Service Law – Class IV Appointment – Validity of Appointments Beyond Advertised Vacancies – Rule 12, U.P. Rules – “Reasonable Dimension” of Waiting List – Appellants appointed against Class IV posts were terminated in 2008 on the ground that appointments exceeded notified vacancies – Advertisement of 2000 mentioned 12 vacancies “subject to increase or decrease” – Court held that Rule 12 permits maintenance of a waiting list of reasonable dimension to fill vacancies arising within the same or succeeding recruitment year – Reliance placed on Naseem Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2011) 2 SCC 734 – Held, appointments made from such waiting list were valid when vacancies arose subsequently – Termination unjustified [Paras 6–10].

Service Jurisprudence – Delay and Relief – Equitable Directions – Appellants were out of employment for 17 years – Two appellants had crossed superannuation age – Court directed reappointment of those still within age limit to existing or supernumerary posts in Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship – Those who crossed superannuation to be granted minimum pension – Intervening period not to count for seniority or pension computation – Directions confined to peculiar facts and not to be treated as precedent [Paras 11–12].

Interpretation of Rules – Rule 12, U.P. Rules – “Reasonable Dimension” – Expression construed to mean a waiting list adequate to cover vacancies likely to arise within the year of recruitment or the next year, in reasonable proportion to advertised vacancies – Ensures fairness and prevents arbitrariness in recruitment [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Termination orders set aside – Reappointment or pension benefits granted as per directions – Relief restricted to appellants – Not to be treated as precedent [Paras 11–12].

Transfer of Suits – Patent Infringement vs. Groundless Threats – Section 25 CPC – Earlier suit under Section 106 Patents Act has independent cause of action – Delhi jurisdiction invoked via online purchase and delivery – Substantial overlap of parties, facts and issues – To avoid duplication and conflicting findings, infringement suit in Delhi transferred to Bombay – Cross transfer petition dismissed [Paras 9-14]

Transfer – Competing Petitions – Chronology and Overlap – Petitioner first filed Bombay suit (01.07.2025) for groundless threats; Respondent later filed Delhi infringement suit (07.07.2025) – Court notes substantial overlap in facts, law, and issues – Held appropriate to have both tried by the same forum to conserve judicial time and ensure consistency [Paras 10 & 12]

Patents – Groundless Threats (S.106) – Independence from Infringement Action – 1911 Act proviso negating groundless-threat action upon diligent prosecution of infringement suit was deleted in the 1970 Act – Hence, S.106 suit is an independent cause of action and can proceed irrespective of an infringement action [Para 9]

Jurisdiction – Patent Infringement – Online purchase and delivery at Delhi – Court records that Delhi jurisdiction was invoked by respondent through online purchase and delivery in Delhi, but transfers the Delhi suit to Bombay in the interests of justice given overlap and earlier Bombay filing [Para 10(ii), Para 12]

Precedents – Transfer to Avoid Conflicting Judgments – Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement, (2004) 3 SCC 85 – Applied – Where two suits between substantially the same parties arise out of the same transactions and evidence, separate trials may risk inconsistent findings; transfer allowed [Para 11]

Decision: Transfer Petition (C) No. 1983 of 2025 allowed – CS (COMM) No. 663 of 2025 (Delhi) transferred to Bombay High Court to be tried with Commercial IP (L) No. 19837 of 2025 – Injunction applications to be taken up and disposed of expeditiously – Transfer Petition (C) No. 2174 of 2025 dismissed [Paras 12-15]

Constitutional Law – Power of High Court – Direction for CBI Investigation – Limits of Jurisdiction – High Court, while hearing an intra-court appeal against a Single Judge’s order in recruitment matters, converted the appeal into suo motu PIL and directed CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry – Held: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction – Exercise of power to order CBI inquiry under Article 226 permissible only where sufficient material exists disclosing prima facie commission of offence – Power to be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and in exceptional circumstances where fairness of investigation or public confidence is at stake – No such material existed here – Directions unsustainable [Paras 9–14, 18–24].

Public Employment – Recruitment Irregularities – Challenge to selection process for various posts in Legislative Council and Assembly Secretariat of U.P. – Allegations of favoritism and manipulation by private recruiting agencies – Writ petitions contained no prayer for CBI inquiry – Division Bench acted suo motu without foundation or pleading – Held: Ordering CBI inquiry based on “doubts” or “assumptions” violates settled principles – Directions quashed [Paras 15–21, 23].

Judicial Review – Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation – Scope – High Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, could not convert pending special appeal into suo motu PIL – Such action not in consonance with rules or judicial propriety – Matter left to Chief Justice of High Court to examine procedure and registry’s action in this regard [Paras 18–19, 25].

CBI Inquiry – Principles Reiterated – Direction for CBI investigation to be last resort – Permissible only when: (i) prima facie material discloses cognizable offence, (ii) local police incapable of impartial probe, (iii) involvement of high-ranking officials or systemic failure, or (iv) case has national ramifications – Mere allegations or administrative irregularities do not justify CBI inquiry – High Court’s assumption-based approach deprecated [Paras 10–14, 21–23].

Recruitment Process – Role of Specialized Agency – Following Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB (2021) 4 SCC 631, Single Judge directed future Class III recruitments in U.P. Legislative Assembly/Council to be conducted by U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission and not private agencies – Division Bench should have confined adjudication to legality of that direction – CBI inquiry beyond pleadings and scope of appeal [Paras 3–5, 17, 24–25].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders dated 18.09.2023 and 03.10.2023 set aside – Direction for CBI preliminary inquiry and registration of suo motu PIL quashed – Division Bench requested to hear Special Appeal Defective No. 485 of 2023 on merits in accordance with law – No opinion on merits expressed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 24–25].

Service Law – Recruitment to Public Posts – Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Dispute relating to recruitment of Graduate Primary Teachers in Karnataka – Challenge raised by married women candidates regarding rejection of caste-cum-income certificates issued in the name of parents instead of husbands – Held: High Court erred in entertaining writ petitions directly when efficacious alternative remedy before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) was available – KSAT is the competent forum for adjudication of service and recruitment disputes under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Constitution Bench ruling in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India applied – T.K. Rangarajan v. State of T.N. distinguished as an exceptional case invoking Article 142 – Division Bench rightly set aside Single Judge’s order and relegated parties to KSAT – Appeals dismissed – Interim orders made absolute [Paras 26-33, 35-39, 40-47, 49-50].

Maintainability – Writ under Articles 226 and 227 – When not maintainable – Availability of effective alternative remedy – Exceptions reiterated, namely (i) violation of fundamental rights, (ii) breach of natural justice, (iii) lack of jurisdiction, and (iv) challenge to vires of statute – None of these exceptions attracted in the present case, as the dispute concerns rejection of documents in a recruitment process – High Court not to act as court of first instance in such service matters [Paras 32-37].

Administrative Tribunals – Powers and Efficacy – KSAT vested with powers akin to High Court under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Empowered to grant interim relief including ex parte orders, review its decisions, punish for contempt, and regulate its own procedure – Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Rules prescribe six-month period for disposal – Hence, remedy before KSAT held to be effective, efficacious, and expeditious [Paras 38-46].

Public Employment – Provisional and Final Select Lists – Provisional list confers no vested right – Direction to act upon provisional list dated 18.11.2022 would create administrative uncertainty – Validity of final select list dated 08.03.2023 to be decided by KSAT – State’s refusal to revive provisional list upheld [Para 48].

Interim Protection – Supreme Court’s prior interim orders noticed – (i) 03.01.2024: Stay of High Court’s directions and keeping appointments under 08.03.2023 list in abeyance; (ii) 22.01.2024: Permitting 11,494 appointees to continue subject to outcome; 481 posts reserved for married women candidates; (iii) 04.10.2024: State allowed to fill remaining vacancies while keeping 500 posts reserved – All interim directions made absolute – 500 reserved posts to be filled as per KSAT’s final verdict [Paras 21(A)-(C), 49].

Recruitment – Facts and Background – Notification dated 21.03.2022 for 15,000 Graduate Primary Teacher posts; exams held on 21–22.05.2022; results declared 17.08.2022; provisional list issued 18.11.2022; dispute arose over validity of certificates of married women candidates – Single Judge’s order dated 30.01.2023 directing inclusion of such candidates – Division Bench judgment dated 12.10.2023 setting aside Single Judge’s order and relegating parties to KSAT – Supreme Court upholds Division Bench view and directs expeditious disposal [Paras 3-20, 47, 49-51].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Division Bench judgment affirmed – Matters relegated to Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal for final adjudication – Interim orders dated 03.01.2024, 22.01.2024, and 04.10.2024 made absolute – 500 reserved posts to abide KSAT’s final decision – Tribunal requested to decide within six months – Merits of eligibility and certificate issues left open [Paras 47, 49-51].

Property Law – Agreement to Sell – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Whether agreement to sell executed during lifetime of deceased transfers ownership – Held: No – Agreement to sell does not create interest or title in immovable property; ownership transfers only upon execution and registration of sale deed – As no conveyance existed during lifetime, the property remained vested in deceased and formed part of matruka property – Reliance placed on Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, and Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra, (2004) 8 SCC 614 [Paras 7–10].

Mohammedan Law – Matruka Property – Definition and Devolution – “Matruka” means property (movable or immovable) left behind by a deceased Muslim – Held: Such property devolves first to satisfy debts and legacies (limited to one-third of estate) and remainder distributed among heirs as per Quranic injunctions and Mulla’s Principles – Wife being a sharer entitled to one-fourth share in absence of child or grandchild; balance devolves on residuaries – Cited Jamil Ahmad v. Vth ADJ, Moradabad, (2001) 8 SCC 599 and Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 738 [Paras 8–15].

Inheritance – Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Principle – Held: A person cannot transfer a better title than he possesses – Widow who held only one-fourth share could not convey ownership of entire estate – Sale deed executed beyond her legal share invalid to that extent [Para 15].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – When no substantial question of law arises, High Court must dismiss appeal in limine with reasons – Though High Court examined merits after so finding, no prejudice caused as conclusion consistent with law – Referred Surat Singh v. Siri Bhagwan, (2018) 4 SCC 562; Hasmat Ali v. Ameena Bibi, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1142 [Para 5].

Language of Judgments – Translation Quality – Observed with concern the poor translation of trial court judgment from vernacular to English – Emphasized need for accuracy since words and punctuation bear decisive legal implications – Concern earlier echoed in Chairman, Managing Committee v. Bhaveshkumar Manubhai Parakhia (Order dated 18.03.2025) [Para 17].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – View taken by First Appellate Court and High Court upheld – Property in question forms part of matruka property – Wife entitled to 1/4th share; remaining 3/4th to devolve per Mohammedan inheritance law – No interference warranted – No order as to costs [Paras 15–18].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Computation – Inclusion of allowances and perks – Future prospects @ 50% for age 27 – Deduction of income tax to follow slab rates, not flat 30% – Multiplier 17 – High Court’s reduction set aside – Compensation enhanced to ₹74,43,631 with 6% interest [Paras 3, 6, 11–16].

Motor Vehicles – Compensation under Ss. 140 & 166 MV Act – Computation – Allowances includible – Future prospects @ 50% (age below 40) – Income tax deduction to follow slab rates applicable for the relevant financial year and not a flat 30% – Multiplier 17 applicable – Tribunal rightly included salary allowances and computed compensation at ₹74,43,631 – High Court’s reduction set aside – Held: Compensation to be enhanced and interest @ 6% p.a. payable from date of claim petition till payment [Paras 3, 6, 11–16].

Motor Accident Claims – Inclusion of Allowances – “Income” for the purpose of loss of dependency includes allowances and perquisites reflected in the last pay slip – Exclusion by High Court erroneous – Tribunal’s determination of ₹53,367 per month upheld [Para 12].

Income Tax Deduction – Deduction permissible but must be based on slab rates as per the relevant year – Flat deduction of 30% unjustified – Annual income ₹6,40,400; tax liability ₹62,080; net income ₹5,78,324 accepted for computation [Para 13].

Future Prospects – For a permanent salaried employee aged 27 years, addition of 50% towards future prospects correct – High Court’s reduction to 40% unsustainable [Para 14].

Multiplier – Multiplier of 17 correctly applied as per Sarla Verma guidelines, deceased aged 27 years [Para 11].

Computation of Compensation – After applying deductions and future prospects, loss of dependency ₹73,73,631 – Conventional heads (estate ₹15,000; filial consortium ₹40,000; funeral ₹15,000) – Total ₹74,43,631 – Interest @ 6% from date of claim petition till realization [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Compensation enhanced to ₹74,43,631 with 6% interest p.a. from the date of the claim petition till actual payment [Para 16].

Environmental Law – Firecrackers in Delhi–NCR – Temporary relaxation on “test case” basis – Supreme Court permits sale and use of only NEERI-approved green crackers at designated locations for a limited window (sale: 18–20 Oct 2025 – use: 6–7 AM & 8–10 PM on the day before and on Diwali) – Ban on barium-containing crackers, series/laris, e-commerce sales and inflow from outside NCR – Strict patrols, QR-code verification, random sampling, licence renewals for the limited period, and AQI/soil/water monitoring directed – Rationale: balance right to life and health with livelihood/festive interests; prior Delhi–NCR ban in 2024 distinguished as both GNCTD and Union now seek calibrated relaxation – Directions modelled on Arjun Gopal (2018) regime – Test-case relaxation only for specified period [Paras 1–4, 12–14, 18–24].

Right to Life vs. Profession – Court reiterates primacy of health and environment over commercial/festive considerations – While acknowledging cultural practice of bursting crackers, uncontrolled use cannot be permitted to cause short/long-term health damage – Balance struck via narrow relaxation with strict compliance and enforcement [Paras 1–3, 16–20].

Green Crackers – NEERI formulations – Court notes NEERI/CSIR work cutting particulate emissions by 30–80% through zeolites, water-releasing molecules, and metallic composites; barium banned in India and replaced by strontium/potassium – NEERI SOP for manufacturer registration, product-wise approvals, QR codes; concern over QR misuse flagged – Enforcement directed via testing and penal action for violations [Paras 12–13, 14(A)(i), 14(C)(iii)-(v), (vi)-(vii)].

Operational Directions – Sale only 18–20 Oct 2025 at locations identified by District Collectors/Commissioners with police/SPCB patrols – Use only two time slots on two days (pre-Diwali and Diwali) – Confiscation of non-approved products; prohibition on e-commerce; no series/laris; no inflow from outside NCR; renewal of expired/cancelled trader licences for stipulated period – CPCB/SPCBs to monitor AQI 14–25 Oct 2025 and collect soil/water samples; report to Court – Relaxation expressly on “test case” basis [Para 24(A)–(M)].

Earlier Ban & Data – 2024 complete ban by GNCTD (14.10.2024 to 01.01.2025) and its expansion to entire NCR (19.12.2024) noted; present relaxation sought by GNCTD and Union distinguishes current context – Court records that AQI differences between 2018 and 2024 were not substantial (except Covid period), supporting calibrated approach with stringent safeguards [Paras 11, 21, 23–24].

Decision: Limited, strictly regulated relaxation granted – Only NEERI-approved green crackers – Detailed enforcement, monitoring, and reporting mandated – Relaxation confined to specified days/hours and expressly on test-case basis; IAs to be listed after three weeks for further directions [Paras 24–25].

Civil Procedure Code – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Limitation – Mutation proceedings – Possession based on title – Suit for declaration and possession not ex facie barred where mutation proceedings culminated in 2017 and suit filed within three years – Limitation for possession 12 years under Article 65 – Declaratory right continuing – Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) erroneous – Order 2 Rule 2 not attracted – High Court orders set aside; Trial Court’s order restored – [Paras 15–24].

Civil Procedure Code – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Limitation – High Court erred in rejecting plaint as barred by limitation – For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d), only averments in the plaint are to be considered – Mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and do not confer title – Plaint indicated that mutation proceedings culminated in 2017 and the suit filed in 2019 was within limitation – [Paras 15–17].

Limitation Act – Articles 58 & 65 – Possession based on title – Suit for possession based on title carries a limitation period of 12 years from the date possession becomes adverse – Declaratory relief in such cases is a continuing right – Held, limitation for possession to prevail; suit not ex facie barred – [Paras 17, 20].

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – First suit of predecessor-in-interest rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 for being improperly framed – Fresh suit with appropriate relief not barred under Order 2 Rule 2 – [Para 22].

Mutation Proceedings – Mutation entries do not confer ownership rights but serve fiscal purposes; validity of will or title must be tested in civil proceedings – [Para 16].

Adverse Possession – Question whether defendants perfected title by adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact—Cannot be basis for rejection of plaint at threshold—To be determined on evidence during trial – [Para 23].

Principle – When multiple reliefs are claimed, if any one relief is within limitation, plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – [Para 19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of the High Court dated 27.01.2022 and 04.07.2022 set aside – Order of the Trial Court rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 restored – Suit to proceed to trial on merits – [Para 23–24].

Service Law – Waiting List/Reserved Panel – Counsel’s Concession – High Court directed absorption on future SC vacancy relying on 15.01.1999 assurance – Held: Wait list is not a source of recruitment and operates only if a selected candidate does not join – A concession contrary to statutory Recruitment Rules is not binding; cannot be enforced to extend life of wait list or fill future vacancies – Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside [Paras 12–13, 15–18; 1997 process closed].

Waiting List – Nature and Operative Period – The Court reiterates that mere placement in a wait list/“Reserved Panel” confers no vested right; it operates only if a selected candidate does not join and cannot continue indefinitely or after a fresh recruitment begins – Reliance placed on Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn. v. State of Gujarat (three-Judge Bench) – Held, respondent’s right as a waitlisted candidate extinguished when all three selected candidates joined in 1997 [Para 12].

Concession by Counsel – Not Binding if Contrary to Law/Rules – The 15.01.1999 statement that respondent would be “absorbed” against next SC vacancy could not override Recruitment Rules or revive a closed selection – Wrong concession on law by counsel is not binding on the client; Court refers to Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan and Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha v. K. Santhakumari – Held, State can place correct legal position and decline to act on an erroneous concession that violates statutory Rules [Paras 15–16, 17].

Future Vacancies & Prejudice to Fresh Candidates – Giving effect to the 1999 concession would fill posts in subsequent recruitment from an earlier list, prejudicing new aspirants and impermissibly extending the life of the wait list – Hence, the High Court’s absorption direction is unsustainable [Para 17].

Facts – 1997 selection for three SC Technician posts; respondent placed first in Reserved Panel; all three selectees joined; multiple rounds before CAT/High Court; 2013 recruitment and interim “one post to be kept vacant” order; ultimate HC (25.06.2024) direction to absorb with notional effect from 19.07.2013 set aside [Paras 3–11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Calcutta High Court’s judgment dated 25.06.2024 set aside – Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 18].