8.8 Lakh Execution Petitions Pending Across Country :

8.8 Lakh Execution Petitions Pending Across Country : 

Supreme Court Expresses Alarm, Asks High Courts To Ensure Speedy Disposals 

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 18 Oct 2025 10:26 AM

The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over the alarming pendency of execution petitions across the country, revealing that 8,82,578 execution petitions remain pending before district courts nationwide, despite earlier directions to High Courts to ensure their disposal within six months.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal was monitoring compliance with its March 6, 2025 order in Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr., which set a 6 month limit to dispose of execution petitions.

The Court described the statistics received from the High Courts as “highly disappointing" and "alarming."

The data compiled from all High Courts shows that Bombay (3.41 lakh), Madras (86,148), Kerala (82,997), and Andhra Pradesh (68,137) are among the jurisdictions with the highest pendency. The Court noted that while 3,38,685 execution petitions were disposed of in the last six months, the backlog remains massive.

The statistics which we have received are highly disappointing. The figures of the pendency of the execution petitions across the country are alarming.

The Bench recorded its displeasure that the Karnataka High Court had failed to furnish the required data, despite explicit directions. The Court directed the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court to submit an explanation within two weeks and to immediately provide the updated figures on pendency and disposal.

Reiterating its earlier directions, the Supreme Court asked High Courts to ensure effective follow-up with their district judiciary for the disposal of pending execution petitions.

"As observed in our main Judgment, after the decree is passed, if it is going to take years and years to execute the decree, then it makes no sense and would be nothing short of travesty of justice,"the Bench remarked.

Calling upon the High Courts to evolve effective procedures and monitoring mechanisms, the Court fixed April 10, 2026 for the next review of compliance, directing that complete figures on the status of execution petitions ,including those pending on the original side, be furnished before the next hearing.

"We once again request all the High Courts to evolve some procedure and guide their respective District judiciary for effective and expeditious disposal of the execution petitions which are pending as on date."

The Supreme Court Registry has been directed to forward a copy of this order to all High Courts for immediate action.

Case : Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. | Miscellaneous Application Nos.1889-1891/2025 in C.A. Nos.3640- 3642/2025

Can SC/ST Community Status Of Govt Employee Be Verified After Retirement? Madras High Court Delivers Split Verdict

Can SC/ST Community Status Of Govt Employee Be Verified After Retirement? 

Madras High Court Delivers Split Verdict 

Upasana Sajeev 13 Aug 2025 5:00 PM

The Madras High Court has delivered a split verdict on whether the community status of a government employee can be verified/scrutinised after their retirement.

While Justice Nisha Banu opined that reopening the verification of a community certificate would amount to re-litigation, Justice M Jothiraman opined that once a verification starts, it should continue till its conclusion.

Since contradictory views have been taken by the judges, the Registry has been directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for further action.

Also Read - Recreational Clubs Selling Liquor Becoming 'Nuisance', Govt Allowing It Because Owners Are Influential/ Politicians: Madras High Court The court was hearing two writ petitions filed by M Gunasekaran and G Thangavel seeking to restrain the SC/ST Vigilance Cell from conducting verification of their respective caste status. In both cases, the persons were issued notices calling upon them to appear for an enquiry in connection with the verification of their community certificate, years after their retirement.

The petitioners submitted that the High Court had consistently taken a view that after the retirement of an employee, the process of verification would be academic and had restrained the committee/verifying authority from proceeding further.

Also Read - Wife Holding Immovable Properties & Substantial Income Does Not Need Interim Maintenance To Live Comfortably: Madras High Court The petitioners submitted that they had not been summoned for more than 40 years for verification and had even attained superannuation. It was thus submitted that the authorities should be refrained from conducting verification. The petitioners also filed an affidavit undertaking that they would not make any claim or concession based on their community certificate.

On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader submitted that the summons and show cause notice have been issued to the petitioners for only appearing before the authority to submit an explanation along with proof of documents, and no adverse orders had been made. The court was also informed that the authorities were taking steps to verify the genuineness of the community certificate following an order of the Supreme Court.

Justice Nisha Banu noted that in a previous order, the court had held that the action of the authorities in initiating vigilance enquiry after superannuation was not sustainable.

In the present cases, the court noted that the authorities had taken up the verification 4 years and 7 years respectively after the retirement, which was uncalled for. The judge observed that the inordinate delay on the part of the authorities in initiating the enquiry was highly unreasonable and could not be justified under any acceptable standard of prompt administrative action.

The judge also took into account an Office Memorandum placed before the Supreme Court by the Joint Secretary, Lok Sabha Secretariat, which specified that only community certificates of employees inducted into Government Service after 1995 could be subjected to scrutiny/verification. The judge also noted that as per the Government Order issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu which specified the functions of a Vigilance Cell, the inquiry should be completed within a period not exceeding two months.

“Once a government servant has retired and completed all service verifications during his tenure, reopening of the community certificate issue amounts to re-litigation. It is pertinent to note that the employer accepted the community certificates at the time of appointment of the petitioners and did not raise any issue during the long years of service of the petitioners. A retired employee has a legitimate expectation that benefits earned during service will not be taken away arbitrarily after retirement. When a community certificate is issued and accepted for decades, and no concerns are raised, then there is a presumption that such certificates are valid and the information contained within it are accurate,” the judge observed. Thus, considering all the factors, Justice Nisha Banu opined that the authorities could not keep the matter pending for months/years together in the garb of verification of community certificates, especially when a time limit had been fixed for completing the verification. She was thus inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings initiated by the authorities.

Justice Jothiraman's observation

Justice Jothiraman took a different view and noted that once a verification is started, it shall continue till its conclusion. He added that mere undertaking affidavits filed by the petitioners were not sustainable under law, and could not be accepted to close the verification process.

“I am of the view that verification once started shall continue till its conclusion and mere acceptance of undertaking affidavits filed by the petitioners for restraining the authorities is not sustainable under law when the authorities are empowered to issue the impugned notices calling upon the petitioners for enquiry to verify the genuineness of their community certificates in order to ensure implementation of constitutional reservation benefits to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and therefore, the same cannot be quashed at this stage. There is no merits in these petitions and the same is liable to be dismissed,” the judge said. The judge also highlighted the order of the Supreme Court in which the court had opined that there was a huge racket in Tamil Nadu for issuing community certificate and had directed the State Level Scrutiny Committee to conduct an extensive enquiry into the same and file a report.

Considering the observations made by the Supreme Court, the judge opined that the verification of the community certificate could not be quashed at this stage. Thus, the judge found no merits in the plea and was inclined to dismiss the same.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V. Vijay Shankar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Vadivel Deenadayalan Addl. Govt. Pleader, Mr. Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public Prosecutor

Case Title: M Gunasekaran v. The State Level Scrutiny Committee – II and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 275

Case No: W.P.No.24381 of 2025

Saveetha School of Law opens mediation centre

Saveetha School of Law opens mediation centre 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

08.07.2025

Chennai : Saveetha School of Law, Maadhyam International Council for Conflict Resolution, inaugurated the Maadhyam–SSL Mediation and Conflict Resolution Centre on July 5 at the Heritage Guild, SIMATS. The centre aims to promote non-adversarial dispute resolution and train students, legal professionals, and stakeholders in mediation. Senior advocate and Maadhyam president Amarjit Singh Chandhiok spoke on the growing role of mediation in India’s legal system. The initiative is expected to promote alternative dispute resolution practices and practical legal training.

'Court Can't Compel Any State To Adopt National Education Policy' : Supreme Court

'Court Can't Compel Any State To Adopt National Education Policy' : Supreme Court

Dismisses Plea To Implement NEP In Tamil Nadu 

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 9 May 2025 11:25 AM

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a person seeking to direct the State of Tamil Nadu to implement the National Education Policy (2020) including its 'three-language formula'. 

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that the Court cannot issue any direction under Article 32 of the Constitution to compel any State to adopt the NEP.

Dismissing the petition filed by one GS Mani, the Court said : "Whether the States should adopt the National Education Policy 2020 or not is a vexed issue. The Supreme Court, through Article 32 of the Constitution, can issue directives to ensure that the rights of the citizens are protected. It cannot directly compel a State to adopt a policy like the National Education Policy 2020. 

The Court may, however, intervene if a State's action or inaction related to the National Education Policy violates any fundamental rights. We do not propose to examine this issue in this writ petition. We believe that the petitioner has nothing to do with the cause he proposes to espouse. Although he may be from the State of Tamil Nadu, yet on his own admission, he is residing in New Delhi. In such circumstances, this petition stands dismissed." 

The bench also added that the "main issue may be examined by the Court in an appropriate proceeding." As soon as the matter was taken, the bench asked the petitioner, who was appearing in person, "Who are you? How are you concerned with the National Education Policy?". 

The petitioner, saying that he is from Tamil Nadu and is now settled in Delhi, said that because of "this kind of policy" (Tamil Nadu schools not teaching Hindi), he could not learn Hindi easily. 

"Then learn Hindi now in Delhi, na?" Justice Pardiwala told the petitioner. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin recently said that the NEP 2020 will not be implemented in the State, saying that its three-language formula was an attempt to impose Hindi. 

Case : G.S. MANI vs Government of Tamil Nadu and others | W.P.(C) No. 260/2025 

MP High Court Orders Medical College To Return Original Documents Of Student Who Wished To Leave His Seat & Return To Home State

MP High Court Orders Medical College To Return Original Documents Of Student Who Wished To Leave His Seat & Return To Home State

Anukriti Mishra

17 Apr 2025 7:00 PM

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed Government Bundelkhand Medical College in Sagar to return the original documents of a student from Manipur along with No-Objection Certificate who stated that he wants to quit his three-year course in Second year and return to his home state due to unforeseen circumstances therein.

The student had moved the high court after the college had asked him to deposit Rs. 30 Lakh to leave the seat invoking the provision of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules 2018. The plea challenges the provision of the rules as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. As interim relief the plea sought a direction to the college to give back his original certificates immediately so that he can pursue the next post graduation course in his home state, during the pendency of the plea.

A division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain while issuing notice on the plea in its order said, “The respondent No.3 is directed to return the original documents along with No Objection Certificate to the petitioner on due acknowledgement and the same shall remain subject to final outcome of the writ petition.”

According to the plea, the petitioner was granted admission in the course of MD (Physiology) in Government Bundelkhand Medical College, Sagar (Respondent No.3) in the Sessions 2022-23 from All India Quota as an OBC Category candidate. However, the petitioner has said that he wants to leave the seat for various personal reasons and circumstances and wants to re-appear in NEET (Pre-PG) Examination, 2025.

As per the plea, due to unforeseen circumstances in the State of Manipur which is the home State of the petitioner, the petitioner has to rush to his home State and has to pursue his further studies only in the North-East States of India because of his parents and female members in the family. It is stated that the petitioner had to take a decision to leave the seat in the interest of his family and stay in North-East as he is the only active male member in the entire family.

The petitioner had submitted all his original documents to the college at the time of admission. To pursue his further studies in the North-East, the NOC as well as the original documents are required immediately for admission. The said documents are being denied by Respondent No. 3 on the ground that as per the M.P. Chikitsa Shiksha Praves Niyam, 2018, an amount of Rs. 30 lacs have to be deposited.

Rule 15(1) (Kha) of M.P. Chikitsa Shiksha Praves Niyam, 2018 states that if a person leaves the seat allotted to him then he has to deposit Rs. 30,00,000/- as a seat leaving condition in favour of the college. It is contended that since the petitioner belongs to lower-strata of the society, it is not possible for him to pay such a hefty fee.

It is also contended that the State govt abolished the Rs. 30 lakh penalty rule in 2025 on advice of National Medical Commission.

Therefore, the petition has been filed on the ground that Rule 15(1) (Kha) of M.P. Chikitsa Shiksha Praves Niyam, 2018, in which a demand of Rs.30,00,000/- for leaving the seats of post-graduation by the petitioner is ultra vires to Article 14 (Right to Equality) & 19(1)(g) (Right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) of the Constitution of India.

Thus, the petitioner prayed to declare Rule 15(1) (Kha) of M.P. Chikitsa Shiksha Praves Niyam, 2018 as ultra vires to Article 14 & 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India and to return original documents of the petitioner and grant him No-Objection Certificate.

During the hearing on April 8, the Court directed Government Bundelkhand Medical College, Sagar to return the original documents along with No Objection Certificate to the petitioner.

Case Title: Dr. Thongam Yaiphaba Singh Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 6922 Of 2025

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Aditya Sanghi

Counsel for Respondent/State: Advocate Ritwik Parashar

"Justice Hurried Is Justice Buried": Madras High Court Upholds Order Quashing Disciplinary Proceeding Conducted Within Two Weeks

"Justice Hurried Is Justice Buried": Madras High Court Upholds Order Quashing Disciplinary Proceeding Conducted Within Two Weeks

Upasana Sajeev

2 Apr 2025 6:43 PM

The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the General Manager & Reviewing Authority of the Canara Bank against an order of the single judge quashing the disciplinary proceedings against an employee.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice P Vadamalai noted that while disciplinary proceedings usually take a few months to conclude, the disciplinary proceedings in the present case were concluded within two weeks. The court thus said that the committee had shown undue hate for bringing the enquiry to a closure.

Also Read - One-Year LLM Program Approved By UGC, Valid For Getting Appointment In Public Departments Or Universities: Madras High Court

“We take judicial notice of the fact that disciplinary proceedings of this nature would normally take at least a few months to conclude. 'Justice hurried is justice buried' is a well known adage. It is inconceivable that the entire proceedings could have been concluded in a fair manner within a period of two weeks,” the court said.

The court remarked that disciplinary proceedings are not like a bullet train journey and should be conducted in a manner with a possibility of “two roads diverging in the yellow woods”. While the court noted that the proceedings need not be slow, it had to be carried on with a reasonable speed. The court added that the proceedings should be permeated with fairness and the end result should not be premeditated.

Also Read - If Complaint Discloses Prima Facie Allegations, Malafide Intention Of Complainant Of No Consequence: Madras HC Denies Relief To Ma Subramanian

“A disciplinary proceeding should not resemble a point to point bullet train journey. A charge memo need not necessarily culminate in punishment. The delinquent employee stands the chance of being exonerated also. The proceeding should therefore be conducted in a manner that is pregnant with the possibility of “two roads diverging in the yellow woods”. There must be halting stations. And the halts should be meaningful and not for the sake of it. The process need not be necessarily slow. It can very well be carried on with reasonable speed and despatch. The Judge carrying out the task of judicial review must get the feeling that the entire process was permeated with fairness and that the end result was not predetermined,” the court said.

Also Read - High Court Asks Senior Advocate To Enquire Into Genuineness Of Exam Conducted By Madras University Upon Student's Plea

The court was hearing the appeal filed by the management against the order of the single judge setting aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority against the authority. The allegation against the employee was that while working as the Branch Manager of Canara Bank from 2007 to 2009, he had sanctioned a large number of loans in favour of self-help groups. He was later transferred in 2009. A charge memo was issued in 2012 containing seven articles of charge.

Also Read - Madras High Court Asks Govt Advocate To Evaluate Criminology Paper Of Law Student, Doubts Transparency Of Ambedkar Law University

The court noted that though the employee was called on to offer his explanation within 15 days, the enquiry commenced without waiting for his reply and was completed within 2 days. The enquiry officer also submitted that report within a few days and the employee's representation was also obtained on the same day. The disciplinary authority passed an order after 4 days agreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer and imposing a punishment of dismissal from service.

The management argued that the in-house investigation reports clearly revealed that the employee, as a sanctioning authority, did not adhere to the procedure laid down in the bank norms and due to the improper, irregular, and fraudulent loan disbursement, the bank suffered huge financial loss. Thus, it was argued that the bank was justified in imposing the punishment. Challenging the order of the single judge, the bank management argued that the writ court could not assume the function of a fact finder or decide the quantum of punishment to be awarded.

The court noted that though procedure was followed, there was undue haste. The court noted that the employee was given only 15 days to offer his explanation and the enquiry commenced even without waiting for his reply. The court also noted that the enquiry officer had marked 96 documents and examined 17 witnesses within 2 days. Further, the court also noted that the enquiry report was furnished to the delinquent even before submitting it to the disciplinary authority. Thus, the court deemed the entire exercise to be “whirlwind proceedings”.

From the entire sequence of events, the court also suggested that the employee seemed to have been given an assurance that he would be let off lightly if he cooperated, as no employee would otherwise willingly participate in the proceedings without submitting his defence statement. The court held that the employee was led like a lamb to be mercilessly slaughtered. The court concluded that the process was not fair and an interference was justified.

“When it comes to adherence to principles of procedural fairness, we would expect the employer to be an exemplar. They cannot take advantage of the acquiescence on the part of the employee. By no stretch of imagination can the process that had taken place in this case held to be fair. On this sole ground, interference is justified,” the court said.

The court also noted that the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority did not detail the defences taken by the employee. The court thus agreed with the single judge that the orders were non-speaking ones. Considering all the facts, the court found no reason to interfere with the order of the single judge and dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. N. Dilip Kumar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M.E.Ilango

Case Title: The General Manager and Others v. SV. Mothilal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 126

Case No: WA(MD)No.932 of 2021

One-Year LLM Program Approved By UGC, Valid For Getting Appointment In Public Departments Or Universities: Madras High Court

One-Year LLM Program Approved By UGC, Valid For Getting Appointment In Public Departments Or Universities: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

3 Apr 2025 7:15 PM

The Madras High Court recently observed that that the one-year LLM programme was approved by the UGC and could not be held to be invalid for getting appointed into public departments or Universities. The court thus asked the Teachers Recruitment Board to include the name of a woman whose name was withheld merely because she had done a one-year LLM course.

Justice RN Manjula observed that the notification for appointment did not prescribe that one of the requirements for the appointment was only a two-year LLM degree. The court observed that while the employer could demand the educational requirement for a post, the qualification contemplated could not be arbitrary and bring in discrimination between similar courses.

Also Read - If Complaint Discloses Prima Facie Allegations, Malafide Intention Of Complainant Of No Consequence: Madras HC Denies Relief To Ma Subramanian

“Even though the employer is a rightful person who should demand the educational requirement for a post to be filled up in this regard, the qualification contemplated by the employer shall not make any arbitrary discrimination between equivalent and similar course without any valid basis,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition was filed by Sangeetha Sriraam challenging the provisional selection list of candidates published by the Teachers Recruitment Board and to direct the Board to appoint her to the post of Assistant Professor against the vacancy in Human Rights Department.

Also Read - High Court Asks Senior Advocate To Enquire Into Genuineness Of Exam Conducted By Madras University Upon Student's Plea

The petitioner informed the court that she had applied to the post of “Assistant Professor” (Human Rights) when the notification was issued by the Board. She submitted that she had attended the written examination and topped it by obtaining 133 marks out of 175 and got a call letter from the Board for attending the interview. Following this she attended the interview. However, when the provisional selection of candidates was published, her name was not on the list and the candidates who had obtained lesser marks than the petitioner found place in the selection list.

Also Read - Madras High Court Asks Govt Advocate To Evaluate Criminology Paper Of Law Student, Doubts Transparency Of Ambedkar Law University

The petitioner argued that even if the other candidates had obtained full marks, she could not have been excluded from the selection list. She also submitted that if her interview marks were clubbed with her written examination mark, she would be ahead of the selected candidates.

Opposing the plea, the State argued that the petitioner's candidature could not be considered as she had qualified in LLM degree by doing one year LLM Programme while the degree required for appointment was two year LLM Programme.

Also Read - "Justice Hurried Is Justice Buried": Madras High Court Upholds Order Quashing Disciplinary Proceeding Conducted Within Two Weeks

The court, however, noted that the above requirement was informed to the petitioner only through the counter and not anytime before. The court also noted that as per the rules in the notification, the requirement regarding Master's Degree was 55% of mark or an equivalent grade in the point scale wherever the grade system is followed in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University. The court thus noted that the notification did not specify the two-year LLM requirements.

The court noted that through an earlier order, the court had held that one one-year LLM programme recognised by the UGC was accepted for the purpose of admission to PHD. The court added that when the same was allowed, there was no reason to reject the one-year LLM degree for the purpose of appointment.

“As stated already one year LLM Programme has been approved by UGC and that has been accepted as qualification to get enrolled in Ph.D. programme in Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University itself. It is needless to state that the University in which the petitioner had done her one year LLM course is one of the most reputed Law School in the country and it is needless to state that one year LLM course would have also included the research aspect as well. Under such circumstances, no invalidation can be attached to one year LLM degree for the purpose of getting appointment in the public departments or Universities,” the court said.

Thus, noting that the petitioner had proved her eligibility by securing first rank in written examination and that the authorities ought to have considered her candidature, the court directed the Board to include her name in the selection list and to release her appointment order.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Nirmalkumar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. R. Neelakandan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. R. Siddharath Standing Counsel for TRB, Mr. V. Umakanth, Mr. P. R. Gopinathan

Case Title: Dr. Sangeetha Sriraam v. The Teachers Recruitment Board and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 128

Case No: W.P.No.15473 of 2019

KWA Service | Once Appointed As Assistant Engineer, Right To Opt For Degree Or Diploma Quota For Promotion Remains Open: Supreme Court

KWA Service | Once Appointed As Assistant Engineer, Right To Opt For Degree Or Diploma Quota For Promotion Remains Open: Supreme Court

Pranav Kumar

27 Mar 2025 2:39 PM

The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's ruling on a seniority dispute between Kerala Water Authority's 'directly recruited' and 'promoted' Assistant Engineers. The Court held that Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (Subordinate Service Rules) and Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960 (Special Rules) govern completely separate cadres. The court further held that Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules applies only after appointment as Assistant Engineer, and cannot be applied for lower promotions.

Background

Six employees of the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) were initially employed as Draftsmen and later promoted to Assistant Engineers. Four of them joined between 2005 and 2014 and were promoted to Assistant Engineers between 2015-2018. Two private respondents - Anoop VS and Bindu S - had joined directly as Assistant Engineers in 2005 and 2017 respectively.

A seniority list released by KWA showed the original Draftsmen as senior to the two directly recruited Assistant Engineers. This was challenged before the Kerala High Court. The two private respondents argued that the other employees had been promoted under the 'diploma quota' and could not later claim benefits under the 'degree quota.'

The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of KWA and private respondents. It was held that Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules required promoted engineers to choose either the diploma or degree quota at the time of their promotion. The Division Bench upheld this decision, stating that employees who entered through the diploma quota could not switch to the degree quota later for further promotions. Aggrieved, Sajithabhai and other similarly situated employees approached the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Senior counsel Mr. Nikhil Goel, representing Sajithabhai, argued that the High Court erred in applying Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules at the stage of promotion to Assistant Engineer. He argued that appointments to Assistant Engineer are governed solely by the Subordinate Service Rules, which provide for recruitment through direct entry (60%) and promotion (40%). Under this scheme, 6% of the direct recruitment quota is reserved for in-service Draftsmen with engineering degrees. He argued that Sajithabhai, despite qualifying for the 6% quota, was promoted under the 40% quota.

Further, Goel submitted that the Special Rules apply only to promotions from Assistant Engineer to Assistant Executive Engineer. Rule 4(b) and its proviso gives an option to Assistant Engineers seeking further promotion but do not dictate how an individual becomes an Assistant Engineer. He further contended that the High Court's interpretation would unfairly disadvantage meritorious candidates who had both a diploma and degree, as it would allow a junior diploma-holder who obtained a degree later to surpass a senior.

Senior counsel Mr. V. Chitambaresh represented Kerala Water Authority and the private respondents. He argued that once the employees chose to be promoted under the diploma quota, they could not later claim seniority based on their degree qualifications. He relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Chandravathi P.K. v. C.K. Saji (2004 INSC 101), which held that once an employee opts for a particular quota, they cannot later switch between diploma and degree streams for promotions.

Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court first clarified that the Subordinate Service Rules and Special Rules govern different stages of employment. The Subordinate Service Rules apply to recruitment and promotion up to Assistant Engineer, while the Special Rules govern promotions beyond this rank. The Court held that the High Court erred in applying Rule 4(b) to appointments as Assistant Engineers, as this rule is relevant only for higher promotions.

Secondly, the Court held that Rule 4(b) gives an Assistant Engineer (regardless of their mode of entry) the option to choose between degree or diploma quota for promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer. The court rejected the High Court's finding that direct recruits and promotees must be placed in separate categories for seniority purposes. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that once an individual becomes an Assistant Engineer, their future promotions are governed by a uniform framework.

Thirdly, the Court also dismissed the reliance on Chandravathi P.K., noting that the issue in that case was unrelated to the present matter. The court clarified that Chandravathi P.K. dealt with weightage for pre-degree service in determining eligibility for promotion, while the present case is about the applicability of Rule 4(b).

Finally, the Court held that the High Court's interpretation would create an arbitrary distinction disadvantaging meritorious candidates. The court illustrated that a junior diploma-holder who obtained a degree after promotion could overtake a senior diploma-degree holder, leading to absurd results. Citing K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981 INSC 160), the Court reiterated that statutory interpretation must avoid such irrational and unintended consequences.

Thus, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgments. Restoring the seniority lists as originally published, the court held that promoted Assistant Engineers are not bound by their initial quota selection and may exercise their option under Rule 4(b). However, the court clarified that this applies only when seeking promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer.

Decided on: March 18, 2025

Neutral Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 358 | Sajithabhai & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors.

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Nikhil Goel

Counsel for the Private Respondents: Mr. V. Chitambaresh

Three-Day Absence During COVID Lockdown Not Justification For Compulsory Retirement; Kerala HC Reinstates Railway Employee With Full Benefits

Three-Day Absence During COVID Lockdown Not Justification For Compulsory Retirement; Kerala HC Reinstates Railway Employee With Full Benefits

Pranav Kumar

26 Mar 2025 12:16 PM

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar set aside the compulsory retirement of a Railway employee. As the only misconduct was unauthorized absence for three days during the pandemic, the court found the punishment to be grossly disproportionate. The court directed his immediate reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and ruled that his absence should be treated as casual leave in accordance with government COVID-related office memorandums.

Also Read - Employer Withholding Best Evidence, Grounds To Draw Adverse Inference In Favor Of Employee: Calcutta HC

Background

Nitheesh K., employed as Technician-III under the Railways, took medical emergency leave from 16th to 18th March 2020 to visit his native place in Kerala. He subsequently requested and was granted leave extension from 19 to 21 March. On 22nd March, the government declared a general curfew to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by a nationwide lockdown that continued until 2nd June 2020.

Also Read - Dismissal Is Last Resort; Disciplinary Authorities Must Consider Lesser Penalties Before Extreme Punishment: Chhattisgarh HC

During the lockdown period, Nitheesh remained at his native place. Eventually, on 31st July, he obtained a travel pass and reported for duty. Upon arrival, he sought regularization of his leave during the period of absence. He cited government circulars regarding the special casual leave considering COVID pandemic. The Railways rejected this request and issued a charge sheet alleging unauthorized absence from March to August 2020. Consequently, Nitheesh was penalised with compulsory retirement.

Also Read - Recovery Of Excess Amount Can't Be Permitted If Officer Is Not At Fault: Delhi High Court

He challenged this order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which found that the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate. The CAT directed the Union to consider imposing a lesser punishment. Consequently, the Railways demoted him to Assistant (Workshop) Grade with pay fixed at Rs.18,000/- for 48 months. Aggrieved, Nitheesh approached the High Court.

Arguments

Also Read - Repeated Misconduct Justifies Compulsory Retirement Under BSF Rules: J&K HC

Nitheesh argued that the punishment was disproportionate considering the COVID-19 pandemic. He pointed out that the workshop remained closed from 20.03.2020 to 02.06.2020, and his extended leave was only until 21.03.2020. He submitted that not being able to explain three days of absence (22nd to 24th March 2020) could not justify such severe punishment. He also submitted that similarly situated employees were granted exemptions or received lesser punishments for unexplained long absences.

The Union of India argued that unexplained absence of a government employee constitutes serious indiscipline that cannot be pardoned. While conceding that compulsory retirement might not be justified (as per the Tribunal's order), they maintained that the subsequent penalty of reduction in pay grade was appropriate.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the Court noted that Nitheesh was on sanctioned leave until 21.03.2020, and there was an undisputed nationwide lockdown beginning on 24.03.2020. The workshop too was closed from 20.03.2020 to 02.06.2020. In these circumstances, the Court found compulsory retirement to be disproportionate and a “wholly unjustified” punishment.

Secondly, the Court observed that the revised punishment amounted to withholding increments with cumulative effect, as it effectively takes away valuable service benefits for almost seven years. The court ruled that this too was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Thirdly, the Court highlighted that Nitheesh had demonstrated his commitment by traveling 400 km during the pandemic to report for duty, after which he was advised to undergo quarantine for 14 days. The Court concluded that there was “hardly any willful absence” on Nitheesh's part that could justify such severe punishment.

Thus, the Court set aside both the compulsory retirement order and the revised punishment order. As per the Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2020, the court directed the Union to treat Nitheesh's unauthorised absence for three days as casual leave. Consequently, the court ordered his reinstatement with all benefits within one month.

Decided on: 25.02.2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:16819 | Nitheesh K. v. Union of India

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Martin G. Thottan and Mr. Varghese John

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. R.V. Sreejith

'For 20 Yrs He Was Sleeping': Rajasthan High Court Rejects Govt Employee's Plea Against 2002 Penalty Stopping Yearly Increments

'For 20 Yrs He Was Sleeping': Rajasthan High Court Rejects Govt Employee's Plea Against 2002 Penalty Stopping Yearly Increments

Nupur Agrawal

25 Mar 2025 12:15 PM



Dismissing a government employee's plea challenging a penalty which stopped three annual grade increments as well as rejection of appeal and review petitions, the Rajasthan High Court observed that his plea was barred by delay of over two decades.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said,

"It appears that the petitioner was sleeping over the matter for more than two decades and all of sudden, he woke up after twenty years and approached this Court without giving any plausible explanation in the instant writ petition about the aforesaid inordinate delay".

Also Read - Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Lacks Jurisdiction To Issue Reassessment Notices U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner was imposed with the penalty of stoppage of 3 annual grade increments in 2002 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. An appeal as well as a review petition were filed against this 2002 order imposing penalty, but these were rejected in 2003 and 2004 respectively.

He then approached the high court in 2024 filing a petition challenging the original order imposing penalty as well as rejection of the appeal and the review petition against that order.

Also Read - IPR Violation Affects Public Interest, Courts Should Be Prompt In Granting Interim Injunction: Rajasthan High Court

The Court highlighted the settled position of law by making a reference to many Supreme Court decisions.

In the cases of New Delhi Municipal Council v Pan Singh and Others, as well as State of Uttaranchal and another v Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others it was held that irrespective of there being no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226, ordinarily it should be filed within a reasonable period. It was further held that relief to someone who put forth a stale claim could be refused on account of delay and laches because anyone sleeping over his rights was bound to suffer.

Also Read - Rajasthan HC Orders Woman's Appointment As Clerk Denied For Taking Back Original Documents In Bonafide Belief That Selection Process Is Over

Similarly, in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others v T.T.Murali Babu, it was held that,

“The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity… Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant “a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix.”

Also Read - Eligibility Should Be Checked At Threshold, Not After Selection: Rajasthan HC Orders Appointment Of Asha Worker Denied Post Despite Selection

In this background, the high court observed that the petitioner approached the court after a delay of almost 20 years without any satisfactory explanation for laches and delay, and law had already set its face against such indolent litigants.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Sudershan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 118

Government Employee Dying A Day Before 60th Birthday Is Deemed Under 60, Dependent Eligible For Compassionate Appointment : Calcutta HC

Government Employee Dying A Day Before 60th Birthday Is Deemed Under 60, Dependent Eligible For Compassionate Appointment : Calcutta HC

Namdev Singh

25 Mar 2025 1:15 PM




The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. held that a government employee is deemed not to have completed 60 years of age if they die one day before their 60th birthday, therefore making their dependent eligible for compassionate appointment.

Background Facts

The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground in a secondary school after death of his father. The date of birth of father was 2nd January, 1961. He turned sixty on January 1, 2021, the same day he passed away. The respondent refused the prayer of the petitioner. The reason assigned by the respondent in the memo dated 5th February, 2024 was attainment of age of sixty years by father of the petitioner on 1st January, 2021 when he died.

Also Read - Recovery Of Excess Amount Can't Be Permitted If Officer Is Not At Fault: Delhi High Court


The respondent decided on the basis of Schedule V of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 (Rules of 2009), that father of the petitioner attained sixty years on the date of his death, therefore, petitioner was not entitled to get benefit of appointment on compassionate ground.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition for quashing the memo dated 5th February, 2024 issued by the Assistant Secretary, West Bengal Regional School Service Commission.

Also Read - Repeated Misconduct Justifies Compulsory Retirement Under BSF Rules: J&K HC

It was contended by the petitioner that since date of birth of father of the petitioner was 2nd January, 1961 therefore, father of the petitioner did not complete sixty years on 1st January, 2021. He would have completed sixty years on 2nd January, 2021. It was further argued that, despite the petitioner's father's date of superannuation, the petitioner should have been considered an eligible candidate for appointment on compassionate grounds. It was stated that there was one day short to complete age of 60 years on the date of death, which makes the petitioner entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.

Also Read - Part-Time Teachers In Night Junior Colleges Not Entitled To Pensionary Benefits Under MEPS Rules: Bombay HC

Further petitioner relied on Rules 18 and 20 of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016. As per Rule 18, the superannuation date of father of the petitioner was 31st January, 2021. It was further submitted that Rule 20 states the financial hardship of family of deceased teacher and definition of family are to be taken into consideration in terms of Schedule V of the Rules of 2009.

Also Read - KWA Service | Once Appointed As Assistant Engineer, Right To Opt For Degree Or Diploma Quota For Promotion Remains Open: Supreme Court

On the other hand it was contended by the respondent that Rules of 2016 was not applicable but Schedule V of Rules of 2009 was applicable while adjudging eligibility of the petitioner to be appointed on compassionate ground. Clause 1 of Schedule V of the Rules of 2009 states that date of superannuation of father of petitioner was fixed on 31st January, 2021. However, father of the petitioner attained sixty years on 1st January, 2021 which makes the petitioner disentitled in the matter of granting appointment on compassionate ground. According to the respondent authorities, date of birth of father of the petitioner was 2nd January, 1961 and he completed sixty years of age on 1st January, 2021. Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.

Findings of the Court

The Clause 1 under Schedule V of the Rules of 2009 was relied upon by the court which provides that when a teacher or non-teaching staff dies in harness before the date of his superannuation that is the age of sixty years in that event only one of the family members of the deceased teacher /nonteaching staff is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.

It was observed by the court that father of the petitioner was scheduled to retire on 31st January, 2021 but unfortunately, he died on 1st January, 2021 when his age was 59 years 11 months and 29 days. If the father would have died on 2nd January, 2021 it could have been concluded that father completed sixty years of age.

It was further observed that had father of the petitioner died on 2nd January, 2021 then son would have been adjudged being not eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. But in the present case, since father died on the last date when he attained 60th year it cannot be concluded that the father completed sixty years.

Therefore, it was held by the court that there is no bar in considering application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground if father of the petitioner had died on the last date just before completing sixty years of age. Therefore, the memo dated 5th February, 2024 issued by the respondent was set aside by the court.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Name : Sk. Monikul Hossain VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.A. 28275 OF 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner : Firdous Samim, Gopa Biswas, Sampriti Saha, Swati Dey

Counsel for the Respondents : Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Biman Halder, Sunit Kumar Roy, Saibal Acharyya, Tanweer Jamil Mandal

Although MCI Regulations Allow 30% Of Faculty Positions To Be Reserved For Non-Medical Candidates In Colleges, It Is Not Mandatory: J&K High Court

Although MCI Regulations Allow 30% Of Faculty Positions To Be Reserved For Non-Medical Candidates In Colleges, It Is Not Mandatory: J&K High Court

Aleem Syeed

27 Mar 2025 4:25 PM

Clarifying the rules for recruitment in medical institutes, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the Medical Council of India (MCI) guidelines allow for up to 30% of the total appointments in certain departments to be from non-medical faculty, but there is no legal obligation to do so.

Respondent No.1, who was a non-medical candidate, had challenged the appointment on the basis that the institute was under an obligation to appoint 30% from non-medical candidates. The court however said that the contention of Respondent No.1, challenging the appointment of a candidate belonging to the medical category was without any basis.

A bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Puneet Gupta made it clear that the rule referred to by Respondent No.1 was not a mandatory provision but discretionary and further observed that even if a medical institute appoints all teachers from the medical category in departments such as Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, and Pharmacology, it cannot be said that the institute has violated the 30% norm laid down in the regulations.

The court noted that the posts in question were advertised in 2016, and by virtue of the said advertisement, both candidates from the medical and non-medical streams could apply. The court said that Respondent No.1 had the lowest score in the merit list, whereas Respondent No.4 had the highest marks and was accordingly selected for the post.

The court observed that in the presence of more meritorious candidates with medical qualifications, the unfilled post could not have been given to Respondent No.1, who was last in the merit list, solely on the basis that he possessed a non-medical qualification.

The court held that the contention of Respondent No.1, requiring the institute to mandatorily fill 30% of the seats from non-medical candidates, was totally misconceived and contrary to the regulations provided by the MCI.

The court ruled that the single bench had earlier operated on the wrong premise that the institute was obligated to fill 30% of posts from the non-medical category in each discipline.

The court also said that it is at the discretion of the medical institution concerned to appoint non-medical faculty in some departments, such as Pharmacology, but while doing so, the institution must ensure that the number of non-medical teachers does not exceed 30% of the total number of posts in the department.

BACKGROUND

The case revolves around the appointment of an Assistant Professor in the Department of Clinical Pharmacology at SKIMS, Srinagar. Respondent No.1 applied for the post of Assistant Professor, but Respondent No.4 was appointed to the position. Respondent No.1 challenged the selection process, arguing that SKIMS was obligated to fill 30% of faculty positions in Clinical Pharmacology with non-medical candidates as per Medical Council of India (MCI) norms.

The Single Judge of the High Court, in its judgment, directed SKIMS to reconsider his case for appointment retrospectively, prompting the appellant to file intra-court appeals.

APPEARANCE:

Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Junaid Malik, Advocate for Petitioners

M.Y.Bhat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.A.Bhat, Advocate for R-1

Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG with Ms. Rahella Khan, Advocate FOR Respondents

Case-title: Dr. Majid Farooq vs Dr. Majid Farooq, 2025

Time Is Precious, Courts Should Be Slow To Ignore Delay When Action Is Time-Barred: Madras High Court

Time Is Precious, Courts Should Be Slow To Ignore Delay When Action Is Time-Barred: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

17 Mar 2025 6:00 PM

The Madras High Court has stressed that courts should be slow to ignore delay once the limitation period for a particular suit expires and the action becomes time-barred.

Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the statute relating to limitation determines the life span of a legal remedy and as time passes, newer causes would come up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy. Remarking that time is precious, the court thus noted that if the life span of legal remedy was not followed, it may lead to unending uncertainty and anarchy.

“The statute relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy for redress of the legal injury, one has suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes would come up, necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the Courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea by Mayalagu challenging an order of the Director of Collegiate Education and to direct the authorities to give him notional promotion as Lab Assistant in VSS Government Arts College with all benefits.

Mayalagu submitted that he was initially appointed as a Sports Marker in the college. When the college intended to fill up the post of Lab Assistant with one post to be filled through direct recruitment and two posts through promotion, Mayalagu was not considered since a disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against him under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It was informed that he had been imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.

When the same was challenged before the writ court, the court directed the college to appoint Mayalagu as lab assistant pursuant to which he was promoted by proceedings dated May 27, 2013. During the pendency of the petition, his punishment was reduced to a censure. Since censure was not a bar to get promotion, Mayalagu submitted a representation in 2013 asking the authorities to promote him with effect from 2008, the date on which two of the three posts were filled up. This representation was rejected in 2019 following which Mayalagu retired.

The respondents challenged the petition and argued that it was filed belatedly after 2 years of his retirement. It was argued that at the belated stage, granting retrospective notional promotion was not feasible as it had become time-barred.

The court noted that there was no proper and satisfactory explanation for giving a belated representation and for filing the petition 2 years after retirement. Thus, the court opined that the claim could not be sustained on the grounds of laches.

The court added that while it cannot be presumed that a delay in approaching court was always deliberate, it was necessary to show sufficient cause for the delay. The court added that the “sufficient cause” must show that the delay was not deliberate, negligent and due to the casual approach of the litigant but was Bonafide die to reasons beyond the litigant's control.

In the present case, the court was not satisfied with the explanation rendered by the litigant. The court added that the delay remained virtually unexplained and thus, the court was not inclined to exercise judicial discretion to condone the delay. The court observed that after being promoted as Lab Assistant in 2013, the petitioner kept quiet for more than five years without making any request for notional promotion which would show that he had accepted the post.

Thus, finding no reason to interfere, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R. Suriya Narayanan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. D. Sadiq Raja, Additional Government Pleader

Case Title: S. Mayalagu v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 109

Case No: WP(MD) No.6979 of 2021

'Unacceptable': Gujarat High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost On Man For Joining VC Hearing From Lavatory

'Unacceptable': Gujarat High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost On Man For Joining VC Hearing From Lavatory

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

23 Mar 2025 9:10 AM

The Gujarat High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 2 Lakh on a man for attending court proceedings through video conferencing from a lavatory and has further asked him to perform community service by cleaning the gardens in the high court premises for two weeks.

In doing so the court rejected the man's contention that he had used the high court's website for the first time and thus committed a mistake noting that the 42-year-old man has a B.Sc. degree, and is working in a company. The court said that it cannot be accepted from the person like him that he was not well versed with the operation of the applications, adding that the "indecent act was not only unacceptable but shameful".

Justice MK Thakker in her order said:

"The video, which was viral and thereafter report was called for from Sola Police Station to trace out the person found in the video it reveals that on 17.02.2025 at 12:20 hours one person joined the link by showing the name as “Kanubhai” and he was in indecent manner, he was disconnected. Again, he joined, as the place from where he joined was a lavatory, he was again disconnected. Thereafter, by showing the number of the matter, namely, CRA 11948/2023 the person joined again. The son of the respondent No.2 is present before the Court, namely, Dhavalbhai Kanubhai Patel is having the educational qualification of B.Sc. aged around 42 years and serving in the Reliance Group. So it cannot be accepted from the person like a present, was not wellverse with the operation of the applications. In such scenario, the indecent act is not only unacceptable but it is a shameful and is required to be strictly condemned. If Courts do not deal with such a person with strong hands then, that may result lowering the dignity of the institution in the eyes of public"

It thus imposed exemplary costs of Rs.2,00,000 on the man to be deposited with the Registry within two weeks. The court further directed him to report to the Special Officer, Dedicated Cell at 10:00a.m. and perform community service by cleaning the gardens of the High Court under the supervision of the officer for two weeks.

"The Special Officer, Dedicated Cell, shall submit a report to the Court regarding the completion of the said service," the court added. It further asked the Registry to submit if a report on deposition of the costs, and said that if costs is not paid then further action will be taken.

The incident had occured during the hearing of a plea moved by Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited challenging a January 21, 2023 labour court order pertaining to a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act.

The court was informed by the counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 that his client's matter was listed on February 17 (Special Civil Application No.11948 of 2023) and therefore on "downloading the board from the High Court website and on clicking on zoom application as well as filling up password" his son had joined the online hearing.

"As it was the first time, he used the website of the High Court, such mistake was committed and therefore, he tendered his unconditional apology," the counsel said.

Meanwhile the Ahmedabad's Sola Police Station had in the previous hearing submitted a report to the court which stated that person who was found in the video, was not the person present in the Court on February 20, who is the petitioner in another petition. The report stated that the person in the video was the son of the respondent No.2 in Special Civil Application No.11948 of 2023.

The court had thus in its previous order had directed the respondent no. 2 as well as his son to be present in personally present in court on the next date of hearing.

Case title: GUJARAT STATE CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED v/s PRESIDENT OFFICER & ANR