A.P. SHOWKATH ALI & ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

                            [2017] 7 S.C.R. 698


A                     A.P. SHOWKATH ALI & ORS.
                                     v.
                       STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 2827 of 2010)
B                            AUGUSTI0,2017
            [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.[
          Kera/a State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958:
          rr. J3AA and 39 - Special recruitment of thirty-seven Assistant
C Sub-Inspectors of SC/ST category - For declaration of probation
  they were required to pass special test - The test not conducted for
  twelve years - Jn the meantime provisional promotion granted to
  them - invoking r. 39, Government order passed exempting them
  from passing the special test - Exemption order challenged by
D appellants by filing writ petition - Petition dismissed by High Court
  - On appeal, held: Though r. J3AA makes the passing of the test
   obligatory, and.order of the Government dated 5.02.2000 ruled
   that SC/ST employees are not entitled to any test exemption, but r.
   39 is to operate notwithstanding anything prescribed under 1958
  Rules or Special Rules or any Government order - Also in the facts
E of the case, an equitable relief deserved to be granted by invoking
   r. 39 - Thus, order granting exemption is justified - Service Law -
   Probation - Equity.
          Equity:
          Purpose of and applicability of equity - Purpose of equity
F jurisdiction is to prevent injustice and promote justice - Equity shcilf
   overpower technicality where human justice is at stake - There is
   difference between equity exercised by law-maker and the equity
  jurisdiction exercised by the Court - ResidumJ1 power is reserved
   by the law-maker to be used in a situation which are not otherwise
G prescribed under law - Even the courts to exercise equity jurisdiction
   when there is no law operating in the field.
           Dismissing the appeal, the Court
         HELD: 1. No doubt, under Rule 13AA of Kerala State and
    Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, the passing of test is obligatory
H
                                   698
 A.P. SHOWKATH ALI & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.                 699


  for memb~rs of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe below A
  the rank of Sub-Inspectors in the Police Department. But it has
  to be seen that it is Rule 39 of 1958 Rules, which is an exception
  to the exemption contemplated under Rule 13AA. Rule 39 is to
  operate notwithstanding anything prescribed not only in the
  Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules or the Special Rules B
  but even in any Government Order. The whole purpose of such
  residuary power is to remedy an otherwise unjust and
  inequitable situation. Therefore, the Government Order dated
  05.02.2000 (which has ruled that Scheduled Caste and
  Scheduled Tribe employees who entered the service on or after
. 1.1.1986, are not entitled to any test exemption) also does not C
  stand in the way of the Government invoking Rule 39. That apart,
  Ru.le 13AA operates in the matter of promotion whereas in the
  instant case, Rule 39 is operated in the matter of probation.
  [Para 10] [706-C-E]
         2. The whole purpose of equity jurisdiction is to prevent D
  injustice and to promote justice. Equity shall overpower
  technicality where human justice is at stake. There is a lot of
  difference between the court exercising equity jurisdiction and
  the law-maker itself exercising it. A residuary power is reserved
  by the law maker, namely the Government, to be used in certain
  situation which are not otherwise prescribed under law. However, E
  such power does not clothe the Executive to supplement a
  prescribed provision or to act in violation of the same. "Equity
  steps in where the law has left yawning gaps". Even for courts,
  equity jurisdiction is meant to be exercised when there is no law
. operating in the field. [Para 14) [709-B-D]                       F
      Roshanlal Kuthalia v."R.. B. Mohan Singh Oberoi (1975)
      4 SCC 628: [1975) 2 SCR 491; Charles K. Skaria v. C.
      Mathew (1980) 2 SCC 752 : [1980] 3 SCR 71; Bola v.
      Sardana (1997) 8 SCC 522: [1997[ 2 Suppl. SCR 507;
      Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari (2007) 8 SCC              G
      600 : [2007] 10 SCR 17 - relied on.
       3. In ascertaining equity and justice in the present case,
 the simple question to be addressed is what would happen to
 those thirty seven Assistant Sub-Inspectors in service, in case
                                                                    H
700           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 7 S.C.R.


A     the exemption is not granted. For no fault on their part, should
      they have to continue as Assistant Sub-Inspectors only till their
      retirement? Is there any point, nay, does it even appeal to
      common sense, to subject them to the test after more than twelve
      years of entering service and serving in promoted posts as weit?
B     Certainly, to remedy such a situation, an equitable relief deserves
      to be granted to such employees in the interest of justice by
      invoking rule 39. That is what has been done by the Government
      as per the impugned Order dated 17.11.2000. [Para 151 [709-E-
      FI
 c          Sherafuddin v. State of Kera/a 2004 (2) KLT 731/
            MANU/KE/0103/2004 - approved.

            T.C. Sreedharan Pillai and Others v. State of Kerala
            and Others 1973 KLJ 187/MANU/KE/0299/1972 -
            referred to.
 D
                              Case Law Reference
            [19751 2 SCR 491             relied on        Para 14
            [19801 3 SCR 71              relied on        Para 14
 E          [19971 2 Suppl. SCR 507 relied on             Para 14
            (20071 10 SCR 17             relied on        Para 14


            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2827
 F
      of 2010.

            From the final Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2007 of the High
      Court ofKerala at Emakulam in O.P. No.31168 of 2001.

 G           Shyam Divan, Jaideep Gupta, Chander Uday Singh, V. Giri,
      Sr.Advs., S.V. Raj, K. Vijayan, K. Rajeev, V.K. Biju, Himanshu Singh
      Yadav, Abhay Pratap Singh, G. Prakash, Jishnu M.L., Ms.Priyanka
      Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, Jayanth Muth Raj, Manu Krishnan G.,
      P.S. Sudheer, M.P. Vinod, Atul Shankar Vinod, Dileep Pillai, Advs. for
      the appearing parties.
 H
 A.P. SHOWKATH ALI & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.                           701


       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                             A
      KURIAN, J. 1. What is equity and justice in a situation where a
few employees face adverse consequences for not passing an obligatory
test which was never conducted, is the short question arising for
consideration in this case.
       2. In a special recruitment, thirty-seven Assistant Sub-Inspectors     B
belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community were
appointed by the Government of Kerala during 1988. It is the requirement
of the Special Rule that they should pass the special test conducted by
the Kerala Public Service Commission for declaration of probation. Rule
9 of the Special Rules, to the extent relevant, reads as follows:             c
       "9. TEST-
       a) Every person appointed under these rules shall, pass the test
       on the subjects mentioned in Annexure III to these rules at or
       before the fifth of such tests held after such appointment the
       maximum number of chances shall be limited to three.                   D
       Note: The examination will generally be conducted half-yearly by
       the Kerala Public Service Commission."                        ·
        3. For over twelve years, the test was not conducted by the
 Commission. In the meanwhile, those Assistant Sub-Inspectors                 E
 approached the High Court and obtained orders for provisional promotion
 to higher posts along with their juniors.
         4. While the Assistant Sub-Inspectors continued to ertjoy
  provisional promotions, the Government felt that there should be a one-
  time solution for the issue regarding the passing of the test under the
                                                                              F
· Special Rules since the test had not been conducted. In such circum-
  stances, the Government passed an Order dated 17 .11.2000 invoking
  Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (here-
  inafter referred to as 'the Rules') exempting those thirty-seven directly
  recruited Assistant Sub-Inspectors from passing the test prescribed un-
  der the Special Rules. Since the order is self-explanatory, we shall ex-    G
  tract the same as such:
                                   "ORDER
       As per Government Order read as first paper above, Government
       issued Special Rules for Special Recruitment from among
                                                                              H
702     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 7 S.C.R.


A     members of scheduled castes I scheduled tribes to the post of
      Assistant Sub Inspector in the general Executive Branch (Local
      Police) in the Police Department. Subsequently the Director
      General of Police proposed certain modifications to the above
      Government order during 1988, the following are the gist of the
      proposals:-
B
         !. the Note under rule 9(a) of the said rules shall be deleted
           and the Department may be authorized to conduct the tests
            and declare the results as in the case of other trainees in the
           Police Department.

 c       2. Every person appointed to the Police force is required to
           execute a bond to the effect that he shall serve the
           Department for a minimum period of 5 years after
           practical training.
         3. the period of training of Assistant Sub Inspectors shall not
 D          count as duty for increment and probation, duty for the
           limited purpose of calculation ofleave eligibility as a special
            case as in the case of Police Constables and Sub
            Inspectors.
      The above proposal of the Director General of Police was
 E    considered by Government in detail and draft amendment
      notification in this regard was forwarded to the Kerala Public
      Service Commission for their advice on 6.1.1989. Initially the
      Kerala Public Service Commission did not agree to the amendment
      proposal. But during 1993 the Kerala Public Service Commission
      sought clarifications for certain points and the reply to the
 F    clarifications sought by the Kerala Public Service Commission
      was furnished to them. Final decision on the proposal is yet to be
      taken.
      Consequent on the issuance of the Government Order read as I st
      paper above, 37 persons belonging to SC/ST Community were
 G    directly recruited as Assistant sub Inspectors during 1988 and
      they joined training from l.11.1988 onwards. According to Rule
      9(a) of the Special Rules issued as per the above Government
      Order all the 37 Assistant Sub-Inspectors should pass the test
      prescribed thereunder to be conducted by the Kerala Public
      Service Commission for declaring the satisfactory completion of
 H
A.P. SHOWKATH ALI & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.                      703
                   [KURIAN, J.]

   their probation and for earning increments. But unfortunately, no    A
   test was conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission till
   date probably because proposals to amend the provisions in the
   Special Rules regarding the conduct of the test and certain other
   matters had been under consideration. As a result, these 37
   officers did never get an opportunity to appear for the test and     B
   hence the satisfactory completion of probation of the above
   mentioned 37 Assistant Sub Inspectors has not been declared so
   far. This created a situation during 1991 when Assistant Sub
   Inspectors who were juniors to these 37 offo;:ers were promoted
   as Sub-Inspectors. Some among the 37 Assistant Sub Inspector
   approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing OP No. 12822/91           C
   and based on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court all the 37
   officers were provisionally promoted as Sub Inspector.
     Though. based on the directions of the Hon'ble Court, all the 37
     Assistant Sub Inspectors were promoted as Sub Inspectors. the
     question ofoassing of the test for declaration of their probation in D
     the category of Assistant Sub Inspector remains unsolved. The
     Director General of Police has reported that the seniority of these
     officers could not be fixed so far. Further these officers are being .
     denied annual increment due to them as passing ·of the test is
     necessary for increment also. The Director General of Police has
     further reported that all the above-mentioned 37 Assistant Sub E
     Inspector· have become senior Sub Inspectors who can be
     considered for promotion as Circle Inspectors. If the issue
     regarding the passing of the test and declaration of probation is
     not solved immediately, these officers are likely to be superseded
     in the promotion of this post of Circle Inspectors. The situation as F
     described above has arisen for no fault of these officers. Though
     passing of the test has been prescribed for the declaration of their
     probation. the test prescribed has never been conducted though
     12 years have passed since their recruitment. They were appointed
     as Assistant Sub-Inspectors 12 years ago and they are at present
     working as (Provisional) Senior Sub Inspectors still getting the G
   . minimum of the scale of pay of the Assistant Sub Inspector. Now
     after a lapse of 12 years, insisting on the passing of the test by
     these officers is quite unjustified. Now that they will be working
     as Sub Inspectors for the last several years, insistence on a test
                                                                         H
 704             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 7 S.C.R.


 A            which was to decide then suitability for confirmation in the rank
              ofAssistant Sub Inspector is illogical also. In order to sort out an
              immediate solution to the above problem, the Director General of
              Police has proposed that this is a fit case of invoking powers of
              the Government under Rule 39 of the KSSRs, 1958 taking into
              account the extraordinary circumstances under which these
. B
              officers have suffered seriously for so long. He has, therefore,
              recommended that the Government may invoke General Rule 39
              and exempt these officers from passing the test prescribed under
              Rule 9(a) of the special Rules.
               Having examined the proposal in detail, Government are pleased
  c            to exempt the 37 directly recruited Assistant Sub Inspectors from
               passing the test prescribed under Rule 9(a) of the Special Rules
               issued as per Government Order read as first paper, as a Special
               Case, by invoking Rule 39 of the General Rules."
                                                            (Emphasis supplied)
  D                    '   .
               5. The. above Order was challenged by the appellants before the
         High Court bf Kerala. The High Court, as per the impugned Order,
         dismissed the writ petition, holding that:
               "9. The reasons stated by the Government disclose an
  E            extraordinary situation and the injustic'e that was meted out to the
               Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police, warranting invocation of its
               powers under Rule 39 of K.S. & s:S.R. Reasoning of the
               Government that it was illogical and unjustified to ask the Assistant
               Sub Inspectors of Police to appear for the test after rendering
               service of 12 years in the post also cannot be said to be
  F            unreasonable. We are satisfied that Government was justified in
               invoking the power under Rule 39 of K.S. & S.S.R. and in our
               considered view, there is nothing illegal in Ext.P6 order of the
               Government."
               6. Aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court.
  G
               7. Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
         appellants submits that under Rule 13AA of the Rules, no exemption
         can be granted to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
         Tribes from passing.the tests prescribed forthe purpose of promotion in
         the case of Executive staff below the rank of Sub-Inspectors in the
  Ht-l
        .                                 .    ,.   \   .,
  A.P. SHOWKATH ALI & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.                              705
                     [KURIAN, J.]

  Police Department. It is contended that the ,said Rule has to operate           A
  notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules,. and therefore, it is an
  exception to Ruie 39. It is also contended that the Government Order
  dated 05.02.2000 has specifically ruled that Scheduled Caste and
  Scheduled Tribe employees who entered the service on or after
  01.01.1986, are not entitled to any test exemption. It was also contended,      B
. placing reliance on the Full.Bench decision of theKerala .High Court in
  T.C. Sreedharan Pillai .and others Vr State of Kerala and others•·
  that there is no equity arid justice in exempting certain employees from
  passing the obligatory test. Finally, it was c9ntended that in any case it is
  not a case for grant~ng exemption. t ·
             •. ,   '    •   j.".




     . ,. 7. Heard Shri Jaideep Gupta, Shri V. Giri and Shri C.U. Singh,          C
 learned Senior Gbuti.sel.appearing for the contesting respondents and
 Shri Shyam Divr~·. learned Senior Counsel and Shri V. K. Biju, learned
 Counsel appeat ·ig for the State who have supported the Government
 Order granting exemption.
                        to
          8. In order appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to        D
 refer to Rule 13AA and Rule 39, which read as follows:
        '
         ;'13AA. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,
        the Government may, by order, exempt for a specified period,
        any member or members, belonging to a Scheduled Caste or
        Scheduled Tribe, and already in service, from passing the                 E
        tests referred to in rule 13 or rule 13 A of the said Rules:
        Provided that this rule shall not be applicable to tests
        prescribed for purposes of promotion of the executive staff
        below the rank of Sub-inspectors belonging to the Police
        Department. "                                               F
            xxx                     xxx             xxx                   xxx
        "39. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in
        the Special Rules or in any other Rules or Government Orders
        the Government shall have power to deal with the case of G
        any person or persons serving in a civil capacity under the
        Government of Kera/a or any candidate for appointment to a
        service in such manner as may appear to the Government to
        be just and equitable:

 '1973 KLJ 187/MANU/KE/0299/1972                                                  H
706            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2017] 7 S.C.R.


A             Provided that where such rules or orders are applicable to
            the case of any person or persons, the case shall not be dealt
            with in any manner less favourable to him or them than that
            provided by those rules or orders.
             This amendment shall be deemed to have come into force
 B          with effect from 17th December 1958."
              I 0. We do not think that it needs any elaborate discussion to note
      that Rule 39 of the Rules is to operate notwithstanding anything contained
      in the Rules or Special Rules or Government Orders. No doubt, under
      Rule 13AA, the passing of test is obligatory for members of the
 c    Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe below the rank of Sub-Inspectors
      in the Police Department. But it has to be seen that it is Rule 39 which is
      an exception to the exemption contemplated under Rule I 3AA. Rule 39
      is to operate notwithstanding anything prescribed not only in the Kerala
      State and Subordinate Services Rules or the Special Rules but even in
      any Government Order. The whole purpose of such residuary power is
 D    to remedy an otherwise, unjust and inequitable situation. Therefore, the
      Government Order dated 05.02.2000 also does not stand in the way of
      the Government invoking Rule 39. That apart, Rule 13AA operates in
      the matter of promotion whereas in the instant case, Rule 39 is operated
       in the matter of probation.
 E          11. The reliance placed on the Full Bench decision in T.C.
      Sreedharan Pillai and others (supra), according to us, is ofno avail to
      the appellants. The Full Bench has summarized the law on Rule 39 in
      paragraphs-20 and 21, which read as follows (paragraph numbers are
      given as they appear in MANU/KE/0299/ 1972):
 F           "20. We may now summarise the conclusions that emerge from
             the preceding discussion. We hold that R. 39 is valid and that it
             does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or excessive
             delegation. We are of the view that the said Rule does not
             warrant the ·passing of any general order with respect to any
 G           undefined or large group of persons exempting them from the
             operation of any existing rule or granting a relaxation of the rules
             in favour of such a group. The rule only authorises the authority
             designated therein to deal with any specific case or cases of
             individual officers and to pass orders in a just and equitable manner
             after a full application of the mind of the authority to all the relevant
 H
A.P. SHOWKATH ALI & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.                          707
                   [KURIAN, J.]

   facts and circumstances necessary for a proper determinati9n of          A
   the question as to what would constitute justice and equity. In
   exercising this power it is open to the authority to relax the rigour
   of the rules to such extent as may be necessary to ensure justice
   and equity, but it cannot completely nullify the operation and
   effectiveness of the rules in the guise ofrelaxing their rigour. If,     B
   however, special circumstances do exist warranting a valid
   classification of the particular case or cases it will also be open to
   the authority exercising the power under R. 39 to ac'Cord a special
   treatment in respect of such exceptional cases even by
   exempting the person or persons concerned from the operation of
   any particular rule. In saying this we consider it necessary to          C
   emphasise that such a course will be permissible only in those
   rare cases where very strong grounds exist justifying a valid
   classification of the cases of the officers in question for the
   purposes of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In determining
   what is 'just and equitable' the authority should take into account      D
   the overall effect that the proposed order would have in relation
   not merely to the particular officers whose cases are specifically
   dealt with by it but also to all others belonging to the same service,
   category or class. The mere fact that the enforcement of a rule
   creates hardship to an officer or a group of officers will be no
   ground for invoking the power under R. 39, because it must be            E
   assumed that the possibility of the causation of any such hardship
   must have been duly taken into account at the time when the rule
   in question was made and the rule making authority has
   nevertheless thought it fit to enact such a provision.
   21. Though it was strongly contended on behalf of the petitioners        F
   that the power under R. 39 can under no circumstances be
   exercised in such a way as to affect the rights of any of the other
   persons in the service, we find it difficult to uphold the said
   contention when it is stated in such a wide form. While explaining
   the scope of R. 39 we have already held that it is permissible
   under the said rule to grant a relaxation of the rigour of the rules     G
   or even an exemption from any provision contained in the rules in
   favour of any officer or officers, in regard to whom the facts and
   circumstances are such that a valid classification for according
   special treatment would be justified under Art. 14 and 16 of the
                                                                            H
708               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2017)7 S.C.R.
                                   '     "



A               Constitution. It is quite possible that when such an order is passed
                it may directly or indirectly have repercussions regarding the
                seniority, rank or chances.of promotion of some of the othernfficers
                in service. Th.at, however, has to be regarded as an inevitable
                incident of service flowing from the exercise of the power under
                R. 39 which.is as much a rule regulating the conditions of service
 B            , of all the officers if! the service 0 fthe State as the other provisions
                contained in the K.erala State and Subordinate Services Rules.
                The rights conferred on the members of service by the earlier
                Rules Nos. 1 to 38 in the kerala State and Subordinate Services
                Rules are. not absolute jn character but are inherently subject to
 C              the contingent liability of being affected by any order validly passed
                under R. 35f"             ·             ·
                                   .' ,
                                       .,,                      (Emphasis supplied)
                12. Close to the facts, a situation where the Government had not
         conducted the tests, had arisen for consideration before the Kerala.High
 D       Court in Sherafuddin v. State of Kerala 2 , where at paragraph-9,
         it was held that (paragraph numbers are given as they appear in MANU/
         KE/0299/1972):
               "9. The Government having never conducted the examination. it
               will be unjust and inequitable to deny the service benefits to the
 E             incumbents if they are otherwise fit for such benefits. In fact the
               very pumose of the rule is to tide over such situations. There is no
               point in requiring the incumbents to perform an impossibility. They
               are required to pass the examination if only it is held. Admittedly
               it was never held. Therefore, the invocation of Rule 39 in such
 F             circumstances is justifiable in terms of justice and equity. The
               purpose of the rule is to use the principles of justice to supplement
               law in a fair and reasonable manner and for a just and equitable
               cause. The action/ inaction of the Government shall not prejudice
               an incumbent who is othei-Wise fit for ser\rice benefits and hence
               the order is perfectly justifiable."                            '
 G
         and at paragraph-13, it has been further held:
               "13 ..... When there is failure of justice resulting in\nequity and
               injustice, Rule 39 of the General Rules is to be itivoked in the

         '2004 (2) KLT 73 llMANU/KE/0103/2004
 H
     '
  A.P. SHOWKATH ALI & ORS. v. STATE OF KER.ALA & ORS.                           709
                     [KURJAN, J.]

        interests of equity and justice. Such power can be exercised even       A
        with retrospective effect for doing complete equity..... "
      13. We respectfully endorse the views expressed by the Kerala
High Court.
       14. The whole purpose of equity jurisdiction is to prevent injustice
and to promote justice. In the words of Krishna Iyer, J., in Roshanlal B
Kuthalia v. R. B. Mohan Singh Oberoi3· " ..... equity is the moral
dimension of law". Thus, equity shall overpower technicality where
human justice is at stake4 • There is a lot of difference between the court
exercising equity jurisdiction and the law-maker itself exercising it. As in
the instant case, a residuary power is reserved by the law maker, namely c
the Government, to be used in certain situations which are not otherwise
prescribed under law. However, such power does not clothe the
Executive to supplement a prescribed provisi.on or to act in violation of
the same. As stated by this Court in Bola v. Sardana 5 , "Equity steps in
where the law has left yawning gaps". Even for courts, equity
jurisdiction is meant to be exercised when there is no law operating in D
the field 6•
       15. Back to the facts, in ascertaining equity and justice, the simple
 question to be addressed is what would happen to those thirty seven
 Assistant Sub- Inspectors in service, in case the exemption is not granted.
 For no fault on their part, should they have to continue as Assistant Sub-     E
 Inspectors only till their retirement? ls there any point, nay, does it even
 appeal to common sense, to subject them to the test ,after more than
 twelve years of entering service and serving in promot\:d posts as well?
 Certainly, to remedy such a situation, an equitable relief deserves to be
 granted to such employees in the interest ofjustice by invoking Rule 39.
 That is what has been done by the Government as per the impugned               F
 Ord~r dated 17.11.2000.

        16. Application for impleadment is allowed.
       17. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this
 appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, we make it
                                                                                G
 clear that we have only dealt with the issue of validity of the

·' (1975) 4 sec 628
 4
   Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew, (1980) 2 SCC 752
 '(1997) s sec 522
 6
   Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, {2007) 8 SCC 600
                                               •.   Ii'';
                                                                                H
710             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 7 S.C.R.


A     Government Order dated 17.11.2000 issued under Rule 39 of the Rules,"
      and in case the appellants have other grievances, it is for them to pursue
      the same, if permitted under law, through appropriate proceedings
      before appropriate forum.
             18. There shall be no order as to costs.
B
      Kalpana K. Tripat.hy                                     Appeal dismissed.