//
you're reading...
legal issues

extraordinary delay in submitting physical handicap certificate to claim the reservation quota=it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is – 23 –

A map of signatories to the Optional Protocol ...

Image via Wikipedia

 REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 I.A. No. 5-8

 IN

 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8343-8344 OF 2011

 [Arising out of S.L.P (C) No.20152-20153 of 2010]

Bedanga Talukdar ... Appellant

 VERSUS

Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. ...Respondents 

 O R D E R

1. Leave granted. 

2. These appeals are directed against the impugned 

judgment and order dated 4th March, 2010 in 

Writ Petition (C) No. 950 of 2010 and impugned judgment 

and order dated 2nd July, 2010 in Writ Petition (C) No.3382 

of 2010 passed by the High Court of Guwahati, allowing the 

writ petitions filed by the respondent No.1 whereby Assam 

Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 

"respondent No. 3") was directed to examine the entitlement 

 - 1 -

of respondent No.1 by taking into account the identity card 

produced by him. 

3. We may notice the bare essential facts necessary for 

the determination of the controversy involved in these 

appeals .

4. The respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement 

on 10th August, 2006 bearing advertisement No.6/2006, 

announcing its intention to hold the preliminary 

examination of the Combined Competitive Examination, 

2006 for screening candidates for the Main Examination for 

recruitment to various posts educated in the advertisement. 

The last date for the receipt of the completed application 

forms was fixed as 11th September, 2006. In this 

advertisement, although, posts had been reserved for 

various categories such as OBC/MOBC, SC, ST(P) and 

ST(H), but there was no reservation in favour of the 

disabled candidates as required under the Persons with 

Disabilities [Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and 

Full Participation], Act,1995. 

 - 2 -

5. Consequently, a Public Interest Litigation being P.I.L. 

No.61/2006 was filed in the High Court by Order 

dated 13th March, 2007. The High Court by an interim 

order directed respondent No.3 not to conduct any 

examination during the pendency of the petition. By order 

dated 13th March, 2007, the High Court directed respondent 

No.3 to make a fresh advertisement on the basis of the 

requisitions to be received from the Government of Assam 

(respondent No.2) incorporating reservation of 3% for 

persons with disabilities. 

6. In compliance with the orders of the High Court 

dated 13th March, 2007, respondent No. 3 issued a 

corrigendum on 5th June, 2007 reserving three per cent 

vacancies for Physically Handicapped persons, in terms of 

Persons with Disabilities [Equal Opportunities, Protection of 

Rights and Full Participation], Act,1995. Applications were 

invited for one post in the Assam Civil Service 

Class-I (Jr. Grade) from persons suffering from Locomotor 

Disability, in connection with the conduct of Combined 

 - 3 -

Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2006 for screening 

candidates for the Main examination for the posts already 

mentioned in the earlier advertisement No. 6/2006. It is 

evident that this corrigendum was issued in continuation of 

advertisement No. 6/2006 dated 10th August, 2006. It was 

provided therein that candidates, who had applied earlier to 

the advertisement No. 6/2006 dated 10th August, 2006, 

need not apply again but the candidates with Locomotor 

Disability must produce supporting documents in the office 

of the Assam Public Service Commission or in the 

examination hall before the commencement of the 

examination. The Last date for submission of the 

applications under the corrigendum was 6th July, 2007. 

7. Respondent No.1 had applied in response to the 

advertisement dated 10th August, 2006. Since there was no 

requirement for submission of any details with regard to 

any disability, he had not submitted any disability 

certificate. Although, in view of the corrigendum, 

respondent No.1 was not required to make an application 

afresh, he was required to produce necessary supporting 

 - 4 -

documents in the office of the Commission or in the 

examination hall before the commencement of the 

preliminary examination. Respondent No.1 had been 

certified by the District Medical Board, Dhubri, to be 

physically disabled to the extent of 50% on 21st January, 

2004. On the basis of this certificate, respondent No.1 was 

issued an identity card by the District Social Welfare 

Officer, Dhubri on 18th February, 2004 which specified his 

disability to be Locomotor Disability to the extent of 50%. 

The preliminary examination was held on 23rd September, 

2007. 

8. We may notice here that respondent No.1 did not 

submit the mandatory documents, to substantiate his 

candidature in the seat reserved for candidates with 

"Locomotor Disability", on or before 6th July, 2007, i.e., the 

last date for submission of applications. He also did not 

submit the mandatory documents even at the time when he 

appeared in the preliminary examination. Therefore, he 

appeared in the examination as a general category 

candidate. 

 - 5 -

9. Both the appellant and respondent No.1 successfully 

participated in the preliminary examination. The 

advertisement had clearly specified that "candidates who 

are declared by the Commission to have qualified for 

admission to the Main examination will have to apply again 

in the prescribed application form, which will be supplied to 

them." It was the claim of respondent No.1, that he had 

specifically indicated in Column No. 11 of his application in 

the prescribed form for the Main examination that he 

suffers from Locomotor Disability upto 50%. According to 

him, he had submitted the certificate dated 21st January, 

2004 issued by the District Medical Board, Dhubri. Being 

satisfied Respondent No.3 had permitted him to appear in 

the Main examination. 

10. Having successfully completed the written 

examination, both the candidates, i.e., appellant and 

respondent No.1, were called for interview on 1st December, 

2008. It was the case of respondent No.1 that he had 

produced the necessary documents in support of his claim 

 - 6 -

of Locomotor Disability to the extent of 50%, along with the 

other certificates and testimonials at the time of interview. 

The Commission, respondent No. 3, published the list of 

selected candidates on 15th June, 2009. The name of 

respondent No.1 did not appear in the said list. In fact, the 

appellant was shown to have been selected for appointment 

in the Assam Public Service Commission as a physically 

handicapped candidate. 

11. Respondent No.1 made an application under the 

provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 before the 

appropriate authority seeking the details of the marks 

scored by him as well as the details of the marks obtained 

by other physically handicapped candidates called for the 

interview. From the information supplied to him, 

respondent No. 1 came to know that he had scored 817 

marks, whereas the appellant had scored 695 marks. 

Respondent No. 1 thereafter made a representation dated 

14th September, 2009 addressed to the Chairman of 

respondent No.3 as well as the Secretary of the Commission 

making a grievance that his candidature had been 

 - 7 -

arbitrarily rejected, even though, he had scored more marks 

than appellant in the examination. It appears that 

respondent No. 1 had also reiterated that his claim for 

being considered in the Locomotor Disability category, was 

duly supported by the necessary documents, i.e., certificate 

issued by the District Medical Board, Dhubri 

dated 21st January, 2004 and the identity card issued by 

the District Social Welfare Officer.

12. He had further stated that at the time of interview, he 

had produced the necessary documents in support of his 

claim. According to respondent No. 1, on 4th December, 

2009, the Deputy Secretary of the Commission (respondent 

No.3) had informed him that the identity card showing 

respondent No. 1 to be suffering from Locomotor Disability 

was not submitted alongwith the application form for the 

Main examination, though the same was a compulsory 

document. Respondent No. 1 was accordingly asked to 

submit the same to the Commission as early as possible on 

receipt of the communication dated 4th December, 2009. 

Respondent No. 1 replied vide his letter 

 - 8 -

dated 10th December, 2009 addressed to the 

Deputy Secretary of the Commission, stating that all 

necessary documents showing that he is a physically 

handicapped person suffering from Locomotor Disability 

were submitted alongwith the application form of the Main 

examination. Respondent No. 1 also reiterated his claim 

that all documents were verified by the Commission at the 

time of interview on 1st December, 2008. In the letter dated 

10th December, 2009, respondent No. 1 also mentioned that 

as directed by the Deputy Secretary of the Commission, an 

attested copy of the ID card issued to him by the District 

Social Welfare Officer, Dhubri is being forwarded. 

13. It would be relevant to notice here that the select list 

dated 15th June, 2009 was challenged in Writ Petition 

No. 2755 of 2009 and other connected cases. The aforesaid 

writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by remitting 

the matter back to respondent No.3 to take a fresh decision 

and publish a revised list. The reservation in the category 

of Locomotor Disability was not the issue before the Court 

 - 9 -

in the aforesaid writ petition. The procedural anomaly 

related to women candidates. 

14. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition 

No. 67 of 2010 seeking a direction to include his name in 

the fresh list to be issued by the respondent No.3, 

Commission. This writ petition was dismissed by the High 

Court being premature on 7th January, 2010. Thereafter, 

on 5th February, 2010, the Commission published a revised 

list, wherein name of respondent No. 1 was again not 

included in the list of candidates selected for the 

appointment. 

15. Respondent No. 1, therefore, challenged the select list 

by Writ Petition No. 950 of 2010. The writ petition was filed 

on 8th February, 2010. The High Court granted an ex-parte 

order on 11th February, 2010 directing respondent No.3 not 

to issue the appointment / posting orders to the appellant. 

16. In the counter affidavit filed to this writ petition, 

respondent No.3 specifically stated that the documents had 

 - 10 -

not been submitted by the respondent No. 1 within the 

prescribed time. On 14th March, 2010, the writ petition 

filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed. A direction was 

issued to respondent No.3 to reconsider the matter afresh 

based on the identity card submitted on 10th December, 

2009. We may notice here that this direction had been 

issued by the High Court in spite of the categoric assertion 

made by the respondent No.3 that the candidature of the 

respondent No. 1 had been rejected on the basis of the 

resolution dated 8th January, 2010. In its meeting dated 

8th January, 2010, respondent No.3 had resolved that 

respondent No. 1 did not submit the identity card along 

with the form. This was vital to support the claim of 

respondent No.1 to be considered for the post reserved for 

the candidates having Locomotor Disability. Therefore, his 

candidature was rejected for non-fulfillment of an essential 

condition. However, pursuant to the directions issued by 

the High Court in its order dated 4th March, 2010, 

respondent No.3 in its meeting held on 21st May, 2010 

again thoroughly examined the matter relating to the 

entitlement of respondent No. 1 for final selection as a 

 - 11 -

physically handicapped (Locomotor Disability) candidate. 

Upon a thorough scrutiny and re-examination of the facts 

and the material on record, the claim of respondent No. 1 

was not accepted. The name of appellant was duly 

reiterated as the candidate selected for appointment. 

A communication to that effect was sent to the appellant as 

well as respondent No. 1 on 31st May, 2010. 

17. At this stage, respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition 

No. 3382 of 2010 challenging the minutes dated 21st May, 

2010 and the communication dated 31st May, 2010. The 

aforesaid writ petition has been allowed by the High Court 

with observations that respondent No.3 was under a legal 

obligation to examine the petitioner's entitlement for 

selection by taking into account his identity card. The High 

Court notices that the resolution of the respondent No.3 

contained in the minutes of the meeting dated 21st May, 

2010 would indicate that the Commission had resolved not 

to consider the case of respondent No. 1 for selection for 

appointment against the solitary post earmarked for 

physically handicapped candidates on the ground that the 

 - 12 -

identity card, which was required to be submitted by 

respondent No. 1 at different stages. The High Court has 

held that the aforesaid decision, is not rendered in the light 

of the directions given by the High Court in Paragraph 13 of 

the order dated 4th March, 2010 passed in Writ 

Petition (C) No. 950 of 2010. It has been observed by the 

High Court that the question of belated submission of the 

identity card having been already answered by the Court 

and directions having been issued to take into account the 

same, the Public Service Commission could not have acted 

in the manner it has done. This writ petition was, 

therefore, allowed with the following observations:-

 "For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the 

 resolution dated 21.5.2010 of the Commission as 

 well as the communication dated 31.5.2010 and 

 direct that the Public Service Commission will 

 now examine the entitlement of the petitioner by 

 taking into account the identity card produced by 

 him. For the purpose of clarification, we deem it 

 appropriate to add that while considering the case 

 of the petitioner the acceptability, veracity or 

 otherwise of the contents of the identity card and 

 the effect of the said contents, if found to be 

 acceptable, would be considered by the 

 Commission."

 - 13 -

These directions are challenged by the appellant in these 

appeals.

18. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

19. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel, 

appearing for the appellant herein submits that in the 

advertisement dated 5th June, 2007, one post was reserved 

for person suffering from Locomotor Disability only. The 

advertisement also further provided that those who applied 

earlier in response to advertisement No.6/2006 dated 

10th August, 2006 need not apply again, but the candidates 

with Locomotor Disability must produce supporting 

documents in the office of Assam Public Service 

Commission or in the examination hall before 

commencement of the examination. The advertisement 

further provided that candidates who are declared by the 

Commission to have qualified for admission to the main 

examination will have to apply again in prescribed 

 - 14 -

application form, which will be supplied to them. All 

candidates applying in the category of persons with 

Locomotor Disability upto 50% were required to send a 

certificate of Locomotor Disability from the appropriate 

authority. According to Mr. Bhushan, respondent No. 1 did 

not submit the necessary certificate in the office of the 

respondent No. 3 or in the examination hall before 

commencement of the examination. In fact, he did not 

submit even the ID card till after the interview. By the 

time, he submitted the ID card, even the Select List of the 

successful candidates had been published. Since 

respondent No. 1 had not submitted the requisite disability 

certificate within the stipulated period as provide in the 

advertisement, respondent No. 3 rejected his candidature 

for valid reasons in its resolution dated 8th January, 2010. 

20. Mr. Bhushan submits that direction issued by the 

High Court are contrary to the settled principle of law that 

there can be no variation in the conditions of eligibility as 

laid down in the advertisement, unless a specific stipulation 

 - 15 -

is made about any particular condition being relaxable at 

the discretion of the concerned authority. Learned senior 

counsel submits that the High Court has erred in holding 

that the rigour of Article 14 would not be automatically 

applicable "to the domain of appointment in public office 

where the employer must strive to pick the best talent 

available. To achieve such result, the employer must be 

conferred a wide discretion to act in relaxation of the rigour 

of the terms of an advertisement. The requirements spelt 

out in an advertisement for appointment in public service 

must, therefore, not to be understood to be inflexible 

leaving no room for elasticity". Learned senior counsel 

further submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate 

that claim of respondent No. 1 had been rejected upon due 

consideration by respondent No. 3 after according him an 

adequate opportunity by resolution dated 8th January, 

2010. 

21. According to the learned senior counsel, the High 

Court has proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the 

 - 16 -

Commission had itself treated candidature of many 

candidates to be provisional on account of the fact that 

requisite certificates of age or educational qualifications had 

not been submitted along with the application form. 

According to Mr. Bhushan, the High Court has wrongly 

concluded that the Public Service Commission had itself 

treated the condition about the submission of necessary 

certificates to be not mandatory and inflexible 

requirements. According to the learned senior counsel, the 

aforesaid conclusion of the High Court is factually 

incorrect. 

22. The learned senior counsel submits that respondent 

No.3 had in fact rejected the candidature of respondent 

No.1 strictly in accordance with the instructions issued in 

the "Information to the candidates on the Combined 

Competitive (Main) Examination". Instruction No. 13 

clearly stipulates that "any application form received 

without all or some of the enclosures is liable to be 

summarily rejected. Any enclosure which was not sent 

 - 17 -

 along with the application earlier but sent subsequently by 

 the candidates will not be entertained. Thus candidates 

 must ensure that the application form is properly filled in 

 and is accompanied by all the relevant documents." 

 Mr. Bhushan submits that in the case of respondent No. 1, 

 he was required to submit an attested copy of certificate of 

 Locomotor Disability. The High Court records that the 

 necessary certificate was not submitted by respondent 

 No. 1 before the last date of receipt of applications, which 

 was 11th September, 2006. Learned senior counsel has also 

 relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Karnataka 

 Public Service Commission & Ors. Vs. B.M. Vijaya 

 S
 hankar & Ors. 1

 23. On the other hand, Mr. V. Hazarika, learned senior 

 counsel submits that the respondent No.3 reconsidered the 

 entire issue after the High Court set aside the resolution 

 passed by respondent No.3 on 8th January, 2010. 

 Respondent No. 1 had to file W.P. (C) No. 950 of 2010 as 

1 (1992) 2 SCC 206 

 - 18 -

respondent No.3 again illegally rejected his candidatures. 

He, therefore, challenged the selection of the appellant. 

24. In the aforesaid writ petition, it was stated that in the 

application, respondent No.1 had specifically mentioned 

against Column No. 11 of the application form that he 

suffers from Locomotor Disability upto 50%. He had 

submitted a certificate issued by the District Medical Board, 

Dhubri dated 21st January, 2004 in support of his claim to 

be a physically handicapped person along with the identity 

card issued by the District Social Welfare officer. It was 

further his claim in the writ petition that he had qualified in 

the main examination and was called for interview by call 

letter dated 1st December, 2008. It was further the case of 

the respondent No. 1 that he had produced the necessary 

documents in support of his claim of Locomotor Disability 

to the extent of 50% along with the other certificates and 

testimonials at the time of interview. However, when the 

select list was published on 15th June, 2009, the name of 

respondent No.1 was not included therein. It was in fact 

 - 19 -

the appellant, who had been selected for appointment. It 

was also the case of the respondent No. 1 that the appellant 

had scored 695 marks whereas respondent No.1 had scored 

817 marks in the examination. In spite of having scored 

higher marks, he was illegally and arbitrarily not selected. 

25. The respondent No.1 had, therefore, submitted a 

representation on 14th September, 2009 to respondent No. 

3, seeking to question the selection of the appellant, who 

had scored lesser marks. In the representation, respondent 

No.1 had specifically stated that he had submitted the 

necessary supporting documents along with the application 

form. The said documents were verified at the time of 

interview on 11th December, 2008. The documents were 

also enclosed with the representation dated 14th September, 

2009. Therefore, on 4th December, 2009, the Deputy 

Secretary of the Commission had informed respondent No. 

1 that the identity card showing him to be suffering from 

Locomotor Disability was not submitted along with the 

application form for the main examination. Though the 

 - 20 -

same is a compulsory document. Respondent No.1 was, 

therefore, asked to submit the same to the Commission as 

early as possible. On receipt of the communication dated 

4th December, 2009, respondent No.1 through his letter 

dated 10th December, 2008 addressed to the Deputy 

Secretary of the Commission reiterated that the documents 

had already been submitted and verified by the 

Commission. However, he again sent an attested copy of 

the identity card issued to him by the District Social 

Welfare Officer, Dhubri. 

26. Learned senior counsel submits that taking into 

consideration the aforesaid facts, the High Court correctly 

came to the conclusion that respondent No. 3 had not 

specifically denied the claim of the appellant that he had 

produced the identity card at the time of interview 

on 11th December, 2008. The High Court had also taken 

into consideration that the candidature of three other 

candidates, who had not submitted the necessary 

documents was treated as provisional. These candidates 

 - 21 -

were included in the select list. Therefore, the High Court 

has rightly concluded that the condition with regard to 

submission of certificates and testimonials along with the 

application or before the preliminary examination was not 

mandatory. The action of the respondent No.3 in rejecting 

the candidature in the resolutions dated 8th January, 2010 

and 21st May, 2010 were rightly quashed by the High Court. 

27. Mr. Bhushan, in reply, submitted that upon a 

thorough examination of the entire fact situation, 

respondent No.3 in its resolution dated 21st May, 2010 has 

clearly observed that respondent No.1 was treated as a 

general candidate all along in the examination process and 

was not treated as physically handicapped with Locomotor 

Disability. The respondent No.3 also looked into the 

question whether any other candidate, who had not 

furnished any essential document with the application or at 

the time of interview but submitted them after the interview 

were accepted or not. Upon examination of the issue, 

respondent No.3 has observed that in fact the candidature 

 - 22 -

of one applicant namely Smt. Anima Baishya was 

specifically rejected as she had submitted the application 

before the Chairperson of respondent No.3 on 

26th February, 2009, claiming herself to be a SC candidate 

for the first time. In the case of respondent No. 1, the 

identity card was submitted for the first time with the letter 

dated 10th December, 2009 much after the examination 

process was over. 

28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our 

opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration 

that all appointments to public office have to be made in 

conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In 

other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from 

any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, 

the selection process has to be conducted strictly in 

accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. 

Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in 

an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously 

maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms 

and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is 

 - 23 -

specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the 

relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is 

provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the 

advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, 

it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the 

power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due 

publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those 

candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are 

afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. 

Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due 

publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality 

contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 

29. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly 

show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, 

the High Court committed an error in directing that the 

condition with regard to the submission of the disability 

certificate either along with the application form or before 

appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed 

in the case of respondent No. 1. Such a course would not 

 - 24 -

be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 

and 16 of the Constitution of India. 

30. In our opinion, the High Court was in error in 

concluding that the respondent No.3 had not treated the 

condition with regard to the submission of the certificate 

along with the application or before appearing in the 

preliminary examination, as mandatory. The aforesaid 

finding, in our opinion, is contrary to the record. In its 

resolution dated 21st May, 2010, the Commission has 

recorded the following conclusions:- 

 "Though Shri S. Khan had mentioned in his letter 

 dated 10.12.2009 that he was resubmitting the 

 Identity Card with regard to Locomotor Disability he, 

 in fact, had submitted the documentary proof of his 

 Locomotor Disability for the first time to the office of 

 the A.P.S.C. through his above letter dated 

 10.12.2009. However, after receiving the Identity 

 Card the matter was placed before the full 

 Commission to decide whether the Commission can 

 act on an essential document not submitted earlier 

 as per terms of advertisement but submitted after 

 completion of entire process of selection.

 The Commission while examining the matter in 

 details observed that Shri S. Khan was treated as 

 General candidate all along in the examination 

 process and was not treated as Physically 

 Handicapped with Locomotor Disability. Prior to 

 taking decision on Shri S. Khan it was also looked 

 into by the Commission, whether any other 

 candidate's any essential document relating to 

 - 25 -

 right/benefits etc. not furnished with the application 

 or at the time of interview but submitted after 

 interview was accepted or not. From the record, it 

 was found that prior to Shri S. Khan's case, one Smt. 

 Anima Baishya had submitted an application before 

 the Chairperson on 26.2.2009 claiming herself to be 

 a S.C. candidate for the first time. But her claim for 

 treating herself as a S.C. candidate was not 

 entertained on the grounds that she applied as a 

 General candidate and the caste certificate in 

 support of her claim as S.C. candidate was furnished 

 long after completion of examination process."

31. In the face of such conclusions, we have little 

hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by 

the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the 

record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in 

the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement 

unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the 

relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is 

a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have 

to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the 

present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. 

In such circumstances, the High Court could not have 

issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of 

respondent No.1 on the basis of identity card submitted 

after the selection process was over, with the publication of 

the select list. 

 - 26 -

32. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed and the 

impugned judgment and order dated 4th March, 2010 

passed in W.P.(C) No.950 of 2010 and impugned judgment 

and order dated 2nd July, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.3382 

of 2010 of the High Court are set aside. 

 ...................................J.

 [Altamas Kabir]

 ...................................J.

 [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

New Delhi;

September 28, 2011.  - 27 -

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,873,459 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: