1. Pay scales and cadre hierarchies lie within the exclusive domain of policy-making, and the Courts ordinarily refrain from interfering with such matters. Judicial intervention becomes warranted only if it is demonstrably shown that the policy or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory in nature. Mere dissatisfaction with the structuring of pay or cadre levels does not justify judicial interference, as these are matters entrusted to the administrative and executive domain.

2. A candidate included in a validly prepared select panel does not obtain a vested right to appointment, but is entitled to due, fair, and lawful consideration for such appointment. The appointing authority cannot disregard the select panel or refuse appointment arbitrarily or on extraneous grounds. When a duly selected candidate stands in merit and a corresponding vacancy exists, appointment may be denied only for cogent and justifiable reasons. The Government’s unexplained inaction, coupled with its failure to furnish any reason for the delay or non-issuance of appointments, renders the decision arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

3. Sale of property on “as is where is” basis encumbrances, including statutory dues, pass to purchaser. Condition u/S 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 requiring a new owner to clear arrears of the previous owner before grant of electricity supply, as the same has statutory character and is binding on the purchaser.

4. Mere dissatisfaction with the authority’s decision, or a bare claim of parity, cannot by itself invoke the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction. Unless the litigants establish infringement of a legal or vested right or demonstrate arbitrariness, discrimination, or any other constitutional infirmity in the decision-making process, the Court will not interfere. As judicial review is confined to examining the process and not the merits of the decision, absence of illegality, procedural lapse, unsustainable. or irrationality renders the challenge

5. An uncommunicated ACR, and even an ACR communicated at an inordinately delayed stage, cannot be taken into consideration for any adverse service consequence. The principles of natural justice mandate timely communication of all entries, particularly adverse remarks, so as to afford the employee a fair opportunity to represent and seek redress. Any performance assessment that is not duly and promptly conveyed loses its evidentiary value and cannot lawfully form the basis for denial of promotion, selection, or other service benefits.

6. No retrospective promotion or retrospective seniority can be granted from a date when the employee had not even been borne in the cadre. Such retrospective benefits, if conferred, would prejudicially affect the rights of validly appointed direct recruits in the interregnum and are, therefore, impermissible in law.

7. When there is overwhelming evidence with regard to participation of the accused(s) in the substantive offence in question, then acquitting some of the accused for the substantive offence and convicting them merely for conspiracy on mis-appreciation of evidence, cannot be justified.

8. The Court has no jurisdiction to direct the State to create or sanction posts, provide promotional avenues, or amend statutory service rules. Creation of posts, structuring of cadres, and amendment of recruitment rules fall exclusively within the executive and legislative domain.

9. When the prosecution case is marred by a vitiated identification process, absence of scientific or medical corroboration, material contradictions in key witness statements, and significant investigative lapses, the evidentiary foundation becomes too weak to sustain conviction. Even in sensitive offences, the law requires the prosecution to establish identity and participation of the accused with certainty. Where such proof is doubtful, the benefit of doubt must necessarily follow in favour of the accused.

10. While granting admissions, especially to higher and specialised courses, merit must prevail to safeguard educational standards; relaxing merit at such levels under the guise of institutional reservation or domicile reservation would risk compromising critical professional excellence.