advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

SC/ST - relaxing standards in departmental competitive examinations and in departmental confirmation examinations. - Constitutional validity of Art. 16(4) of Indian Constitution - Validity of Office Memorandum being No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res) dated 22.7.1997 with drawing benefits conferred on ST/SC employees in departmental and promotional examinations against the to earlier O.M. and against to the provsio of Art. 16(4) - Apex court held that to undo the judgment in Indra Sawhney, Art.16(4) constitutional amendment was taken place and the judgement in S. Vinod Kumar is per incuriam as it has not dealt with Art.16(4) and is based on Indra Sawhney judgment and further held that Kuldeep Singh is concerned, we find that the matter was decided by this Court having regard to the constitutional provision contained in Article 16(4A). The view taken by this Court in Kuldeep Singh is in accord with constitutional scheme articulated in Article 16(4A). and further held that It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excursiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely -The conclusions recorded by the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj are also relevant and Subject to the above, we uphold the constitutional validity of theConstitution(Seventy-Seventh (Amendment) Act;1995: the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000; the Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000 andthe Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001. and further held that We are in respectful agreement with the decision in Kuldeep Singh and approve the same. Ordinarily, we would have sent the matter to the Regular Bench for disposal of the matter but having regard to the nature of controversy and the fact that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”) has followed S. Vinod Kumar1 which is not a good law and resultantly 1997 O.M. is also illegal, in our view, the agony of the appellants need not be prolonged as they are entitled to the reliefs. Consequently, civil appeals are allowed.= CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 6046-6047 OF 2004 | ROHTAS BHANKHAR & OTHERS |...|APPELLANT(s) | | Versus | | UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER |.. |RESPONDENT(s) = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41774

SC/ST - relaxing standards in departmental  competitive  examinations  and  in  departmental  confirmation examinations. - Constitutional validity of Art. 16(4) of Indian Constitution - Validity of Office Memorandum being No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res)  dated  22.7.1997 with drawing benefits conferred on ST/SC employees in departmental and promotional examinations against the to earlier O.M. and against to the provsio of Art. 16(4) - Apex court held that to undo the judgment in Indra Sawhney, Art.16(4)  constitutional amendment was taken place and the judgement in S.  Vinod Kumar is per incuriam as it has not dealt with Art.16(4)  and is based on Indra Sawhney judgment and further held that  Kuldeep  Singh is concerned, we find that the matter was decided by this Court  having  regard to the  constitutional provision contained in  Article   16(4A).   The  view
taken by this Court in Kuldeep Singh  is  in  accord  with   constitutional scheme articulated in Article 16(4A). and further held that It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons,  as  stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation  provision  does  not
lead to  excursiveness  so  as  to  breach  the  ceiling  limit  of  50%  or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely -The conclusions recorded by  the  Constitution   Bench   in   M. Nagaraj are  also relevant  and Subject  to  the above, we uphold the constitutional validity  of  theConstitution(Seventy-Seventh (Amendment) Act;1995: the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000; the Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment)  Act, 2000 andthe Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001. and further held that  We are in respectful agreement  with  the  decision  in  Kuldeep Singh and approve the same.  Ordinarily, we would have sent  the  matter  to the Regular Bench for disposal of the  matter   but  having  regard  to  the nature  of  controversy  and  the  fact  that  the   Central  Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”) has  followed   S.  Vinod  Kumar1 which is not a good law and resultantly 1997 O.M. is also  illegal,  in  our view, the agony of the  appellants  need  not  be  prolonged  as   they  are entitled to the reliefs. Consequently, civil appeals are allowed.=

Whether the Office Memorandum being No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res)  dated  22.7.1997  issued by Department of Personnel which cancelled the earlier Office  Memorandum  being  O.M.  No.   8/12/69-Estt.(SCT) dt.23-12-1970  relaxing standards   in  the  case   of   Scheduled   Castes/Tribes   candidates   in departmental  competitive  examinations  and  in  departmental  confirmation examinations.- is valid ? = 
Division Bench referred the matter to three bench judges - which in turn referred to the full bench =
 Insofar   as  Kuldeep  Singh2  is
concerned, we find that the matter was decided by this Court  having  regard
to the  constitutional provision contained in  Article   16(4A).   The  view
taken by this Court in Kuldeep Singh3  is  in  accord  with   constitutional
scheme articulated in Article 16(4A).   On  the  other  hand,  in  S.  Vinod
Kumar1, the Court failed to consider Article 16(4A).  As a matter  of  fact,
Article 16(4A) was inserted in the Constitution to  undo  the   observations
in Indra Sawhney2 that  there can not be dilution of  standards  in  matters
of promotion.=

On 23.12.1970 (1970  O.M.),  the  Department  of  Personnel
issued  Office  Memorandum  being  O.M.  No.   8/12/69-Estt.(SCT)   relaxing
standards   in  the  case   of   Scheduled   Castes/Tribes   candidates   in
departmental  competitive  examinations  and  in  departmental  confirmation
examinations.  The said O.M. remained operative for  about  17  years  until
O.M. No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res)  dated  22.7.1997  was  issued  whereby  the
instructions  contained  in   1970  O.M.  were  withdrawn.  =
the  Central  Secretariat  Service  Section
Officers' Grade/Stenographers' Grade 'B  (Limited  Departmental  Competitive
Examination) Regulations, 1964 (for short “1964 Regulations”)  were  amended
by Central Secretariat Service Section Officers' Grade/Stenographers'  Grade
'B (Limited Departmental  Competitive  Examination)  Amendment  Regulations,
1998 (for short “1998 Regulations”).  - suitably  -
basing on the judgment of Apex court  In S. Vinod Kumar1, this Court relying upon Indra Sawhney2  held that  provision for lower qualifying marks/standard of  evaluation  was  not
permissible under Article 16(4) of the Constitution  of  India  in  view  of
Article 335.Though Article 16(4A) had been  brought   into  Constitution  by
the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment)  Act,  1995  with  effect  from
17.6.1995, 
In our view, S. Vinod Kumar1 is per incuriam.
4.          Moreover by  the  Constitution  (Eighty-second  Amendment)  Act,
2000, a proviso has been appended to Article 335 of  the  Constitution  with
effect from 8.9.2000 
The proviso reads as follow:
Provided that nothing in  this  article  shall  prevent  in  making  of  any
provision in  favour  of  the  members  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  the
Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in  any  examination  or
lowering  the  standards  of  evaluation,  for  reservation  in  mattes   of
promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connect  with  the
affairs of the Union or of a State.=
This proviso  was  added  following  the  benefit  of  reservation  in
promotion conferred upon SCs and  STs  alone.   This  proviso  was  inserted
keeping in mind the judgment of this Court in Vinod  Kumar  which  took  the
view that  relaxation  in  matters  of  reservation  in  promotion  was  not
permissible under Article 16(4) in view of the command contained in  Article
335.  Once a separate category is carved out of clause  (4)  of  Article  16
then that category is being given relaxation in matters  of  reservation  in
promotion.  The proviso is confined to SCs and STs alone.  The said  proviso
is compatible with the scheme of Article 16(4-A).=

  The conclusions recorded by  the  Constitution   Bench   in   M.
Nagaraj4  are  also relevant and they read as under:
121.  The impugned constitutional amendments by which Articles  16(4-A)  and
16(4-B) have been inserted flow from Article 16(4).  They do not  alter  the
structure of Article 16(4).  They retain  the  controlling  factors  or  the
compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and  inadequacy  of  representation
which enables the States to provide for  reservation  keeping  in  mind  the
overall efficiency of the State  administration  under  Article  335.  These
impugned amendments  are  confined  only  to  SCs  and  STs.   They  do  not
obliterate any of the constitutional requirements, namely, ceiling limit  of
50% (quantitative limitation), the  concept  of  creamy  layer  (qualitative
exclusion), the sub-classification between OBCs on one hand and SCs and  STs
on the other hand as held  in  Indra  Sawhney,  the  concept  of  post-based
roster with inbuilt concept of replacement as held in R.K. Sabharwal.=
 The State is not bound to  make  reservation  for
SCs/STs in matters of promotions.  However, if they wish to  exercise  their
discretion and make such provision, the State has  to  collect  quantifiable
data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of  representation  of
that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article  335.
 It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons,  as  stated
above, the State will have to see that its reservation  provision  does  not
lead to  excursiveness  so  as  to  breach  the  ceiling  limit  of  50%  or
obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.=

Subject  to  the above, we uphold the constitutional validity  of  the
Constitution(Seventy-Seventh (Amendment) Act;1995: the Constitution (Eighty-
first Amendment) Act, 2000; the Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment)  Act,
2000 and the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001.=

We are in respectful agreement  with  the  decision  in  Kuldeep
Singh3 and approve the same. Ordinarily, we would have sent  the  matter  to
the Regular Bench for disposal of the  matter   but  having  regard  to  the
nature  of  controversy  and  the  fact  that  the   Central  Administrative
Tribunal, Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”) has  followed   S.  Vinod  Kumar1
which is not a good law and resultantly 1997 O.M. is also  illegal,  in  our
view, the agony of the  appellants  need  not  be  prolonged  as   they  are
entitled to the reliefs.
11.         Consequently, civil appeals are allowed. The impugned order   is
set-aside. 1997 O.M. is declared illegal.  The respondents are  directed  to
modify the results in the Section Officers/Stenographers  (Grade  B/Grade-I)
Limited  Departmental  Competitive  Examination,  1996  by   providing   for
reservation and extend all consequential reliefs to the appellants,  if  not
granted so far.  No costs.

2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41774


CHIEF JUSTICE, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. CHELAMESWAR, A.K. SIKRI, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN 

                                                           REPORTABLE

                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                          CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 6046-6047 OF 2004


| ROHTAS BHANKHAR & OTHERS                           |...|APPELLANT(s)          |



|                      Versus                                                   |

| UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER                         |..  |RESPONDENT(s)        |


                               J U D G M E N T

R.M.LODHA, CJI.
                 On 23.12.1970 (1970  O.M.),  the  Department  of  Personnel
issued  Office  Memorandum  being  O.M.  No.   8/12/69-Estt.(SCT)   relaxing
standards   in  the  case   of   Scheduled   Castes/Tribes   candidates   in
departmental  competitive  examinations  and  in  departmental  confirmation
examinations.  The said O.M. remained operative for  about  17  years  until
O.M. No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res)  dated  22.7.1997  was  issued  whereby  the
instructions  contained  in   1970  O.M.  were  withdrawn.   Thereafter   by
Notification dated  30.11.1998,  the  Central  Secretariat  Service  Section
Officers' Grade/Stenographers' Grade 'B  (Limited  Departmental  Competitive
Examination) Regulations, 1964 (for short “1964 Regulations”)  were  amended
by Central Secretariat Service Section Officers' Grade/Stenographers'  Grade
'B (Limited Departmental  Competitive  Examination)  Amendment  Regulations,
1998 (for short “1998 Regulations”).  The result of this amendment was  that
 in 1964 Regulations, Regulation 7, sub-regulation (3) was  omitted  on  and
from 22.7.1997.  The explanatory note appended  to  the  above  Notification
reads as follows:
In compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in  the  case  of  S.  Vinod
Kumar vs.  Union of India  (JT  1996(8)  SC  643),  the  Central  Government
decided  to  omit  the  provisions  of  regulation  7(3)  of   the   Central
Secretariat  Service  Section  Officers'  Grade/Stenographers'   Grade   'B'
(Limited Departmental   Competitive  Examination)  Regulations,  1964  which
provides for relaxed qualifying standard in favour of the  Scheduled  Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes  candidates  to  make  up  the  deficiency  in  the
reserved quota which has been rendered legally  invalid  and  unenforceable.
This is certified that no one is being adversely  affected  by  giving  this
amendment retrospective effect.

2.          In S. Vinod Kumar1, this Court relying upon Indra Sawhney2  held
that  provision for lower qualifying marks/standard of  evaluation  was  not
permissible under Article 16(4) of the Constitution  of  India  in  view  of
Article 335.
3.          Though Article 16(4A) had been  brought   into  Constitution  by
the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment)  Act,  1995  with  effect  from
17.6.1995,   S.  Vinod  Kumar1  did  not  take   into   consideration   this
constitutional provision.  In our view, S. Vinod Kumar1 is per incuriam.
4.          Moreover by  the  Constitution  (Eighty-second  Amendment)  Act,
2000, a proviso has been appended to Article 335 of  the  Constitution  with
effect from 8.9.2000.  The proviso reads as follow:
Provided that nothing in  this  article  shall  prevent  in  making  of  any
provision in  favour  of  the  members  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  the
Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in  any  examination  or
lowering  the  standards  of  evaluation,  for  reservation  in  mattes   of
promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connect  with  the
affairs of the Union or of a State.

5.          On 8.10.1999, when special leave  petitions,  from  which  these
appeals arise, came up for  consideration  before  a  two-Judge  Bench,  the
Bench first formulated the point for  consideration  in  the  matter,  viz.,
whether it was permissible for the  authorities  to  fix  lesser  number  of
qualifying marks for reserved candidates in the matter of 'promotion'.   The
Bench noticed three judgments  of this Court;   (1) Indra Sawhney2,  (2)  S.
Vinod Kumar1 and (3) Kuldeep Singh3  and observed  that  in  Kuldeep  Singh3
the  Court  did  not  notice   the  observations  of  majority  as  well  as
observations of Sawant, J. in  Indra Sawhney2, and the matter needed  to  be
heard by a three-Judge Bench.
6.          On 2.12.1999, the matter came up  before  a  three-Judge  Bench.
The Bench on that day reiterated what was earlier stated by   the  two-Judge
Bench in the order dated 08.10.1999  that in Kuldeep Singh3, the  Bench  had
not referred to the majority decision in Indra Sawheny2.  The Bench  doubted
the correctness of the decision in Kuldeep Singh3 and  referred  the  matter
to the Constitution Bench.  In the reference order,  the  three-Judge  Bench
also noted  the decision of this Court in Haridas Parsedia etc.  vs.  Urmila
Shakya  and  others  (Civil  Appeal  Nos.  6590-6592  of  1999  etc.)  dated
19.11.1999 wherein  it  was  observed  that  in  the  case  of  departmental
promotion examination, which is held exclusively for  SCs/STs,  there  could
be reduction to the extent of 10% in the passing marks. As  regards  Haridas
Parsedia (supra), the Bench observed that in that case, the observations  of
this Court in Indra Sawhney2 wherein it was laid down  that there cannot  be
dilution of standards in matter of promotion was not noticed.
7.          It is important to note here  that  constitutional  validity  of
Article 16(4A) came up for consideration before the  Constitution  Bench  in
the case of M. Nagaraj4.  In paras 97 to 99 (page 267) of  the  report,  the
Constitution Bench observed:
97. As stated above, clause (4-A) of Article 16 is carved out of clause  (4)
of Article 16. Clause (4-A) provides benefit  of  reservation  in  promotion
only to SCs and STs.  In S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India  this  Court  held
that relaxation of qualifying marks and standards of evaluation  in  matters
of reservation in promotion was not permissible under Article 16(4) in  view
of Article 335 of the  Constitution.   This  was  also  the  view  in  Indra
Sawhney.

98.   By the Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000 a proviso  was
inserted at the end of Article 335 of the Constitution which reads as  under
:

“Provided that nothing in this  article  shall  prevent  in  making  of  any
provision in  favour  of  the  members  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  the
Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in  any  examination  or
lowering  the  standards  of  evaluation,  for  reservation  in  matters  of
promotion to any class or classes of services or posts  in  connection  with
the affairs of the Union or of a State.”

99.   This proviso  was  added  following  the  benefit  of  reservation  in
promotion conferred upon SCs and  STs  alone.   This  proviso  was  inserted
keeping in mind the judgment of this Court in Vinod  Kumar  which  took  the
view that  relaxation  in  matters  of  reservation  in  promotion  was  not
permissible under Article 16(4) in view of the command contained in  Article
335.  Once a separate category is carved out of clause  (4)  of  Article  16
then that category is being given relaxation in matters  of  reservation  in
promotion.  The proviso is confined to SCs and STs alone.  The said  proviso
is compatible with the scheme of Article 16(4-A).

8.          The conclusions recorded by  the  Constitution   Bench   in   M.
Nagaraj4  are  also

relevant and they read as under:
121.  The impugned constitutional amendments by which Articles  16(4-A)  and
16(4-B) have been inserted flow from Article 16(4).  They do not  alter  the
structure of Article 16(4).  They retain  the  controlling  factors  or  the
compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and  inadequacy  of  representation
which enables the States to provide for  reservation  keeping  in  mind  the
overall efficiency of the State  administration  under  Article  335.  These
impugned amendments  are  confined  only  to  SCs  and  STs.   They  do  not
obliterate any of the constitutional requirements, namely, ceiling limit  of
50% (quantitative limitation), the  concept  of  creamy  layer  (qualitative
exclusion), the sub-classification between OBCs on one hand and SCs and  STs
on the other hand as held  in  Indra  Sawhney,  the  concept  of  post-based
roster with inbuilt concept of replacement as held in R.K. Sabharwal.

122.  We reiterate that the ceiling limit of  50%,  the  concept  of  creamy
layer and  the  compelling  reasons,  namely,  backwardness,  inadequacy  of
representation and overall administrative efficiency are all  constitutional
requirements without which the  structure  of  equality  of  opportunity  in
Article 16 would collapse.

123.  However, in this case, as stated above, the main  issue  concerns  the
“extent of reservation”.  In this regard the State concerned  will  have  to
show  in  each  case  the  existence  of  the  compelling  reasons,  namely,
backwardness

inadequacy of representation and overall  administrative  efficiency  before
making provision for reservation.  As stated above, the  impugned  provision
is an enabling provision.  The State is not bound to  make  reservation  for
SCs/STs in matters of promotions.  However, if they wish to  exercise  their
discretion and make such provision, the State has  to  collect  quantifiable
data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of  representation  of
that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article  335.
 It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons,  as  stated
above, the State will have to see that its reservation  provision  does  not
lead to  excursiveness  so  as  to  breach  the  ceiling  limit  of  50%  or
obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.

124.  Subject  to  the above, we uphold the constitutional validity  of  the
Constitution(Seventy-Seventh (Amendment) Act;1995: the Constitution (Eighty-
first Amendment) Act, 2000; the Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment)  Act,
2000 and the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001.

9.          We do not think, it is necessary for us to deal with  the  width
and scope of  Article 16(4A) any further.  Insofar   as  Kuldeep  Singh2  is
concerned, we find that the matter was decided by this Court  having  regard
to the  constitutional provision contained in  Article   16(4A).   The  view
taken by this Court in Kuldeep Singh3  is  in  accord  with   constitutional
scheme articulated in Article 16(4A).   On  the  other  hand,  in  S.  Vinod
Kumar1, the Court failed to consider Article 16(4A).  As a matter  of  fact,
Article 16(4A) was inserted in the Constitution to  undo  the   observations
in Indra Sawhney2 that  there can not be dilution of  standards  in  matters
of promotion.
10.         We are in respectful agreement  with  the  decision  in  Kuldeep
Singh3 and approve the same. Ordinarily, we would have sent  the  matter  to
the Regular Bench for disposal of the  matter   but  having  regard  to  the
nature  of  controversy  and  the  fact  that  the   Central  Administrative
Tribunal, Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”) has  followed   S.  Vinod  Kumar1
which is not a good law and resultantly 1997 O.M. is also  illegal,  in  our
view, the agony of the  appellants  need  not  be  prolonged  as   they  are
entitled to the reliefs.
11.         Consequently, civil appeals are allowed. The impugned order   is
set-aside. 1997 O.M. is declared illegal.  The respondents are  directed  to
modify the results in the Section Officers/Stenographers  (Grade  B/Grade-I)
Limited  Departmental  Competitive  Examination,  1996  by   providing   for
reservation and extend all consequential reliefs to the appellants,  if  not
granted so far.  No costs.

                                .......................CJI.
                                       (R.M. LODHA)


                                  .........................J.
                                     (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)


                                    .........................J.
                                       (J. CHELAMESWAR)


                                       .........................J.
                                       (A.K. SIKRI)


      NEW DELHI;                  .........................J.
JULY 15, 2014.              (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)



ITEM NO.502               COURT NO.1               SECTION XVI

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                     Civil Appeal No(s). 6046-6047/2004

ROHTAS BHANKHAR & ORS                            Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

U.O.I. & ANR                                    Respondent(s)


Date : 15/07/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
             HON'BLE THE  CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

For Appellant(s) Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan,Adv.
                       Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Adv.
                       Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv.
                       Mr. Chand Kiran, Adv.
                       Mr. Murari Lal, Adv.

For Respondent(s)      Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG
                       Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG
                       Mr. A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv.
                       Ms. V. Mohana, Adv.
                       Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. Adv.
                       Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Adv. for
                       Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv.

            UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R

            Civil Appeals are allowed in terms of reportable judgment.


|(PARDEEP KUMAR)                        | |(RENU DIWAN)                          |
|AR-cum-PS                              | |COURT MASTER                          |


      [SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE]

1       (1996) 6 SCC 580,  S. VINOD KUMAR & ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA
          AND OTHERS
2       1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, INDRA SAWHNEY VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
3       (1997) 9 SCC 199, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH, U.T.
         CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS VS. KULDEEP SINGH & OTHERS
4     . (2006)8 SCC 212  M. NAGARAJ AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.