Constitution of India , Art.142, Art.14— Permanent Commission - Departmental examination for - Entitlement to appear for - By virtue of amendment to Army Instructions, appellant was deprived of her third chance to take up departmental examination for permanent commission - Consequent to order of Principal Bench passed in litigation initiated by other officers, permanent commissions were granted to officers who were eligible prior to amendment to avail a third chance but could not avail in view of amendment - Appellant was not considered because she was not party to the original application - It is settled law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court - Exclusion of appellant from consideration when other similarly situated officers were considered and granted permanent commission, was erroneous.

(1975) 4 SCC 714 :AIR 1975 SC 538-Relied on(Paras1718192324)

(Para 17 18 19 23 24)

Constitution of India , Art.226— NEET- PG 2024 - State Merit list - Petitioners who appeared in NEET-PG examination, sought direction to respondents to redraw State Merit list for in-service candidates - NBEMS notified that percentile based normalisation process, used by AIIMS for its various examinations conducted in more than one shift, would be adopted - Overall merit/ranking was based on percentile score of 'raw score' obtained by candidates in their respective shift - NBEMS had prepared All India Merit List adopting normalisation process and comparative merit list was prepared by applying percentile method - For preparation of State List, they had gone back to raw scores pre normalisation and added incentivised marks to raw scores and then applied normalisation process - To demonstrate anomaly caused by adopting grant of incentive marks on raw scores and not on normalised scores while preparing State List, candidates who were higher in comparative merit in their All India ranking have become lower in merit to same individual in State Merit List - There was fallacy in method adopted by NBEMS - Methodology of percentile as contended by NBEMS does not reflect substantive merit of candidate but comparative merit of candidate - It completely defies logic as to how a candidate who had scored higher in comparison to another candidate in All India rank list had scored lower in State List in comparison to same candidate - State Merit List for NEET-PG 2024 examination was quashed - Directions were issued to NBEMS to prepare State Merit List afresh by awarding incentivised marks to in-service candidates, not on their raw scores but on their normalised scores.

(Para 18 25 31 34)

Constitution of India , Art.32— Investigation - Transfer to independent agency - Prayer for - Respondent was a parliamentarian from ruling party in State and petitioner belonged to ruling party at Centre - Petitioner was married to daughter of respondent but the marriage ended in divorce - There was enmity between petitioner and respondent - Petitioner alleged that his house and car were surrounded by goons of State ruling politicians and when he was about to leave his house along with CISF security guards, his life was saved by his guards who had suffered injuries in melee to protect him - Local police had failed to take any action, rather, under political pressure, two FIRs were registered against petitioner and security personnel of CISF - Matter of entrusting investigation to a particular agency is basically discretion of Court which has to be exercised on sound legal principles - Prejudice would not be caused to either of parties if investigation was conducted by an independent agency other than State police - Considering fact that respondent was a parliamentarian from ruling party in State and petitioner belonged to ruling party at Centre, politically charged atmosphere in State may not be conducive to a fair investigation being conducted - Moreover, case involved investigation of role of CISF or its personnel which could not be left in hands of local police for reason of conflicting interests - Writ of mandamus was issued for transferring investigation to CBI.

Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.341, S.325, S.326, S.307, S.354, S.504, S.506, S.34, S.354A— AIR 2010 SC 1476-FollowedAIR 2010 SC 3175-Followed2013 Cri LJ 4464 (SC)-FollowedAIR 1994 SC 38-Followed(Paras25263435)

(Para 25 26 34 35)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.389— Suspension of sentence - In pending appeal - Documents revealed that accused had not carried any weapon with him - Evidence of witness revealed that there was scuffle between accused and deceased and in that scuffle accused had snatched knife from hands of deceased and inflicted injury to his stomach - This witness also admitted that knife was belonging to deceased - At relevant time, prima facie there was no intention of accused to kill deceased - Prima facie, there was scope to succeed in appeal on ground of self defence - Sentence passed by Sessions Judge was suspended.

(Para 7)

Constitution of India , Art.226— Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act (11 of 2016) , S.8(5)— Writ petition - Alternative remedy - Petitioner had challenged order passed by Prescribed Authority whereby petitioner was declared disqualified for holding post of Pradhan - Order is appealable and appeal would lie before Chief Development Officer - Petitioner was relegated to avail remedy of appeal.

(Para 7)