RAKESH KUMAR SHARMAversusGOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

                        [2013] 8 S.C.R. 486


A                   RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA
                                  v.
                GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 6116 of 2013)
                           JULY 29, 2013
B
          [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]

       Service Law - Selection - Eligibility - Lack of - Effect -
  Termination of appellant on the ground that he had obtained
C employment by misrepresentation since he was ineligible, not
  being possessed of the requisite educational qualification of
  B. Ed on the last date of submission of the application -
  Justification - Held: Justified - Appellant was not eligible as
  per the requirement of rules/advertisement since he did not
o possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission
  of the application forms - The letter of offer of appointment
  issued to him was provisional and conditional subject to
  verification of educational qualification, i.e., eligibility,
  character verification etc. - It made it clear that in case
E character of appellant was not certified or he did not possess
  the qualification, the services will be terminated - Granting any
  benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of
  equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under
  Constitution of India - Usurpation of a post by an ineligible
F candidate in any circumstance is impermissible - Moreover,
  the process of verification and notice of termination of
  appellant followed within a very short proximity of his
  appointment and was not delayed at all so as to even remotely
  give rise to an expectancy of continuance.

G      Respondent no.3-recruitment agency issued
  advertisement dated 12.10.2007 inviting applications for
  recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers
  ('TGT') for various courses including TGT (Sanskrit). The
  last date for submission of the application was 29.10.2007 ..
H                             486
      RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF                   487
                   DELHI & ORS.
                                                                      •
    Pre-requisite qualification for the post was that of B.Ed. A
    Though the appellant had appeared in the B.Ed
    examination prior to submission of the application for
    TGT (Sanskrit), the result however was declared only on
    28.1.2008. He participated in the selection process as he
J   made a representation that he had acquired the requisite B
    eligibility. The appointment letter dated 19.6.2009 was
    issued making it clear that the appointment was
    temporary and on provisional basis for two years and
    further subject to verification of character, antecedents
    and educational qualification etc. by the Deputy Director c
    Education ('DOE'). The appellant joined the service as
    TGT (Sanskrit) on 26.6.2009. The ODE issued a show
    cause notice dated 21.9.2010 to the appellant to show
    cause why his services should not be terminated as he
    was awarded the B.Ed degree only on 28.1.2008 which
    was much after the cut-off date which was 29.10.2007. D
    Subsequently, the competent authority DOE passed
    order terminating the services of the appellant stating
    that the employment had been obtained by
    misrepresentation since he was ineligible, not being . E
    possessed of the educational qualification of B.Ed on the
    last date of submission of the application.
        Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the show cause
    as well as the said order of termination by filing O.A.
    before the Tribunal, which was allowed. The order of the          F
    Tribunal was upheld by the High Court, and therefore, the
    instant appeal.
        Dismissing the appeal, the Court
         HELD: 1.1. There can be no dispute to the settled
    legal proposition that the selection process commences            G
    on the date when applications are invited. Any person
    eligible on the last date of submission of the application
    has a right to be considered against the said vacancy
    provided he fulfils the requisite qualification. [Para 6] [493-
    D-E]                                                              H
     488    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 8 S.C.R.

A·     1.2. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess
  the requisite qualification on the last date of submission
  of the application though he applied representing that he         ,.
  possessed the same. The letter of offer of appointment
  was issued to him which was provisional and conditional
B subject to the verification of educational qualification, i.e.,
  eligibility, character verification etc. The letter of offer of
  appointment made it clear that in case character is not
  certified or he did not possess the qualification, the
  services will be terminated. The result of the examination
C does not relate back to the date of examination. A person
  would possess qualification only on the date of
  declaration of the result. Thus, in view of the above, no
  exception can be taken to the judgment of the High Court.
  [Para 16] [498-H; 499-A-C]

D         1.3. Like the appellant there could be large number
     of candidates who were not eligible as per the
     requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not
     possess the required eligibility on the last date of
     submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit
E    to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of
     equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our
     Constitution. A large number of such candidates may not
     have applied considering themselves to be ineligible
     adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the
F    advertisement.There is no obligation on the court to
     protect an illegal appointment. Extraordinary power of the
     court should be used only in an appropriate case to
     advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the rights
     of others or create arbitrariness. Usurpation of a post by
G    an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is
     impermissible. The process of verification and notice of
     termination in the instant case followed within a very
     short proximity of the appointment and was not delayed
     at all so as to even remotely give rise to an expectancy
H    of continuance. [Para 17] [499-D-G]
  RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF                489
               DELHI & ORS.
     U.P. Public SeNice Commission, U.P., Allahabad & Anr.      A
v. Alpana -(1994) 2 SCC 723; Dr. M. V. Nair v. Union of India
& Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 429; Smt. Harpal Kaur Chahal v.
Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab & Anr. 1995 (Suppl) 4
SCC 706; Rekha ChatuNedi v. University of Rajasthan 1993
Supp (3) SCC 168; Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander                 B
Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18; Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of
Punjab AIR 2000 SC 2011; State of Gujarat v. ANindkumar
T. Tiwari AIR 2012 SC 3281; Pramod Kumar v. U.P.
Secondary Education SeNices Commission (2008) 7 SCC
153 and State of Orissa v. Mamta Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436       c
- relied on.
     Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar 1993 Supp
(2) sec 611 - held overruled.
    State of Punjab & Ors. v. Surinder Kumar & Ors. AIR         D
1992 SC 1593 - referred to.
                    Case Law Reference:
  AIR 1992 SC 1593              referred to       Para 5
                                                                E
  (1994) 2 sec 123              relied on         Para 7
  (1993) 2 sec 429              relied on         Para 8
  1995 (Suppl) 4 sec 706        relied on         Para 9
  1993 Supp (3) sec 168         relied on         Para 10       F

  1993 Supp (2) sec 611         held overruled    Para 11
  (1997) 4 sec 18               relied on         Para 12
  AIR 2000 SC 2011              relied on         Para 13       G
  AIR 2012 SC 3281              relied on         Para 14
  c2008) 1 sec 153              relied on         Para 15
  c2011 > 3 sec 436             relied on         Para 15
                                                                H
    490        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    6116 of 2013.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2010 of the
  High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition bearing W.P. (Civil) No.
B 1343 of 2010.

       Rakesh K. Khanna, ASG, Rajat Aneja, K.N. Rai,
  Aruneshwar Gupta, Manish Raghav, Nikhil Singh Bijan Kumar
  Ghosh, Bharat Singh, Ajay Kumar Jha, Amit Pawan, Sanjiv Sen,
  Anirudh Gupta, P.Parmeswaran, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Neeraj Kr.
C Sharma, Priyanka Dixit, Seema Rao, D.S. Mahra, Anil Katiyar,
  B.V. Bairam Das, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the appearing
  parties.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D      DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been
  preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated
  13.2.2013, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
  allowing the Writ Petition No.5150 of 2012 filed by the
  respondents against the judgment and order of the Central
E Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
  the 'Tribunal') dated 3.1.2012 passed in O.A. No. 3420/2010,
  whereunder the Tribunal quashed the show cause notice/order
  passed by respondent no.1 terminating the services of the
  appellant for not possessing the requisite eligibility as on the
F last date of submission of applications.

            2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
    that:

            A. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board -
G           Respondent no.3 being a recruitment agency issued an
            advertisement dated 12.10.2007 inviting applications for
            recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers
            (hereinafter called 'TGT') for various courses including TGT
            (Sanskrit). The last date for submission of the application
H           was 29.10.2007.
RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF                    491
    DELHI & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
 B. A pre-requisite qualification for the post was that of        A
 B.Ed. Though he had appeared in the B.Ed examination
 prior to submission of the application for TGT (Sanskrit),
 the result however was declared only on 28.1.2008. He
 participated in the selection process as he made a
 representation that he had acquired the requisite eligibility.   B
 The appointment letter dated 19.6.2009 was issued
 making it clear that the appointment was temporary and
 on provisional basis for two years and further subject to
 verification of. character, antecedents and educational
 qualification etc. by the Deputy Director Education, New         c
 Delhi (hereinafter called 'ODE'). The appellant joined the
 service as TGT (Sanskrit) on 26.6.2009. The ODE issued
 a show cause notice dated 21.9.201 O to the appellant to
 show cause why his services should not be terminated as
 he was awarded the B.Ed degree only on 28.1.2008 which
                                                                  0
 was much after the cut-off date which was 29.10.2007.

 C. In clause 11 of the letter of offer of appointment it was
 made clear that if at any stage it is found that any
 information/declaration and submission given by a
 candidate was false or that any information had been             E
 concealed/misrepresented, the appointment would be
 terminated and further the candidate would be liable to be
 proceeded against in the matter.

 D. The appellant submitted the reply to the said show            F
 cause notice stating that subsequent to his joining the post
 he had submitted the copies of the documents including
 marks sheet of 8.Ed for verification and he possessed the
 eligibility and there was no question of any concealment/
 misrepresentation on his part. As the reply submitted by         G
 the appellant was found to be unsatisfactory, the competent
 authority DOE passed an order dated 5.10.2010
 terminating the services of the appellant. The order recites
 that the employment had been obtained by
 misrepresentation since he was ineligible, not being
                                                                  H
    492      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A         possessed of the educational qualification of B.Ed on the
          last date of submission of the application. The information
          furnished by him was found to be false and as per clause
          11 of the terms of appointment as he had made a false
          representation. His services were accordingly liable to be
8         terminated.

          E. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the show cause as
          well as the said order of termination by filing O.A. No.3420
          of 2010 on various grounds before the Tribunal, which was
          allowed vide judgment and order dated 3.1.2012 quashing
c         the said show cause notice and granting all consequential
          benefits to the appellant.

          F. Aggrieved, the respondents, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
          challenged the same before the High Court of Delhi at New
D         Delhi by filing Writ Petition No.5150 of 2012. When the
          matter came up for hearing on 13.2.2013, the High Court
          allowed the writ petition placing reliance on the judgment·
          and order passed in connected Writ Petition No.4798 of
          2012 basically on the ground that the appellant did not
E         possess the requisite eligibility in qualification on the
          prescribed date.

                Hence, this appeal.

         3. We have heard S/Shri Rajat Aneja, Aruneshwar Gupta,
F   Bharat Singh, Sanjiv Sen, learned counsel for the appellant in
    this appeal as well as in other connected appeals and Shri
    Rakesh K. Khanna, learned ASG for the respondents and
    perused the record.

G     4. The facts are not in dispute. As per the advertisement,
  applications had to be submitted by 29.10.2007 and the
  appellant made a representation that he had obtained the 8.Ed
  degree but could not submit a copy of the marks sheet or
  Degree certificate. The appointment letter dated 19.6.2009 was
H temporary/provisional, subject to verification of various aspects
  RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF                      493
      DELHI & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
including that of educational qualification. The appellant was       A
permitted to join services on the basis of provisional
appointment letter and therefore, the sole question involved
herein is whether the appellant could claim any relief, if for one
reason or the other his result had not been declared upto the
last date of the submission of the application form.                 B

     5. A three Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab &
Ors. v. Surinder Kumar & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1593 dealt with
a case where regular appointment had not been made. The
court held that unless a person holds the post permanently, his C
services would be governed by the terms and conditions
incorporated in the appointment letter and the court must in all
circumstances enforce the terms specifically stated therein.

     6. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition
that the selection process commences on the date when                D
applications are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of
submission of the application has a right to be considered
against the said vacancy provided he fulfils the requisite
qualification.
                                                                     E
     7. In U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad
& Anr. v. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723, this Court, after
considering a large number of its earlier jud~ments, held that
eligibility conditions should be examined as on last date for
receipt of applications by the Commission. That too was a
                                                                     F
case where the result of a candidate was declared subsequent
to the last date of submission of the applications. This Court
held that as the result does not relate back to the date of
examination and eligibility of the candidate is to be considered
on the last date of submission of applications, therefore, a
candidate, whose result has not been declared upto the last          G
date of submission of applications, would not be eligible.

    8. A three Judge Bench of this Court, in Dr. M. V. Nair v.
Union of India & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 429, held as under:-
                                                                     H
    494       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013) 8 S.C.R.


A         "It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be
          considered with reference to the last date for receiving
          the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling
          for applications itself specifies such a date." (Emphasis
          added)
B

         9. In Smt. Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab
    Instructions, Punjab & Anr., 1995 (Sl.lppl) 4 SCC 706, this
    Court held:
c         "It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be
          made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the
          applications, such of those candidates, who possessed
          of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are
          eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment
D
          according to Rules."          (Emphasis added)

        10. This Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of
    Rajasthan, 1993 Supp '(3) SCC 168 held:

E         "The contention that the required qualifications of the
          candidates should be examined with reference to the
          date of selection and not with reference to the last date
          for making applications has only to be stated to be
          rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In
          the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates
F
          who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether
          they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they
          are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the
          advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to
          which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said
G         date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible
          for the candidates who do not possess the requisite
          qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for
          the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a
          contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates who
H
 RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF                      495
     DELHI & ORS. [DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, J.)
    do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely A
    to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply
    for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But
    a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave
    open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection
    may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some B
    applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the
    absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/
    notification inviting applications with reference to which
    the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only
    certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will c
    be the last date for making the applications. Reference
    in this connection may also be made to two recent
    decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service
    Commission v. B. Saraf Chandra (1990) 2 SCC 669; and
    District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social D
    Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari
    Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655." (Emphasis added)

    11. In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, 1993
Supp (2) SCC 611 [hereinafter referred to as Ashok Kumar
(1993)), the majority view was as under:                             E

    ''The fact is that the appellants did pass the examination
    and were fully qualified for being selected prior to the date
    of interview. By allowing the appellants to sit for the
    interview and by their selection on the basis of their           F
    comparative merits, the recruiting authority was able to
    get the best talents available. It was certainly in the public
    interest that the interview was made as broad based as
    was possible on the basis of qualification. The reasoning
    of the learned Single Judge was thus based on sound              G
    principle with reference to comparatively superior merits.
    It was in the public interest that better candidates who
    were fully qualified on the dates of selection were not
    rejected, notwithstanding that the results of the
    examination in which they had appeared had been
                                                                     H
    496      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A         delayed for no fault of theirs. The appellants were fully
          qualified on the dates of the interview and taking into
          account the generally followed principle of Rule 37 in the
          State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of opinion that the
          technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the
B         Division Bench was incorrect"

                                                  (Emphasis added)

       However, the opinion of Justice R.M. Sahai had been that
  these 33 persons could not have been allowed to appear for
C the interview as they did not possess the requisite eligibility/
  qualification on the last date of submission of applications.

         12. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar
    Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18 reconsidered
o   and explained the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993)
    (supra) observing:

          "The proposition that where applications are called for
          prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the
          applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have
E         to be judged with reference to that date and that date
          alone, is a we/I-established one. A person who acquires
          the prescribed qualification subsequent to such
          prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An
          advertisement or notification issued/published calling for
F         applications constitutes a representation to the public and
          the authority issuing it is bound by such representation.
          It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this
          proposition is that if it were known that persons who
          obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but
G         before the date of interview would be allowed to appear
          for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also
          have applied. Just because some of the persons had
          applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the
          prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they
H         could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their
  RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF                   497
      DELHI & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
    applications ought to have been rejected at the inception      A
    itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not
    doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. n
    (Emphasis added)

     The Court further explained that the majority view in Ashok   9
Kumar Sharma (1993)(supra) was not correct, rather the
dissenting view by Justice R.M. Sahai was correct as the Court
held as under:

     "The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing
     the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the C
     recruiting authority was able to get the best talent
     available and that such course was in furtherance of
     public interest is, with respect, an impermissible
    justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error
     of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In D
     our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of
     the High Court) was right in holding that the 33
     respondents could not have been allowed to appear for
     the interview.
                                                                   E
                                              (Emphasis added)

     It may also be pertinent to mention here that in the
aforesaid case reference to Rekha Chaturvedi (supra)
appears to have been made by a typographical error as the
said judgment is by a two-Judge Bench of this Court. lnfact the    F
court wanted to make a reference to the case of Ashok Kumar
Sharma (1993) (supra).

    13. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000
SC 2011, this Court placing reliance on various earlier            G
judgments of this Court held:

    "The High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by
    reference to which the eligibility requirement must be
    satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment
                                                                   H
    498       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A         is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if
          there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such
          date as may be appointed for the purpose in the
          advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be
          no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be
B         applied by reference to the last date appointed by
          which the applications have to be received by the
          competent authority. The view taken by the High Court
          is supported by several decisions of this Court and is
          therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with."
c                                                  (Emphasis added)

         14. This Court lately in State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar
    T. Tiwari, AIR 2012 SC 3281 held:

D         "A person who does not possess the requisite qualification
          cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his
          appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules,
          and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility
          for the post cannot be cured at any stage and
          appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality
E
          and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach
          the court for any relief for the reason that he does not
          have a right which can be enforced through court.
          (See Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal 1993 Supp (1) SCC 714
          and Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education
F         Services Commission (2008) 7 SCC 153.)"
                                                  (Emphasis added)

     15. A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in
G Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services
  Commission, (2008) 7 SCC 153; and State of Orissa v.
  Mamta Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436.

        16. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess the
    requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the
H
  RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF                      499
      DELHI & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
application though he applied representing that he possessed A
the same. The letter of offer of appointment was issued to him
which was provisional and conditional subject to the verification
of educational qualification, i.e., eligibility, character verification
etc. Clause 11 of the letter of offer of appointment dated
23.2.2009 made it clear that in case character is not certified B
or he did not possess the qualification, the services will be
terminated. The legal proposition that emerges from the settled
position of law as enumerated above is that the result of the
examination does not relate back to the date of examination.
A person would possess qualification only on the date of c
declaration of the result. Thus, in view of the above, no exception
can be taken to the judgment of the High Court.

     17. It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant
there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible
as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not D
possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission
of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the appellant
would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the
fundamental rights under our Constitution. A large number of
such candidates may not have applied considering themselves E
to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of
the advertisement.

     There is no obligation on the court to protect an illegal
appointment. Extraordinary power of the court should be used F
only in an appropriate case to advance the cause of justice and
not to defeat the rights of others or create arbitrariness.
Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any
circumstance is impermissible. The process of verification and
notice of termination in the instant case followed within a very G
short proximity of the appointment and was not delayed at all
so as 'to even remotely give rise to an expectancy of
continuance.

     The appeal is devoid of any merit and does not present
                                                                     H
    500      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 8 S.C.R.


A   special features warranting any interference by this court. The
    appeal is accordingly dismissed.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
    6115 of 2013.
B       From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2010 of the
    High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition bearing W.P. (Civil) No.
    1343 of 2010.
                                   WITH
c   C.A. No. 6117 & 6119-6120 of 2013.

       Rakesh K. Khanna, ASG, Rajat Aneja, K.N. Rai,
  Aruneshwar Gupta, Manis Raghav, Nikhil Singh, bijan Kumar
  Ghosh, Bharat Singh, Ajay Kumar Jha, Amit Pawan, Sanjiv Sen,
  Anirudh Gupta, P. Parmeswaran, Sunita Sharma, Neeraj Kr.
D Sharma, Priyanka Dixit, Seema Rao, D.S. Mahra, Anil Katiyar,
  B.V. Bairam Das, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the appearing
  parties.

      DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. In terms of the judgment in Civil
E Appeal No.6116 of 2013, the above-mentioned appeals are
  accordingly dismissed.

    B.B.B.                                    Appeals dismissed.