Supreme Court of India
SMT, VIJAY GOEL AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 701
- Decided
- 21 October 1997
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
Appointments made in conformity with the Safdarjung Hospital (Class III Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1973, and subsequently regularised cannot be treated as ad‑hoc and the cancellation of such regularisation was unlawful.
Summary
The appellants, who had been appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in Safdarjung Hospital on an ad‑hoc basis, were later regularised under the Safdarjung Hospital (Class III Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1973. After several years of service, the Government, relying on a memo that the regularisation of ad‑hoc LDCs who had not cleared a special SSC examination was not permissible, cancelled the regularisation orders and ordered their termination. The appellants challenged this cancellation before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their petition, leading to a civil appeal before the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the appointments and subsequent regularisation complied with the statutory recruitment rules and whether the SSC could override those rules. It held that the appellants had satisfied all qualifications, were selected by a duly constituted selection board, and that the recruitment rules did not limit the authority to fill vacancies on an ad‑hoc basis only until SSC candidates were available. Consequently, the cancellation of the regularisation orders was unlawful. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and allowed the appeal, restoring the regularised status of the appellants.
Issues considered
- Whether the regularisation of ad‑hoc LDCs appointed under the Safdarjung Hospital (Class III Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1973, can be cancelled on the ground that they had not cleared a special SSC examination.
- Whether appointments made in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules can be treated as merely ad‑hoc and thus subject to reversal.
- Whether the Subordinate Services Commission (SSC) has the authority to prescribe qualifications or conditions that differ from those in the recruitment rules.
- Whether the order cancelling the regularisation of the appellants was ultra vires of the governing rules.
Subjects
Service LawRegularisationAd‑hoc appointmentRecruitment RulesSubordinate Services CommissionSupreme CourtCivil Appeal
Judgment
•
A SMT, VIJA Y GOEL AND ORS,
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS,
OCTOBER 21, 1997
B (SUJATAV.MANOHf\RANDD.P. WADHWA,Jl)
Service Law :
The Safdarjung Ho11pital (Class Ill Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1973-
C Termination of services of temporary LDCs after long years of service-
Recruitment of these LDCs made in accordance with Recruitment Rules and
against regular vacancies-These LDCs appointed, fulfilled requisite
qualifications and after undergoing process of selection by Selection Board-
Appointments continued for number ofyears-Held, appointments can not be
D treated as ad hoc or fortuitous.
Appellants were working as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in the
Safdarjang Hospital and their services were regularised after long years in
service. However, a Subordinate Services Commission (SSC) was set up by
E the Government of India to conduct examinations for recruitment to non-
technical Class-III posts in the subordinate services in the Ministries/
Departments of the Government oflndia. As the recruitment of the posts of
the LDCs in the hospital was to be made through SSC, a requisition was sent
by the hospital authorities for filling up the posts of LDCs existing in the
hospital. Under the Safdarjang Hospital (Class III Posts) Recruitment Rules,
F certain qualifications and other conditions were specified and the recruitment
was to be made only through the SSC. By a Memorandum, the appellants were
informed that the question of their regularisation was reviewed in consultation
with Government and it had been held that the regularisation of the services
of the ad hoc LDCs who could not qualify any special qualifying examination
G held by the SSC was not in order. Since the order of regularisation was passed
by an. officer below the appointing authority, the .hospital had been advised by
the Government to issue revised orders canceling the regularisation. The
representation made by the appellants were rejected and they were informed
that their regularisation were cancelled and thatthe resultant vacancies would
H be reported to the SSC for sponsoring candidates for regular appointments
568
VIJAY GOEL v.U.0.1. 569
and that the appellants working as ad hoc LDCs would be terminated as and A
when the nominees from the SSC reported for duty.
The appellants thereafter moved the Central Administrative Tribunal
challenging the action of the respondents. However, they remained
unsuccessful. Hence this appeal·
B
Allowing the appea~ this Court
HELD : 1. It is nobody's case that the appellants did not fulfil the
requisite qualifications or that they did not qualify the typing test. It is also
- not disputed that the appellants were selected after they had undergone the
process of selection by the Selection Board. It is correct that by subsequent
Government resolution the test was to be conducted by SSC for appointment
C
to the post of LDC. It is not that the SSC could prescribe any qualifications
differen~ than that prescribed in the recruitment rules. The fact, however,
remains that when the hospital authorities approached SSC it expressed its D
inability to conduct the test and select candidates for appointment to the post
of LDCs in the hospital and rather told them that the authorities could
themselves make arrangement to fill up the vacancies through other
authorised channels ifit was urgent. SSC did not say that the authorities
could fill up the vacancies on ad /10c basis only till such time candidates
sponsored by SSC were made available to the hospital. In pursuance of the E
communication received froni SSC the hospital authorities asked the local
employment exchange to sponsor candidates and at the time issued circular
allowing the eligible departmental candidates to apply for the post of LDCs.
Posts were in existence. The authorities fell back on the recruitment rules,
conducted the examination, found the appellants to fulfil the qualifications and F
then selected them by duly constituted DPC. The respondents have neither
stated nor contradicted that the selection of the appellants was not in
conformity with the recruitment rules. That being so, this Court failed to see
why the order regularising the services of ad hoc LDCs should have been
cancelled on technical grounds five years after they had been regularised and G
absorbed in the cadre. [576-F-H; 577-A-B)
2. There cannot be a claim for regularisation for having worked for a
number of years ifthe regularisation was not in accordance with the rules.
That is not so here. In the present case the appointments were made in
accordance with the Rules which appointments have continued for a number H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A of years and cannot be treated as ad hoc or fortuitous. (579-B)
Rabinarayan Mahapatra v. State ofOrissa and Ors., [1991) 2 SCC 599;
H.C. Puttaswamy & Ors. v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High
Court, Bangalore & Ors., [1991) Supp 2 SCC 421 and Baleshwar Dass &
B Ors., v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1980) 4 sec 226, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 98of1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.95 of the Central Administrative
C Tribunal, Delhi in O.A. No. 820of1991.
Tapas Ray, Sushi! Kr. Jain and Y.P. Dhamija for the. Appellants.
Ms. Binu Tamta for D.S. Mehra for the Respondents.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D.P. WADHWA, J. Ten appellants in this appeal are aggrieved by the
order dated August 4, 1995 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short
'the Tribunal') dismissing their petition. They had approached the Tribunal
!
E seeking to quash: (I) the order dated May 19, 1986 modifying the dates of
their regularisation as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) and (2) the .order dated
March 27, 1991 of the Chief Administrative Officer, Safdarjang Hospital, New
Delhi issued in pursuance to the advice received from the Director General
Health Services, Government oflndia, terminating their appointments as regular
F LDCs till regular candidates sponsored by the Staff Selection Commission
took their position. The appellants who were working as LDCs in the ho~pital
represented against the order dated May"l9, 1986 which had been issued in
supersession of the earlier order dated December 3, 1985 changing their dates
of regularisation. Instead they were visited with the order threatening to
terminate their services.
G
The appellants have been now working as LDCs for varying periods
from 18 to 20 years allegedly on ad hoc basis. Their contention is they have
been regularly appointed as per statutory rules. Before us, however, they
have given up their challenge to the order dated May 19,1986 faced with,
H perhaps, the consequence of losing their jobs altogether. Before the Tribunal
VJJAYGOELv.U.0.1. [D.P. WADHWA,J.) 571
there were 1 1 petitioners and one (Mr. Udal Singh) seems to have dropped A
out from these proceedings.
The Central _Government in the exercise of Power under proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution Framed rules called, The Safdarjang Hospital
(Class III Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1973. Under these rules, method of B
recruitment for LDCs is 100% by direct recruitment; age limit is 18 to 25 years;
educational qualification is matriculation or equivalent with speed of 30 w.p.m.
in type-writing (and a certain relaxation for a physically handicapped person);
period of probation prescribed is three years; and the selection is by D.P.C.
These rules were made on December 17, 1973 and were published in the C
Gazette of India on June 5, 1974. By Resolution dated November 4, 1975 of
the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat in the Department of Personnel
and Administrative Reforms, a decision was taken to set up a Subordinate
Services Commission ('SSC' for short). Apart form the constitution of the
SSC, the Resolution also prescribed its functions. It is to make recruitment to D
non-technical class III posts in the Departments of the Government of India
and in the Subordinate Offices except those posts for which recruitment is
made by the Railway Service Commission etc. The Commission is to conduct
examinations for recruitment to non-technical class III posts in the Subordinate
Services in the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India and their
attached and Subordinate Offices as may be specified from time to time. Since E
recruitment to the posts of LDCs in the hospital is to be made through SSC,
a requisition was sent by the hospital authorities for filling up the posts of
· LDCs existing in the hospital. SSC by its letter dated April 30, 1977 informed
the hospital that the qualified candidates could be expected to be available
only in early 1978 and ifthe vacancies were required to the filled up urgently, F
the authorities might themselves make arrangements to fill up these vacancies
through other authorised channels. In this view of the matter, the hospital
authorities asked the local employment exchange to sponsor candidates though
with clear indication in the requisition that the recruitment would be purely
on ad hoc basis till candidates from SSC were made available. Simultaneously G
a circular was .also issued in the hospital allowing eligible departmental·
candidates to apply for the LDCs posts till SSC nominees were available.
Emrloyment Exchange sponsored 27 candidates and there were 18 departmental
candidates .. A written test was conducted on SSC pattern and those who
obtained 50% marks and above were selected for the typewriting test. 10
candidates sponsored by the employment exchange were empaneled on the H
'.
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A basis of their perfonnance. Similarly, 8 departmental candidates were separately
empaneled based on their perfonnance. It is the contention of the petitioners·
that these panels were prepared after process of selection by duly constituted
D.P.C. for the purpose had been gone through as per the recruitment rules.
Appointments to the posts of LDC were made from these panels as and when
B the need arose. In all, 17 such appointments were made, 7 of these in 1978,
4 in 1979 and 2 in 1981. Ofall these 13 candidates who were recruited as LDCs, .
one left the service and one retired subsequently leaving 11 of them who, as
noted above, were petitioners before the Tribunal. In the offer of appointment
letters as well as the orders of their appointment, it was made clear that the
appointments were purely on ad hoc and temporary basis and the appointees
C against the vacancies would be reverted or retrenched as and when candidates
sponsored by SSC joined duty or in the case of leave yacancies when the
incumbents returned from leave.
It is the contention of the respondents that on the basis of memo dated
D August 7, 1982 received from the Department of Personnel and Administrative
Refonn stating that special examination for recruitment of LDCs was scheduled
to be held on December 12, 1982 for ad hoc LDCs to make them regular, a
circular was issued in the hospital on October 11, 1982 requiring the 17 LDCs
which included the petitioners to submit their applications along with requisite
E documents by October 13, 1982 to participate in the examination and that in
case they failed to appear in the examination on the specified date and time
their appointment to the post of LDCs was liable to be tenninated. It is stated
that 16 LDCs took the examination out of which only four qualified. The result
was declared on March 20, 1983 and instructions were issued that the seniority
F of the finally qualified candidates may be fixed en block junior to the candidates
who had been appointed as a result of 1981 Clerks Grade Examination. The
petitioners nevertheless continued in their respective jobs. Trouble for them
arose when they were put down in the seniority and ultimately when their
services were sought to be tenninated. It is not disputed before us that the
selection of the appellants was not made in accordance with the Recruitment
G Rules or that regular vacancies did not exist against which the appellants were
appointed.
It may be noticed that petitioners 1 to 5 are employment exchange
nominees and remaining are from the hospital staff. One of the specimen
H letters appointing the petitioners is reproduced as under :
VIJAYGOELv~.0.1. [D.P. WADHWA,J.] 573
"BHARAT SARKAR A
SAFDARJUNG HOSPITAL, NEW DELHI
IMMEDIATE
No. 1468 DATED 8.9.78 B
H.P. PART II
Miss Vijay Gupta is appointed as L.D.C. in this hospital w.e.f.
24.8. 78 F.N. temporarily till further orders @ Rs. 260 p.m. in the pay
scale of Rs.260-6-290-EB-6-326-8-366-EB-8-390-10-400 plus usual C
allowances as admissible under the rules from time to time vice Sh.
K.S. Sehrawat appointed Store Keeper.
Her date of birth is 10.10.53.
She had passed the typing test. D
Sd/-
(P.N. SOREW~LA)
Administrative Officer.
Copy to : Accounts Section in triplicate along with Medical Fitness E
Certificate. She has been Medically examined and found
fit./Pay & Accounts Officer/Leave Group/P. File/C.R.
Dossier."
There is also on record two office orders appointing some of the
petitioners as LDCs in the hospital and in these orders it is mentioned that F
their appointment ,is purely on temporary basis till further orders and also that
the candidates so appointed would be reverted and retrenched as and when
the persons posted by Subordinated Service Commission and persons join
their duties after expiry of leave, whichever is earlier.
G
Hospital issued a seniority list of LDCs as on January 1, 1979. The
appellants figured in the seniority list and under the column date of confmnation
were shown as temporary. There is an office order dated December 3, 1985
wherein it is mentioned that ad hoc appointment of the appellant as LDCs had
been regularised with effect from the date as shown against each of them on
the existing terms and conditious : H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A SI. Name Date. of Date of Remarks
No. App. Regularisation
3. Sh. Pannanand Gaur 7.4.78 7.4.78
4. Smt. Veena Luthrn 8.4.78 8.4.78
B
5. Sh. S.P. Gaur 12.4.78 12.4.78
6. Smt. Veena Makhija 18.4. 78 18.4.78
7. Smt. Geeta Sabharwal 24.4.78 24.4.78
c
8. Smt. Vijay Goel 24.8.78 24.8.78
9. Sh. Deen Dayal 103.79 10.3.79
11. Sh. Nandan K.K. 30.9.80 30.9.80
D
12. Abhoy Ram 30.9.80 30.9.80
Shri Narain Parshad will continue on ad hoc basis pending qualifying
the typing test.
E Sd/"
Chief Administrative Officer"
Another officer order dated May 19, 1986 was issued in supersession
of the office order dated December 3, 1985 changing the date ofregularisation
of the appellants as LDCs and now it was as under :
F
SI. Name Date. of Date of Remarks
No. App. Regularisation
5. Sh. Parmanand Gaur 7.4.78 30.11.85
G 6. Smt. Veena Luthra 8.4.78 30.10.85
7. ·Sh. S.P. Gaur 12.4.78 30.J 1.85
8. Smt. Veena Makhija 18.4.78 30.11.85
9. Smt. Geeta Sabharwal 24.4.78 30.11.85
H 10. Smt. Vijay Goel 24.8.78 30.J 1.85
VIJAY GOEL v.U.0.1. [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 575
11. Sh. Deen Dayal 10.3.79 30.lL85 A
(SIC)
12. Sh. Nandan K.K. 30.9.80 30.l l.85
13. Abhoy Ram 30.9.80 30.l l.85
14. Shri Narain Pd. 4.4.78 4.4.86 Date of exemption
B
(SIC) from type writing test
after completion of 8
Yrs. of service.
Sdl-
Chief Administrative Officer."
c
Then there is a seniority list of LDCs issued on June l, 1987. The
appellants have been shown as temporary with the remarks that their ad hoc
appointment has been regularised with effect from November 30, 1985. In the
case of Narain Pd. (SIC) remark column records "that his ad hoc appointment
had been regularised". A footnote mentioned that seniority list was being D
circulated among the staff concerned and if any individual had any objection
he/she should send his/her objection supported by evidence on or before
July 30, 1987. After the objections were considered a fresh seniority list was
issued on September 9, 1987 of the LDCs in the hospital as on June 1, 1987.
As far as the appellants are concerned they were shown as temporary with E
the remarks as aforesaid in the provisional seniority list.
Some of the appellants objected that they had been regularised on the
earlier dates and not from November 30, I 985 as shown in the seniority list.
By the memorandum dated November 8, 1989 the appellants were informed
that the question of their regularisation to the posts of LDCs was reviewed F
in consulation with the Department of Personnel and Training and it had been
held that the regularisation of the services of the ad hoc LDCs who could not
qualify any special Qualifying Examination held by the SCC was not in order.
They were also told that the order regularising their services had been passed
by an officer below the appointing authority and that the hospital had been G
advised by the Government to issue revised orders cancelling the regularisation
of the appellants who were ad hoc appointees and treating them as ad hoc
employees only. The appellants were advised to submit their representations
against the above decision of the Government. They represented and in one
of the representations on record which is dated November 30, 1989 materials
was given as to how appellant had been appointed and how she had worked H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A in the post of LDCs for all these I I years and that her appointment had been
on regular basis though as temporary from the initial stage. By the impugned
letter dated March 27, 1991 the appellants were informed that their regularisation
were hereby cancelled and that the resultant vacancies would be reported to
the SSC for sponsoring candidates for regular appointment as LDCs and that
the appointment of the appellants as ad hoc LDCs would be terminated as
B and when the nominees from the SSC reported for duty. This letter certainly
came as a bolt from blue for the appellants.
The appellants approached the Tribunal challenging the action of the
respondents. They were, however, unsuccessful though it would appear that
C during the period the matter was pending before the Tribunal they continued
in their position. When the matter came before this Court while granting leave
status quo was ordered to be maintained. The appellants are continuing in
service. We were not told if, in the meanwhile, any candidate for appointment
to the post of LDC in the hospital was sponsored by the SSC.
D Be that as it may. The question that arises for our consideration is : if
the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis from the start and if not were
the orders regularising their services necessary. We have seen that recruitment
to the LDCs in the hospital is governed by the statutory rules framed by
Central Government under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. It is
nobody's case the appellants did not fulfil the requisite qualifications or that
E they did not qualify the typing test with the speed 30 w.p.m. as required by
the rules. It is also not disputed that the appellants were selected after they
had undergone the process of selection by the selection board.
It· is correct that by subsequent Government resolution the test was to
be conducted by SSC and so also selection for appointment to the post of
F LDC. We need not go into the question if in the existence of the statutory
rules could they be amended to the extent that certain functions were left to
be performed by SSC and not by the DPC. It is not that the SSC could
prescribe any qualifications different than that prescribed in the recruitment
rules for appointment to the post of LDCs. The fact, however, remains that
G when the hospital authorities approached the SSC it expressed its inability to
conduct the test and select candidates for appointment to the post of LDCs
in the hospital and rather told them that the authorities could themselves
make arrangement to fill up the vacancies through other authorised channels
if it was urgent. SSC did not say that the authorities could fill up the
vacancies on ad hoc basis only till such time candidates sponsored by SSC
H were made available to the ilospital. In pursuance to the communication
VIJAYGOELv.U.0.1. [D.P. WADHWA,J.] 577
received from the SSC the hospital authorities asked the local employment A
exchange to sponsor candidates and at the same time issued a circular allowing
the eligible departmental candidates to apply for the post of LDCs. Posts were
in existence. The authorities fell back on the recruitment rules, conducted the
examination, found the appellants to fulfil the qualifications and then selected
them by duly constituted DPC. The respondents have neither stated nor
contradicted that the selection of the appellants was not in conformity with B
the recruitment rules. That being so we fail to see why the order of May 19,
1985 regularising the services of ad hoc LDCs including the petitioners
should have been cancelled on technical grounds five years after they had
been regularised and absorbed in the cadre.
In Rabinarayan Mahapatra v. State ofOrissa and others, [1991) 2 SCC C
599 this Court was considering the applicability of Section 3 of the Orissa
Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act,
1989 (Validation Act, for short). The High Court held the provisions of Section
3 were not applicable to the appellant. The appellant had been appointed a
Hindi teacher in a Government aided school for a period of 89 days or till a D
candidate selected by the State Selection Board was made available. The
appellant joined the school on July 12, 1982 and his appointment was made
by the District Inspector (Schools) on the recommendation of the managing
committee of the school. He continued to serve the school with repeated
spells of 89 days-appointments and one day break in between the spell, till
May 25, 1986. The appellant was not paid the salary for the period of summer E
vacations during all these years. Although the appellant continued to serve
the school to-date under orders of the managing committee yet his appointment
had not been approved by the educational authorities. It is not necessary for
us to set out Section 3 of the Validation Act as mentioned above. The Court
observed that the appellant was appointed on July 12, 1982 and had been p
working with the approval of the authorities for almost four years with short
breaks. He was still serving the school. The Court said that the High Court
erred in denying the benefit of the Validation Act to the appellant on the
ground that his initial appointment for 89 days was conditioned by the
stipulation that he would continue unless replaced by a candidate from the
select list. The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed G
that the appellant be treated as regularly appointed teacher in the school with
effect from July 12, 1982 and entitled to his salary, including the salary for
summer vacations and other breaks which must be taken as non est, from the
date of his regular appointment i.e. July 12, 1982.
In H.C. Puttaswamy and others v. The Hon 'ble Chief Justice of H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A Karnataka High Cour.t, Bangalore and others, [1991] Supp 2 SCC 421
appointments to the posts of typists were made by the Chief Justice of the
High Court of Kamataka in contravention of the provisions of the Kamataka
Subordinate Courts (Ministerial and other Posts) Recruitment Rules, ' 1977
under which power to make selection was vested in the State Public Service
B Commission. The selection was required to be made hy written test followed
by interview. The appointing authority was District .Judge of the particular
district where appointments were to be made. In a writ petition filed by certain
candidates the High Court of Kamataka set aside the appointments being
violative of Articles 14 and 16( I) of the Constitution. This Court agreed that
the appointments made by the Chief Justice of the High Court were not legal.
C This Court further found that the candidates had been working for over 10
years and they possessed qualifications more than what was the requirement
under the Rules. Some of the candidates even earned higher qualification
during their service and some were promoted to higher cadre as well. They
were now overaged for entry into any other service. This Court observed:
"One could only imagine their untold miseries and of their family if they are
D left at the mid-stream. Indeed, it would be an act of cruelty at this stage to
ask them to appear for written test and viva voce to be conducted by the
Public Service Commission for fresh selection." The Court also referred to
certain precedents where on equitable considerations this Court did not set
aside the appointments even though the selection of the candidates was held
E to be illegal and unsupportable. The Court said : "The precedents apart, the
circumstances of this case justify an humanitarian approach and indeed, the
appellants seem to deserve justice ruled by mercy." The Court, therefore,
directed that the candidates should be treated to be regularly appointed with
all the benefits of the past service.
F In Baleshwar Dass & Ors. v. State of UP. & Ors., [1980] 4 SCC 226, this
Court while examining, in the context of the case before it, as to what is a
substantive capacity vis-a-vis an appointment to a post, observed as under:
"If a public servant serves for a decade with distinction in a post
known to be not a casual vacancy but a regular post, experimentally
G
or otherwise kept as temporary under the time-honoured classification,
can it be that his long officiation turns to ashes like a Dead Sea fruit
because of a label and his counterpart equal in all functional respects
but with ten years less of service steals a march over him because his
recruitment is to a permanent vacancy? We cannot anathematize
H officiation unless there are reasonable differentiations and limitations."
VIJAYGOELv.U.0.1. [D.P. WADHWA,J.] 579
We are also aware of the decision of this Court thatthere cannot be any A
claim for regufa~isation for having worked for a number of years if the
regularisation w~s not in accordance with the rules. That is not so here. As
noted above in the present case appointments were made in accordance with
the Rules which appointments have continued for a number of years and
cannot be treated as ad hoc or fortuitous.
B
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order dated August 4,
1995 of the Tribunal is set aside and OA filed by the appellants is allowed
to the extent that the office order dated March 27, 1991 is set aside.
RKS. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Service Law"Sign in to search