Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“It is open to the High Court to prescribe the criteria including cut off marks and ‘minimum marks qualification’ as has been envisaged in clause 8.4 of the notifications to assess the merit and suitability of the candidates to perform the sacrosanct duties of Judicial Officer.”
“It is difficult to comprehend that an officer who had no adverse remarks in his entire career spanning 30 years, behaved and conducted himself in such a manner, compelling the Administrative Judge to categorize the District and Sessions Judge from ‘Very Good’ in 2009-10, down to ‘C’ (doubtful integrity) in 2010-2011.”
“Non-Performing Assets are a huge burden on the public exchequer, banking and financial system, and, thus, prompt enforcement of recovery mechanism under the SARFAESI Act is paramount for liquidity in the system”.
In the present case, the petitioner had appeared in Civil Judge examination of 2016. In 2019, he had sought modification of marks obtained in the mains examination and eventually to be called for viva-voce.
Because of his own default, the petitioner could not appear in the entrance examination held by the respondent and now seeks a direction for holding a fresh entrance examination only for him or allowance to appear without crossing the barrier of the entrance examination.
The Court requested Additional Solicitor General of India, to file reply on the point that there is no notification by the Government of India for constitution of Medical Health Review Board under Section 73 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 for Union Territory, Chandigarh.
“The precious time of this Court has been wasted in adjudicating this avoidable piece of litigation which the petitioner was compelled to initiate due to cause given by the respondents in blatant violation of law.”
The Court stated that the Water and Air Rules empowered the State to appoint a single- or three-member body as the Appellate Authority. Thus, if the State, vide the impugned notifications, opted for a single-member Appellate Authority, then the power exercised by the State was within the four corners of the said enactments.
“Since there exist adequate statutory frameworks for redressal of these grievances, including the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025, there arises no occasion for the Court to entertain the petition under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.”
The Court held that the offence of illegal mining in rivers needed to be taken seriously despite less punishment prescribed under law.
“To permit nearly four decades to elapse without any discernible, substantive action flowing from a statutory declaration is, to put it mildly, an affront to the principles of effective governance and a manifest failure at the end of concerned officers, both statutory and constitutional.”
“It is one thing for this Court to hold that the original assessment is infirm to such an extent as to warrant reevaluation; it is quite another and indeed impermissible for it to delve into the academic merit of an answer and render its own evaluative opinion thereon.”
‘Deemed confirmation is a perilous concept in service jurisprudence which has long been discarded since it erodes the power of the employer to assess work, conduct, and behaviour of the probationer.’
The Court held that the issue of declaration of a particular place as a Memorial, or naming it differently, or the declaration of deceased persons as Martyr/ Shaheed was within the exclusive domain of policy decision of the State.
On 01-05-2025, allegedly, Punjab forcibly took control of the operations and management of the Bhakhra Nangal Dam and Lohand Control Room Water Regulation Offices by deploying a large number of police personnel with the ultimate object of forcibly preventing the Bhakra Beas Management Board from releasing water to Haryana.
The Court rebuked the State for pursuing litigation mechanically and indifferently without any application of mind while imposing a cost of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs on HPSC.
“The invocation of equitable jurisdiction does not confer upon the Court an unfettered prerogative to render orders in complete defiance or in oblivion of the established tenets of the law of the land.”
The petitioners’ case was that since the allegations of recruitment scam turned out to be misfounded and petitioners were acquitted of the same, hence, they deserved to be appointed.
The petitioner answered the question correctly but was not awarded marks, even though other candidates were awarded marks for the same answer.
The Court noted that the report of Administrative Judge with regard to work and conduct of the petitioner was also without granting him an opportunity of being heard.