder – High Court’s orders set aside – Respondent to surrender [Paras 1-32].

Grant of Bail – Judicial Discretion – Courts must consider the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, and potential impact on witnesses and evidence – Orders must provide reasons for granting bail, balancing accused's rights with the need for a fair trial [Paras 25-28].

Criminal Antecedents – Public Safety – Respondent has criminal history and absconded for seven months – Likely to threaten witnesses and tamper with evidence – Bail granted in cryptic orders without considering these aspects [Paras 29-31].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders granting bail set aside – Respondent to surrender within two weeks [Para 32].

Consumer Protection – Joint Complaint – Complaint by multiple consumers not necessarily representative – 91 purchasers of 51 apartments filed complaint; National Commission allowed representative capacity – Supreme Court held complaint maintainable as joint complaint, not representative – Respondents can represent themselves, not all 1134 apartment owners [Paras 1-41].

Interpretation of Consumer Protection Act – Section 35(1) allows single or joint complaints – For representative complaints, numerous consumers must have same interest – Joint complaint permissible without invoking Order I Rule 8 CPC – Clarity on representative capacity essential [Paras 14-38].

Relief and Directions – Complaint treated as joint complaint for named respondents – Others may join if grievances align with original complaint – National Commission to allow impleadment of such parties [Paras 40-41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCDRC order modified – Complaint treated as joint complaint, not in representative capacity – Other purchasers may join upon satisfying grievance criteria [Para 41].

Limitation in Arbitration – Non-Extendable Period – High Court erred in applying Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of Arbitration Act – Proviso to Section 34(3) provides outer limit of 120 days for filing petition to set aside arbitral award – Extension beyond this period not permissible [Paras 1-11].

Judicial Interpretation – Exclusion of Section 5 – Section 34(3) imposes a strict timeline for challenging arbitral awards – Legislative intent clear in excluding application of Section 5 of Limitation Act – Previous judgments affirm non-applicability of Section 5 to extend limitation period under Arbitration Act [Paras 6-7].

Facts and Findings – Arbitrator dispatched award to parties; respondent refused service – High Court’s condonation of delay contrary to established law – Order of Division Bench set aside; Single Judge’s order restored [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order condoning delay set aside – Order of Single Judge dismissing petition under Section 34 restored [Para 11].

Service Law – Submission of Documents – Applicants required to submit all necessary documents along with the application form by the cut-off date – Respondent failed to submit NCC 'B' certificate with original application – Certificate submitted three years after the cut-off date – Not entitled to additional five marks [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Review – Compliance with Advertisement – Candidates must comply with conditions and eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date – Only documents submitted with application to be considered – High Court erred in granting relief based on late submission of NCC 'B' certificate [Paras 6-9].

Procedural Fairness – Original Pleadings – Earlier writ petition lacked pleading of submitting NCC 'B' certificate with application – Subsequent claims of submission deemed afterthought – Division Bench erred in relying on unsubstantiated claims [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition restored – No order as to costs [Para 10].

Fake Motor Accident Claims – Investigation and Proceedings – 28 advocates accused in Uttar Pradesh for filing fake motor accident claims – Total of 92 criminal cases registered, involving 28 advocates in 55 cases – Charge sheets filed against 11 advocates in 25 cases – Special Investigating Team (SIT) tasked with expediting investigation and filing status reports on the progress of charge sheets and trials [Paras 1-4].

Bar Council's Role – Disciplinary Actions – Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh directed to maintain the purity of the legal profession by concluding disciplinary proceedings against errant advocates – Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to ensure timely completion of proceedings [Paras 5-6].

Modus Operandi – Fake Claims – Various methods identified for filing fake claims including non-road accident injuries converted to road accidents, false implantation of vehicles and drivers, multiple claims for the same accident, and fraudulent documents – SIT and insurance companies detailed these methods [Paras 7-7.4].

Preventive Measures – Suggestions for preventing fake claims include implementing Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act, utilizing the "VAHAN" and "SAARTHI" databases, and constituting SITs in all states to investigate suspicious claims [Paras 7.1-7.4].

Government Involvement – Ministry of Transport, Government of India, to be impleaded for suggestions on remedial measures – Additional Solicitor General requested to assist the Court with suggestions to curb the menace of fake claims [Para 8].

Decision: Notice issued to Ministry of Transport, Government of India – Case to be considered further on 25.01.2022 [Para 8].

Compassionate Appointment – Application by Dependent Brother – Respondent sought compassionate appointment after the death of his unmarried sister who was an Assistant Teacher – Application rejected by the competent authority as the amendment extending benefits to unmarried dependent brothers came after the sister's death – Tribunal and High Court directed the state to consider the application – Supreme Court held that compassionate appointments are not automatic but subject to scrutiny of family’s financial condition – Amendment to the Rules not applicable retrospectively – Orders of Tribunal and High Court set aside – Application for compassionate appointment dismissed [Paras 1-21].

Retrospective Application of Amendments – Court analyzed decisions on the applicability of amended rules and schemes – Emphasized amendments enhancing benefits are not retrospective unless explicitly stated – Appointment on compassionate grounds governed by rules in force on the date of the employee's death – Differentiation between amendments withdrawing/diluting benefits and those enhancing them [Paras 7-20].

Legal Precedents – Referenced several cases addressing conflicting views on the application of amended schemes for compassionate appointments – Consistent principle that new or modified schemes cannot be applied retrospectively unless explicitly mentioned [Paras 11-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court set aside – Respondent’s application for compassionate appointment dismissed [Para 21].

Tenancy Law – Ownership Certificate – Protected tenant granted ownership certificate under Section 38E of the Tenancy Act – Appeals against occupancy rights withdrawn as inconsequential after ownership certificate issuance – Ownership vests unambiguously with protected tenants – Purchasers divested of ownership rights – Certificate undisputed by purchasers [Paras 1-21].

Interim Injunction – Grant of Interim Protection – Respondent’s application for interim injunction initially dismissed by trial court – High Court reversed trial court's decision based on prima facie possession and title of respondent supported by ownership certificate and mutation records – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision granting interim injunction pending suit disposal [Paras 1-21].

Prior Suit and Injunction – Impact of Prior Suit – Previous suit by respondent’s vendor dismissed as withdrawn without recording possession findings – High Court correctly noted prior suit’s dismissal had no bearing on present suit’s maintainability – Previous dismissal of injunction application due to land being open and vacant [Paras 12-16].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court’s order granting interim injunction affirmed [Para 19].

Land Acquisition – Notification under Section 48(1) – Notification for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 takes away individual’s property rights, while a Notification under Section 48(1) confers benefits – Such notifications do not warrant notice or hearing to landowners – If anyone is aggrieved, it would be the beneficiary of the acquisition (Parishad) – Appeals allowed, High Court's order set aside, and writ petitions dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Landowners obtained Notification under Section 48(1) by making false representations – Once the land was released, they started selling it, contradicting their earlier claims of religious sentiments and cemeteries – Notifications secured by fraud do not confer vested rights and can be rescinded [Paras 15, 24-25].

General Clauses Act, Section 21 – Power to issue Notification includes power to rescind – Notification under Section 48(1) is administrative, not quasi-judicial, allowing application of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act – Government can rescind such Notifications without fresh acquisition process [Paras 10, 20-23].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Parishad may proceed to implement the public purpose for which the land was acquired – No order as to costs [Para 27].