Eviction – Bona fide Requirement – Section 14(1)(e) – Eviction for personal necessity – The requirement must be genuine, and there must be no other reasonably suitable accommodation – The Rent Controller must be satisfied on both counts before granting eviction [Paras 1-22].

Leave to Defend – Section 25B(5) – The tenant must disclose facts that could disprove the landlord’s bona fide need – Mere assertions are insufficient; substantial material is needed to raise triable issues – The quality of adjudication lies between moonshine and adequate material [Paras 15-22].

High Court's Revisional Power – Proviso to Section 25B(8) – The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and limited to ensuring the order is according to law – The High Court should not act as an appellate court by reassessing and reappraising evidence [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Rent Controller’s order restored – Eviction granted [Paras 22-30].

Civil Procedure – Order 41 Rule 33 – Extraordinary Powers of Appellate Court – The High Court invoked Order 41 Rule 33 to stay the dismissal of the respondent from service until the conclusion of the pending criminal case – Supreme Court held that Order 41 Rule 33 confers extraordinary power, to be used sparingly and in special cases – The power is not meant to be applied broadly across all appeals, particularly where the order under challenge is not specifically before the appellate court [Paras 13-14].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Parallel Criminal Proceedings – It is not generally desirable to delay disciplinary proceedings due to pending criminal cases – The principle that an employee should not disclose his defense in disciplinary proceedings if it may prejudice the criminal case does not apply uniformly – Each case must be assessed on its facts [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Disciplinary proceedings and the resulting dismissal of the respondent are upheld – Respondent's rights to challenge the disciplinary proceedings in a competent forum are preserved [Paras 14].

Education Law – UGC Regulations – Applicability to State Universities – UGC Regulations 2010 are mandatory for Central universities and colleges, but directory for State universities and colleges – State Government has discretion to adopt and implement UGC Regulations for its institutions [Paras 1-22].

Pay Scale and Qualifications – Distinction between Teaching and Administrative Posts – The qualifications and pay scales for Registrars in State universities are governed by State-specific rules – Temporary assignments do not alter the inherent classification between administrative and teaching roles [Paras 14-22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – The State Government's decision regarding pay scales for Registrars is upheld – The writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed [Paras 21-22].

Waqf Board – Composition and Term of Office – Section 14 and Section 15 – Appointments to the Waqf Board can be by election or nomination, as per the Waqf Act – The term of office for both elected and nominated members is prescribed as five years – The State Government has the authority to nominate members and also to cancel such nominations [Paras 1-12].

Nomination vs. Election – State’s Discretion – Nomination of members stands on a different footing compared to election – The State Government retains discretionary power over nominated members, allowing for the possibility of removal before the completion of the prescribed term [Paras 11-12].

High Court’s Jurisdiction – Arbitrariness and Procedural Lapses – The High Court’s intervention was based on perceived arbitrariness and procedural lapses by the State Government in cancelling the nomination – The Supreme Court found no factual basis for such arbitrariness and upheld the State’s discretionary powers [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – The appointment cancellation by the State Government upheld – Respondent’s writ petition dismissed [Paras 17].

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].