Holding

The Court held that the break in service does not defeat the requirement of continuous service and that service in another university counts towards the eight‑year period, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

Summary

The respondent, Dr. Indra Pratap Singh, applied for promotion under the University Grants Commission's Merit Promotion Scheme, which requires eight years of continuous service, at least four years in the appointing university. The University rejected his claim, arguing a three‑month break in service (April‑July 1980) and his tenure at Nagpur University could not be counted. The High Court quashed the University's order, holding that the scheme expressly allows service in more than one university and that short breaks may be condoned. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the meaning of "continuous service" and held that it must be interpreted in light of the scheme's object—ensuring eight years of teaching experience—so the break does not defeat continuity and the Nagpur service counts. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the respondent was entitled to promotion.

Issues considered

Whether a three‑month and twenty‑day gap in employment interrupts the requirement of eight years of continuous service under the Merit Promotion Scheme.
Whether service rendered in another university can be counted towards the eight‑year continuous service requirement.
Whether the University has the authority to condone breaks in service and whether it exercised that power arbitrarily in this case.
How the term "continuous service" should be interpreted in the context of the Merit Promotion Scheme.

Subjects

continuous serviceMerit Promotion SchemeUniversity Grants Commissionpromotion eligibilityservice breakstatutory interpretationhigher education employment

Judgment

A BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY, VARANASI AND ANR.
\'.
DR. INDRA PRAT AP SINGH

JANUARY 24, 1992

B [L.M.SHARMA, V. RAMASWAMI AND B.P.JEEVAN
REDDY, JJ.]

l!niversity Grants Couunission-Merit Proniotion Sche1ne-Para 2
(a)--Object and scope q(.

C University--lect11rer-l'romotion as Reader--/l.eq11irement qf "eight
years contin11011s se1vice "-Appointment as temporatJ' lecturer in Banaras ~- .
Hind11 University--{Jap of 3 months and 20 days in sen'ice-Appointment
as Reader in Nagpur Unil'ersity----/1.eappointment as permanent lecturer
in Banaras Hindu University---Claim for promotion as Reader held
sustainable-/-/eld para 2 (a) recognizes eight years serl'ice in more than
D one University-{lap in service held of the nawre contemplated by para
2 (a)~\'e1vice rendered in Nagp11r University held liable to be co11nted
toi.1'ards eight year~~ se111ice.

With a view to providing an incentive to teachers, preventing
stagnation and also for improving their efficiency the University "
E Grants Commission evolved a scheme called "Merit Promotion Scheme".
On being selected under the said s~heme a lecturer is designated as
Reader and becomes entitled to a higher pay scale. One of the con-
ditions under the scheme which a lecturer must satisfy before he
becomes entitled to promotion is eight years's of continuous service
of which at least four years should be in the institution where he is
F being considered for promotion.

The respondent was appointed as a lecturer by the appellant-
University, on temporary basis, on 26.8.1974 in the Department of
Basic Principles in the Institute of Medical Sciences for a period of
eleven months. At the end of eleven months, he was re-appointed on
G the same basis for a further period of eleven months. By means of
such appointments he served as a temporary Lecturer from 26.8.197'1
till 31.3.1980. There was no re-appointment thereafter and from
1.4.80 to 20.7.80 he remained. without a job. On 21.7.80 he was
appointed as a Reader in the Nagpur University where he served till
20.9.82. On 22.9.82 he was appointed as a permanent lecturer in the
H appellant-University in the same Department where he worked ear-

360
~
BANARAS UNIVERSITY 1·. !JR.LP. SINGH 361

---! lier temporarily and his salary was fixed by giving him fourteen A
increments so as to protect his last pay drawn at Nagpur .
. In 1983 the respondent claimed promotion under the Merit
Promotion Scheme but the University rejected his case on the ground
that he does not satisfy the requirement of eight years' of continu-
ous service in the cadre because there was a break in his service B
between 1.4.80 to 20.7.80 and that his service in the Nagpur Univer-
sity cannot be counted.

The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court and
pursuant to.an interim order passed by the High Court the respond-
ent's case was considered by the Selection Committee and the deci- c
sion of the Committee was kept in a sealed cover.

The High Court allowed the petition by holding: (i) that the
respondent's service in the Nagpur University was liable to he counted
towards the eight years' continuous service because para 2 (a) of the
scheme expressly recognizes service in more than one University; D
(ii) a long-standing practice of the University was to condone the
breaks in service in such cases. Consequently the High C.ourt quashed
the University's· order rejecting respondent's application and di-
reeled the University to place recommendations of the Selection
Committee before the Executive Council and to promote him as
Reader if he was approved by the Executive Council. E

The University filed an appeal in this Court contending that (i)
the High Court erred in holding that the respondent satisfied the
requirement of eight years' continuous service; (ii) the power of the
University to condone short breaks in service was exercised in cases
only where the delays in reappointment were caused by procedural F
delays in the office of University; (iii) there was a definite break in
)(.__"' the respondent's service and such a break has never been condoned
by the University.
,
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that para 2 (a) of
the scheme rccogn!zes a teacher serving two or more Universities G
~ for the purposes of "continuous eight years" service; (ii) the re-
qufrement of continuous service should he understood having re-
•
gard to the underlying aim and object; (iii) In many other cases the
University has condoned similar breaks and refusal to do so in his
case was arbitrary and discriminatory.
L H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] I S.C.R.

A Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: 1. The expression "continuous service" has no single
unalterable meaning and its content varies having regard to the
context. (368-C]

B .Jeevan Lal Ltd. v. Its workmen, (1962] 1 S.C.R. 717; referred to.

· "Words and Phrases" Vol. 9; referred to.

2. The expression "eight years of continuous service" in para
2 (a) of the scheme should be understood in a reasonable manner
C having regard to the underlying aim and object. In understanding
and construing the said expression the object underlying the said
requirement should be taken into consideration. The object behind
para 2 (a) of the scheme is to ensure that a teacher docs have eight
years' teaching experience. [366 F, H, 367-A]

D 2.1. Para 2 (a) of the Merit Promotion Scheme itself expressly
recognizes that the eight years' service may be in more than one
institution, the only requirement being a minimum of four years
service in the institution where he is being considered for promotion
under the scheme. In case of shift from one University to other or
from one institution to the other it can reasonably be presumed that
E there is bound to be some interval. The interval may be of a day, a
week or a month. What is relevant is not the length of the interval
or break, as it may be called, but its nature. However, the length of
such interval is not totally irrelevant; but one must take into consid-
eration the reason for which break, or the circumstances in which
such break, has occurred. (366 F-H]
F
2.2 The gap in the respondent's service is of the nature con-
templated by para 2 (a) of the scheme. True it is that it is a hit too
long but even so in the light of the circumstance that the respondent
was reappointed on a permanent basis, on the very same post, in the
very same department, the length of the said break pales into insig-
G nificance. [369 B-C]

3. It is also evident from record that in case of other two
teachers who had not completed eight years' service by the pre-
scribed date the Vice-Chancellor and the Executive Council decided
to extend the eligibility period till the date of interview so as to
H make them eligible for consideration which shows that the Univer-
BANARAS UNIVERSITY v. DR.I.P. SINGH [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.) 363

·.-{ sity has been passing appropriate orders wherever the justice of a ' A
case demanded. The same treat11,1ent ought to have ·been extended t'
the respondent, in all the.cir-ctimstances o.fthe case. (370 E-F) · •

CIVIL APPELLATE WRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1626·.of
1988. '
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.1987 of the Allahabad
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3396 of 1985.
1
M.L. Verma, L.R. Singh, Vii<as-.singh-and Yunus Malik for the
Appellants.
c
P.P. Rao, T.N. Singh, B.M. Sharma and S.N. Singh for the Respo11d'
ents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.P JEEV AN !lEDDY, J. This Civil Appeal is preferred against the · D
judgment and order of a Division Belleh of the Allahabad High Court
allowing the writ petition filed by the r~spondent Dr. Indra Pratap Singh.

The respondent was appointed as a lecturer by the appellant-Uni~e~
sity, on temporary basis, on 26.'8.1974 in the dep;utment of Basic Princi-·
pies in the Institute of Medical Sciences. Hi.s appointment was effe~tive E
for a period of eleven months. At the end. of eleven months, be was re•
appointed on the same basis for a further jieriod of eleven months; By
means of S\ICh appointments, 'he was.coptinued µpto 31.3.1980, There was
no re-appointment thereafter. On 21.7.1980, .the respondent was appointed ·
as a Reader in Sri Ayurved Cqllege of the Nagpur University. He worked·
there till 20.9.1982. On 22,9.1982, he was appointed as a lecturer'in the. · F
appellant-University in the very same· department, on a permanent basis.
On this occasion, his salary was fixed giving hi,tn as rnany as fourteen
increments so as to proteci his Jast drawn pay at Nagpur. ·

Banaras Hindu University is a Central University. It is ·en(irely funded
by tire University Grants Commission (U.G.C.). The U.G.C. had evolved a G
scheiµe called 'Merit Promotion Scheme' with a view to provide an in·cen-
tive to teachers, to prevent stagnation and also to improve .their efficiency.
One ofthe conditions which· a lecturer must satisfy before 'he becomes
entitled to promotion is eight years' continuous service. Clause (a) of para.
2 of the Scheme which provides for the said qualification reads thus:
J.
·-
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] I S.C.R.

A "2 (a). Teacher in the University departments engaged in ad- \..
vance teaching and research and whose contribution and achieve-
ments are such as to merit recognition must be considered for
merit promotion in the first instance after completing eight
years of continuous service in their respective cadre, of whi:h
at least four years should be in the institution where he/she is
B being considered for such assessment and merit promotion."
On being selected under the Merit Promotion Scheme a lecturer is
designated as Reader and becomes entitled to a higher pay scale. The
selection under this scheme has to be made by the University concerned ·
no doubt in accordance with the criteria evolved by the U.G.c_.
c The respondent applied for being selected under said scheme in the
year 1983. The University, however, was o.f the opinion that he is not
eligible fJr being considered inasmuch as he does not satisfy the require-
ment of eight years' continuous service in the cadre. The objection was
that there was a break in his service between 1.4.1980 and 20.7.1980
(both days inclusive) which means that his continuous service can be
D
counted only from 21.7.1980. Ifso calculated, he does not satisfy the said
requirement by the year 1983. Another objection raised by the University
was that the service rendered by the respondent in the Nagpur University
cannot be counted. The respondent's case, however, was not only that his
service at Nagpur is liable to be counted but that the university was
competent to and ought to condone such breaks in service and that indeed
E
it has condoned such breaks in service in the case of other teachers.
Refusal to do so in the case of respondent, it was submitted, was discrimi-
natory and arbitrary. ·

In view of the stand taken by the University, the respondent ap-
proached the Allahabad High Court by way of Civil Miscellaneous Writ
F
Petition No. 3396 of 1985. At his instance the High Com11 made an interim
order directing the University to place the petitioner's case before the
Selection Committee (constituted for the purpose of selection under the
said scheme). ·

G According to the counsel for the University, the respondent's case
has accordingly been considered and the deci~ion of the Selection Com-
mittee kept in a sealed cover. The matter has not yet been placed before
the Executive Council of the University which is the final authority in the
matter of selection under the scheme, says the counsel.

H The High Court has allowed the writ petition on _the following rea-
BANARAS UNIVERSITY "· DR.l.P. SINGH [H.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.j 365

--<. soning; a long-standing practice in vogue in the University is to-condone A
breaks in service in such cases. Refusal to condone the break in service in
the case of the respondent, more so when he was given extra increments at
the time of his permanent appointment as a lecturer in this University in
the year 1982 (with a view to bring his salary on par \\0th the salary he
was drawing as a reader in the Nagpur University) is not justified. The
service rendered by the respondent in the Nagpur University is also liable B
to be counted towards the eight years' continuous service. Indeed para 2
(a) of the Scheme expressly recognizes service in more than one Univer-
sity. In as much as the respondent's case has already· been considered by
the Selection Committee in pursuance of the interim orders, his case
should. now be placed before the Executive Council· and if he is found
suitable he should be entitled to promotion/Selection under the scheme C
with effect from the same date from which other teachers of the Univer-
sity interviewed for the first round of promotion were appointed. The
operative portion of the judgment reads thus:

"In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
orders of the University reject1·1~e applications of the petitioner D
for condoning break in service and for being considered for
merit promotion are quashed. The University is directed to
place the recommendation of the Selection Committee before
the Executive Council in its next meeting. It is further directed
to appoint the petitioner on the post of Reader in the Depart:
ment of Basic Principles in the Institute of Medical Sciences E
of the University, if he has been selected for promotion by the
Selection Committee and its recommendation is approved by
· the Executive Council with effect from the same date from
which other teachers of the University interviewed for first
round of promotions were appointed. We direct the parties to
bear their own costs." F
J_, The principal contention urged by the leamed counsel for the peti-
tioner-University is that the Court was in error in holding that the re-
spondent satisfied the requirement of eight years' continuous service. The
counsel. did not dispute the power of the University to condone short
breaks in service, but such power, he said, was exercised in cases only G
where the delays in re-appointment were caused by procedural delays in
the office of the University. There has been no case, he submitted, where
the University condoned the break in service of the nature concerned,
herein. The respondent left this University, remained out of job for a
period of three months 20 days and then was appointed as a Reader in the
Nagpur Vniversity. This is a definite break in service and such a break has H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 1 S.C.R.

A never been condoned by the University. The counsel, however, did not }·

urge before us that the service rendered by the respondent in th~ Nagpur
University should not count towards the eight years' qualifying service. -~

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judg-
ment of the High Court on the following reasoning: Para 2 (a) of the
scheme recognizes a teacher serving two o~ more Universities during the
B said period of eight years, the only requirement being that at least four
years out of it should be in the institution where he is beil)g considered for
promotion/selection under the said scheme; the requirement of eight years'
continuous service must be reasonably understood having regard to the
· underlying aim and object; where a teacher serves two or more Universi~
ties during the said period, it can reasonably be presumed that there will
c be breaks in his service, whether the break is of a day, a week, a month or
a couple of months, it is unlikely---ordinarily speaking-that a teacher
gets re-employment in another University and joins there on the very next
day of his being relieved from the first University. The object behind para
2 (a) of this scheme is to ensure that a teacher does have eight years'
teaching experience. Moreover, in the case of this very respondent there
D were gaps of about a week or so on every occasion he was re-appointed
prior to 1980; the University never treated them as breaks in service.
Above all, at the time of his permanent appointment in the year 1982 he
was given a large number of increments both in view of his past service in
the University and also with a view to protect his last pay drawn in the
....-
Unive~sity at Nagpur. In many other cases the University has rondoned
E similar breaks of two to three months; refusal to do so in the case of the
respondent is arbitrary and discriminatory.

.
'
---.....~
We agree with the learned co~nsel for the respondent that the ex-
pression "eight years of continuous service" in para 2 (a) of the scheme
F should be understood in a reasonable manner having regard to the under-
lying aim and object. Para 2 (a) itself expressly recognizes that the eight
years' service 'may be in more thtne institution, the only requirement r
)>
being a minimum of four years serv ce in the institution where he is being
considered for promotion under t e scheme. In case of shift from one
University to'other-or from one institution to the other-it can reasonably
G be presumed that there is bound to be some interval. The interval may be
of a day, a week or a month. What is relevant is not the length of the
interval or break, as it may be called, but its· nature. We do not mean to
say that len~h of such interval is totally irrelevant; what we mean, how-
ever, is that one must take into consideration the rea_son for which break-
or the· circumstances in which such break-has occurred. Another factor to
H be taken into consideration in understanding and construing the said ex-
BANARAs UNIVERSITY· v. DR.LP. 'sllfoii [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.J 367

pression is the object underlying the said requirement. According to us, A
the object is to ensure eight years' teaching experience. It is true that there
is a break of three months 20 days in the respondent's s~rvice and teach-
ing experience. We also take note of the fact that it was not the vacation
time for academic institutions. But this circumstance must be weighed
against a counter-vailing circum.stance in favour of the respondent viz.,
his re-appointment on a permanent basis in the very same department in B
the University ,in the year 1982. As stated above, he served as a temporary
lecturer from 26.8.1974 till 31.3.1980. From 1.4.1980 to 20.7.1980 he
remained without a job. On 21.7.1980 he was appointed as a Reader in the
Nagpur University---ffi the very same 1\Ubject-where he served till 20.9.1982.
On 22.9.82 he was appointed as a permanent lecturer in this very Univer-
sity and in the same category and subject. On this occasion, he was C
granted a good number of increments. The University says that these
increments were granted with a view to protect his last pay drawn by him
in the Nagpur University while the respondent says that it was granted not
only for the said purpose but also in the ·Jight 6f his past service in this
University .. It is true that he was not given seniority since 26.8.1974. Even
so the question is whether the gap of three months 20 days is such a long D
gap as .not to. merit condonatioll- or for that matter to be termed as a
break in service for purposes of para 2 (a) of the scheme.

In .Jeevan Lal Limited v. Its Workmen. [ 1962] 1 S.C.R. 717, the ex-
pression "continuous service" fell for consideration of this court. The E
employee joined the appellant's service· as a workman in 1929 and re-·
signed in 1957. During this period he remained absent from duty without
permission or leave for nearly eight months between February, 1945 to
October, 1945., Under an award made between the employer and the work-
men, a scheme was framed wherein the concerned clause was that "on
voluntary retirement or resignation of an employee after fifteen years F
continuous service, gratuity at the same rate as above" ·was payable. The
question was whether the respondent-workman satisfied the· requirement
of 15 years' continuous service. Gajendragadkar, J. speaking for the Divi-
. sion Bench held in favour of the workmen on the following reasoning:

" ......... there. can be no doubt that in a different context the G
same words can and often have different meanings. As this
Court has observed in Budge Budge Municipality v. P.R.
M11khe1jee, "the same words may mean one thing in one con-
text and another in different context.. This is the reason why
decisions on the meaning of particular words or collection of
words found in other statutes are scarcely of much value when H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . ( 1992] I S.C.R.

A we have to deal with a specific statute of our own; they may
be helpful but cannot be taken as guides or
precedents" .........."Continuous service" in the context of the
scheme of gratuity framed by the tribunal in the earlier refer-
ence postulates the continuance of the relationship of master ·
and servant between the employer and his employees. If the
B servant resigns his employment service automatically comes to
an end. If an employer terminates the service of his employee
that again brings the continuity of service to an end. If the
service of the employee is brought to an end by the operation
of any law that again is another instance where the continu-
ance is disrupted; but it is difficult to hold that merely because
c an employee is absent without obtaining leave that itself would
bring to an end the continuity of his service."
This decision does emphasises the fact that the said expression has
no single unalterable meaning and that its content varies having regard to
the context.
D
In "Words and Phrases" Vol. 9, the word "continuous employ-
ment" is assigeed the following meaning:
"It means working with reasonable regularity, and work does J --

not cease to be "continuous" because of interruptions in occu-
pation due to periods of temporary illness, such as are incident
E to people of normal health .."Continuously", as used in regula-
tions defining total permanent disability under war risk policy,
does not denote absolute continuity." .
Again, the word "continuous service" is given the following mean-
ing: ('

F "Phrase "continuous service", as contained in collective bar-
gaining agreement, had to be viewed in light of terms of agree-
ment which provided for work schedule of eight hours per day
for a five-day week, Monday to Friday, inclusive and, there-
fore, one working regular prescribed hours of labour would be
rendering "continuous service" within agreement even though
G not working on Saturdays or Sundays or more than eight hours
in any 24."·
The above two me~ings, among the several set out therein, are \jµ
our opinion contextually relevant. We are also of the view that a literal
interpretation of the said words is ruled out by the context, as the .preced-
ing discussion shows. ·
H The counsel for the University has conceded that on. several occa-
BANARAS UNIVERSITY 1•. DR.I.I'. SINUll [B.I'. JEEVAN REDDY, .I.] 369
i.''"
sions prior to 31.3.1980, there were gaps of a week or so in issuing re- A
appointment order on temporary basis. He says that these delays were in
the na.ure of ministerial delays. and therefore, they were condoned but so
far as the gap between 1.4.1980 and 20.7.1980 is concerned he says it is
of an altogether different nature inasmuch as the respondent left this Uni-
versity and joined another University. But as we have stated hereinbefore,
para 2 (a) itself expressly recognizes the said eight years' service having B
been put in more than one University. The present gap is of that nature.
True it is that it is a bit too long but even so in the light of the circUJn-
stance that the respondent was reappointed on a permanent basis, on the
very same post, in the very same department, the length of the said break
pales into insignificance. We are persuaded to believe that the said incre-
ments must have been granted taking into account his past service for a C
period of six years in this University as well.

The respondent has brought ·to our notice several instances where the
University has condoned breaks of two months or more in the case of
other teachers. We do not, however, think it necessary to examine those
cases except two. One Dr. L.K. Panda was a teacher in the department of D
Ob. and Gyn. in the Ttistitute of Medical Science of this University. He
was appointed temporarily in 26.5.1973 and resigned on 5.2.1975. He was
said to be out of job bet.ween 5.2.1975 and 27.4.1975 (for a period of two
months 22 days). He was re-appointed as a lecturer in this University on
temporary basis on 28.4.1975, and on a permanent basis on 16.10.1978.
The respondent's case is that the University has condoned the said gap on E
two months 22 days in his case and if so there is no reason why the gap on
three months 20 days in the case of respondent should not be .condoned.
The University has, however, explained in its counter affidavit that no
such condonation was n1ade in his case and that his service was counted
only from 28.4.1975. But if his service is counted from 28.4.1975 only, it
is significant to notice, he does not complete eight years service by 15.1.1983 F
which was the last day of applying--vide University proceeding dated 11/
21 December, 1982. The other case i,s.of Dr. A.M. Tripathi who was a
teacher in the department of Paediatrics in the Institute of Medical Sci-
ences of this University. He. was appointed temporarily on 11.5.1974.
According to the respondent, he resigned on 12.8.1975 and was out of job
till 24.8.1975 when he went to Kabul. According to him, he served at G
Kabul in a non-teaching capacity from 25.8.1975 to 8.4.1976. and he was
re-appointed as a lecturer in this University on temporary basis on 9.4.1976
and made pennanent on 9.2.1979. The respondent says that the entire gap
between 12.8.1975 to 8.4.1976 was condoned by the University for con-
J. sidering his case under the scheme. The appellant's case, however, is
different. According to the appellant·University. he was sent to Kabul on H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] I !;,C.R.
.,_ .
A deputation and that the .break in his service occurring prior to his going to
Kabul has never been condoned. We find that in the rejoinder-affidavit of
the University filed in this court, there is a certain mix-up of the relevant
dates in the case of these two teachers. Be that as it may, ils C:llie appears
to be that services of these two were counted only from the date of their
re-employment. Then the following significant statement occurs in the
B rejoinder-affidavit filed in this court:

"It is true that by 15.1.1983 he had not completed 8 years of
continuous service in the same cadre. However, in the mean-
while the vice-chancellor as also the Executive Council de-
cided that eligibility period of candidature for appointment to
c teaching posts under Merit Promotion Scheme be counted as
on the date of interview, as per existing practice for regular
appointments in view of the fact that the Executive Council
treats posts in bcrth categories on a part with each other. Ac-
cordingly since Dr. Tripathi had completed 8 years of continu-
ous service in the same cadre by the date of interview on
D 23.6.1983, he was eligible and was selected by the statutory
Selection Committee. Applying the very same principal which
was approved by the Executive Council, Dr. L.K. Pandey be-'
came eligible and was selected." .F --

In our opinion, the above statement in the rejoinder-affidavit filed
by the University is very revealing. It shows that even though the said two
E
teachers had not completed eight years' service by the prescribed date i.e.
by 1'5.1.1983, the Vice-Chancellor and the Executive Council decided to
extend the eligibility period till the date of interview so as to make them
eligible for consideration. We are not suggesting any malafides or any
unreasonable conduct to the University. All that we are saying is that the
F University has b~en passing appropriate orders wherever the justice of a
case demanded. In our opinion, the same treatment ought to have been
extended to the respondent, in all the circumstances of the case.

For the above reasons, the appeal fails and is a_ccordingly dismissed.
No orders as to costs.

T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.