1. Section 28 of the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 stipulates only a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate First Class shall be the competent court to try offences punishable under the PC & PNDT Act and a Police has no authority to take cognizance of such offences. For the offences punishable under Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and 315 of the IPC, burden lies upon the accused to establish that the act has been done in good faith.

2. The trial Court power conferred under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot put leading question as to the directly commission of alleged offence by the accused person which may prompt witness to say affirmatively.

3. Even in a case of minor penalty, delinquent employee is required to be afforded an opportunity to meet the allegations and submit his explanation and such opportunity is the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirement cannot be dispensed with.

4. The executing Court cannot convert the execution proceeding into contempt proceeding against individual officers who are not personally liable under the award, as a mechanism for execution of money award.

5. The power to take action on the ground of supression of criminal antecedents must be exercised objectively and reasonably, upon due consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case and such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or mechanically.

6. An interim order staying termination amounts to quashing the termination order or obliterate it from existence. Ordinarily, Courts should not permit an employee to continue in public office merely on the strength of an interim order, as continuation may amount to usurpation of a public office if the writ petition ultimately fails.

7. Fixation of quota for promotion on a particular post in feeder cadre based upon the structure and pattern of the Department is prerogative of the employer.

8. Mere failure to pass an order of continuation within 90 days does not, by itself, invalidate the order of suspension under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966, where the departmental charge-sheet has been served upon the delinquent employee within the said period. However, prolonged suspension cannot be continued mechanically and must remain subject to periodic and meaningful review by the competent authority.

9. When a special enactment provides a statutory efficacious mechanism for redressal of the grievance, the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction u/Article 226 of the Constitution.

10. The fixation of benchmark falls within the exclusive domain and discretion of the DPC/ Selection Committee. Ordinarily, the same cannot be interfered with unless it is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory or contrary to any statutory provision.