1. Mere participation in the examination does not confer any vested or indefeasible right to appointment or even to declaration of result. The State is competent to cancel a recruitment process prior to its culmination if found inconsistent with statutory provisions, in order to prevent perpetuation of illegality. The doctrine that “rules of the game cannot be changed after commencement” is inapplicable where the change is necessitated to ensure conformity with binding statutory rules.

2. Misconduct involving indiscipline and repeated unauthorized absence constitutes a serious breach of service discipline and justifies the imposition of strict penalties by the disciplinary authority. The courts ought not to lightly interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shown to be shockingly disproportionate or vitiated by procedural irregularity, mala fides, or violation of principles of natural justice.

3. Courts, though not expert medical bodies, are empowered to judicially review the decision-making process to ensure that it is fair, transparent, and in accordance with established legal principles; however, in matters requiring medical expertise, they must accord due deference to, and ultimately rely upon, the opinion rendered by the Disability Assessment Board as the competent authority.

4. To establish a charge of conspiracy, the prosecution must prove the
existence of an agreement or meeting of minds between two or more persons to
commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Such an agreement must
be established either by direct evidence or by circumstances which unerringly
point towards a common design.

5. The plaint can be rejected on the ground of limitation only,
where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be
barred by any law. ‘Law’ within the meaning of Order 7 Rule
11(d) of the CPC must include the law of limitation as well.

6. Any Rules/Legislation framed cannot enlarge the scope of its parent statute and cannot travel beyond the Preamble or the object for which the said Rules/Legislation is framed.

7. Without impleading firm or issuing notice to the firm, the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable against the partner of the firm.

8. Non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is not per se fatal to the prosecution case, and conviction can be sustained if the overall evidence on record credibly establishes recovery and possession of contraband, with courts required to assess such procedural lapses in light of the totality of evidence rather than on technical grounds alone.

9. The review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is extremely limited and cannot be invoked for rehearing or reappreciation of the merits, as the review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing on merits is impermissible, the power of review being an exception to the rule of finality of judgments, exercisable only to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.

10. The account book is a private and unilateral record maintained by one party and such record cannot be treated as substantive evidence under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to impose liability for enforcement of a legal right without independent and corroborative evidence.