Service Law – Appointment Eligibility – The appellants were candidates for the post of High School Assistants (Natural Science) in Kerala. The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) disputed the eligibility of their B.Ed degrees, which were in Biological Science, for meeting the required subject criteria. The appellants produced Government Orders (GOs) confirming their degrees as equivalent to the required subject degrees. [Paras 2-11]

Equivalency of Degrees – Clarificatory Nature of GOs – The Supreme Court held that the GOs recognizing the appellants' degrees as equivalent to the required subject degrees were clarificatory in nature and did not introduce new qualifications post-notification. The recognition of equivalency related back to the dates of obtaining the degrees, not the dates of the GOs. [Paras 25-27]

Change in the Rules Midway – The Court concluded that applying the equivalency recognized by the GOs did not change the rules of the game midway. The eligibility criteria, as clarified by the GOs, were met by the appellants at the time of their applications. [Paras 27-28]

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – The orders of the Tribunal restored. The KPSC directed to disclose the results of the appellants, and if they qualify, to grant them appointment from the date of their respective appointments. [Paras 29-30]

Rented Land – Use as Club Pavilion – The definition of "rented land" under Section 2(f) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 includes land used for business purposes, which need not be commercial. The term "business" encompasses charitable activities or those in the interest of the public. Therefore, using land for a club pavilion falls within the scope of Section 2(f), making an eviction petition maintainable. [Paras 1-12]

Judicial Precedents – Interpretation of "Business" – The Court referred to several cases interpreting "business" broadly to include non-commercial activities that engage time, talent, and interest, supporting the view that club activities can be considered business. [Paras 7-11]

Distinction from Previous Judgments – The Court distinguished the present case from earlier judgments that interpreted business in a narrower sense or within different statutory contexts, emphasizing the specific purpose and language of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973. [Paras 13-14]

Eviction Order – Maintainability – The eviction petition was found maintainable as the use of the rented land for club activities met the criteria under the Act. The High Court's decision to set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority was reversed. [Paras 12-16]

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Respondents granted three months to vacate the premises, with the appellants required to settle any outstanding taxes before using the premises. [Paras 16-17]

Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments – The appellant, a music teacher appointed in a leave vacancy, sought regularization under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Department Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments on the Post of Trained Graduate Teachers Rules 2001. The High Court had denied her regularization, declaring her appointment illegal as it was against a leave vacancy, and not permissible under the 2001 Rules. The Supreme Court, however, held that the appellant’s appointment was irregular and not illegal, thereby entitling her to regularization. [Paras 1-27]

Service Jurisprudence – Litigious Appointment – The Supreme Court clarified that continuation in service by virtue of a court's interim order does not disentitle an employee from regularization. The court emphasized that judgments attained finality cannot be reopened merely due to subsequent changes in law. [Paras 28-36]

Doctrine of Finality – The Division Bench of the High Court had erroneously attempted to reopen an earlier judgment which had attained finality. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that concluded judgments should not be disturbed to maintain judicial consistency and certainty. [Paras 29-36]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – The appellant is entitled to be regularized with all consequential benefits to be extended within three months. [Paras 39-40]

Will – Thumb Impression on Cancellation Deed – Genuineness – It is asserted that every person has a unique thumb impression, making forgery nearly impossible. Therefore, an adverse conclusion should not be drawn for affixing a thumb impression instead of signing documents related to property transactions. The genuineness of the cancellation deed cannot be doubted solely due to the fact that it was not signed but bore a thumb impression of a literate person. [Paras 1-18]

Mode of Proof – Admissibility of Certified Copy – Objection to the mode of proof must be raised at the trial stage and not for the first time on appeal. Since the certified copy of the cancellation deed was admitted without objection, it must be considered genuine and admissible evidence. [Paras 19-24]

Health of Testator – Physical and Mental Capacity – The High Court's inference regarding the testator's incapability to execute the cancellation deed due to ill health was found erroneous, given the evidence confirming the genuineness of the thumb impression and the absence of any objection during the trial. [Paras 13-17, 25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Judgment of the First Additional District Judge, Chapra, restored, affirming the genuineness of the cancellation deed. [Paras 25-27]

Admissions – Centralized Counselling Mandate – The State of Uttar Pradesh mandated centralized counselling for all MBBS/BDS admissions, which Glocal Medical College violated by conducting private counselling. The Supreme Court upheld the requirement for centralized counselling to ensure transparency, merit, and fairness in admissions. [Paras 19-22]

Equitable Relief – Backdoor Entries – The Court emphasized that admissions obtained through non-compliant private counselling were illegal. Despite sympathies for the students, the Court denied equitable relief as it would undermine the integrity of the admission process and contravene legal standards. [Paras 27-28, 35-36]

Previous Judicial Directives – The Court reiterated its previous interim order allowing students to appear for exams without publishing results and the subsequent discharge order by the Medical Council of India (MCI), reinforcing that no modification had been made to permit regularization of the admissions. [Paras 37-39]

Decision: Review petitions dismissed – The admissions made through private counselling were deemed illegal and could not be regularized. All pending applications were also disposed of. [Paras 29-40]

Redemption of Mortgage – Right of Redemption – The right to redeem is a statutory right under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, which cannot be extinguished by the act of parties or by a decree of the Court unless the right is duly adjudicated in the presence of all necessary parties. A purchaser of mortgaged property steps into the shoes of the mortgagor and is entitled to redeem the property. [Paras 16-19]

Decree of Foreclosure – Necessary Parties – The foreclosure decree obtained by the mortgagee is not binding on the appellant since he was not impleaded as a party to the suit, despite purchasing part of the mortgaged property before the filing of the foreclosure suit. The decree is deemed void and non-est for non-joinder of a necessary party. [Paras 11-14, 23]

Equity of Redemption – Constructive Notice – The mortgagee's knowledge of the appellant's purchase and possession, coupled with the constructive notice through revenue records, invalidates the foreclosure decree obtained without impleading the appellant. [Paras 12-13, 23]

Res Judicata – Execution Proceedings – An application for stay of execution does not have the trapping of a decree and does not operate as res judicata. The execution proceedings do not determine substantive rights, hence the foreclosure decree obtained without the appellant being a party cannot be upheld on the basis of res judicata. [Paras 21-22]

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment of the High Court is set aside, and the First Appellate Court's judgment is restored. The appellant is given three months to deposit the mortgage amount, after which he will be entitled to the restoration of possession. The Executing Court is directed to ensure expeditious delivery of possession to the appellant. [Paras 30-31]

SARFAESI Act – Tenancy Rights – The Court examined the validity of the appellant's tenancy under the SARFAESI Act and the Transfer of Property Act. It was held that for a tenancy to be valid and enforceable against a secured creditor, it must either predate the mortgage or be created with the mortgagee's consent and comply with Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act. Additionally, tenancies for terms exceeding one year must be registered. [Paras 11-14]

Tenant-in-Sufferance – The Court clarified that a tenant-in-sufferance is not entitled to protection under the Rent Act against actions taken under the SARFAESI Act. The lack of a registered tenancy agreement and the timing of the rent receipts indicated that the appellant's tenancy was not bona fide and could not impede the secured creditor's rights. [Paras 13-14]

Procedural Mechanism – The Court reiterated the procedural mechanisms under Sections 14 and 17 of the SARFAESI Act for taking possession and the tenant's right to appeal. It was noted that the appellant did not avail himself of the alternative remedy under Section 17 before approaching the Supreme Court. [Paras 10-11]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The appellant's claim of tenancy was unsupported by valid documentation, and he did not meet the legal requirements to challenge the secured creditor's actions under the SARFAESI Act. The appellant's status as a tenant-in-sufferance provided no protection under the Rent Act or the SARFAESI Act. [Paras 14-15]

Compensation Claim – Survival of Claim – The claim for personal injuries abates with the death of the injured if unrelated to the accident. However, the legal representatives can pursue claims for loss of the estate, which includes medical expenses, loss of income, and future prospects that would have accrued to the estate but for the accident. [Paras 9-20]

Loss of Estate – Inclusion in Compensation – The loss of estate encompasses medical expenses, treatment costs, diet, attendant charges, doctor's fees, and loss of income due to disability. These components form part of the estate and are recoverable by the legal representatives. [Paras 10-20]

Multiplier Application – The application of a multiplier is appropriate to determine the compensation for loss of income and future prospects, even if the injured dies from unrelated causes. The compensation must reflect the potential earnings and savings lost due to the accident. [Paras 18-19]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The compensation for personal injuries (pain and suffering) is disallowed. The reassessed total compensation for the loss of estate, including medical expenses and attendant charges, is Rs. 2,842,175, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. The appellant is directed to pay the respondent within four weeks. [Paras 21-23]

Redemption of Mortgage – Limitation and Nature of Document – The Court examined whether the document dated 22.2.1969 was a conditional sale or a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The suit for redemption can be filed within 30 years from the date fixed for redemption. [Paras 1, 23]

Conditional Sale vs. Mortgage by Conditional Sale – The Court held that the intention of the parties and the terms of the document indicated a mortgage rather than a sale, as the document stipulated that the land would be reconveyed to the plaintiff upon repayment of the loan amount. This relationship of debtor and creditor was essential to determine the nature of the transaction. [Paras 4-12]

Improvements and Mortgagee's Rights – The Court clarified that any improvements made by the mortgagee on the mortgaged property do not bar the right of redemption by the mortgagor. The mortgagee is entitled to enjoy the usufruct of the property, which compensates for any improvements made. [Paras 22]

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court dismissing the suit for redemption are set aside. The suit is decreed, and the plaintiff is granted the right to pay or deposit the mortgage amount within three months from the receipt of the order. [Paras 24]