Holding

Rule 22(ii)(e) does not apply to the limited recruitment in this case, and therefore the Deputy Collectors appointed on 9‑12‑1994 are not entitled to seniority over those appointed on 9‑12‑1993.

Summary

The Andhra Pradesh Government filled 12 Deputy Collector vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribes by a limited direct recruitment after a dearth of promotable ST candidates. The Public Service Commission conducted a combined advertisement for general and limited recruitment, but the Tribunal ordered a separate examination for the limited recruitment, which was held after the general recruitment candidates had already been appointed on 9‑12‑1993. The limited‑recruitment candidates were appointed on 9‑12‑1994 and claimed seniority over the earlier appointees, invoking Rule 22(ii)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules. The High Court held that Rule 22(ii)(e) applied and granted them seniority, but the Supreme Court examined whether the rule was applicable when the limited recruitment was for promotion‑vacancies converted to direct recruitment. The Court held that Rule 22(ii)(e) applies only when limited recruitment follows a general recruitment for the same vacancies and is intended to protect reserved candidates, which was not the case here; consequently, the limited‑recruitment appointees could not claim seniority over the earlier appointees. The appeal by the State was allowed and the other appeals were disposed.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 22(ii)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules applies to the limited recruitment of Scheduled Tribe candidates for promotion‑vacancies converted to direct recruitment.
Whether candidates appointed by limited recruitment on 9‑12‑1994 are entitled to seniority over those appointed by general recruitment on 9‑12‑1993.
Whether the delay caused by the Public Service Commission and the Tribunal affects the seniority entitlement of the limited‑recruitment candidates.

Subjects

senioritylimited recruitmentreservationRule 22(ii)(e)Rule 33Deputy CollectorAndhra Pradesh Service Rulespromotion vacancyAdministrative Tribunal

Judgment

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 589

.. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH A
v.
P. BHASKAR AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos.1617-1618 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 27, 2008
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. AND D.K. JAIN, J.]
,f
~ Service Law - Seniority:
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules -
rr.22(ii)(e) and 33 - Post of Dy. Collector - 2!3rd vacancies c
required to be filled µp by promotion - Dearth of ST candidates
for promotion - State Government decided to fill up 12
promotional posts reserved for ST candidates by limited direct
recruitment of ST candidates - Public Service Commission
issued advertisement for selection of Dy. Collectors, both by D
... -- "general recruitment" and "limited recruitment" - Applications
before Tribunal challenging the selection process - Tribunal
directed holding of separate examination for "limited
recruitment" candidates - By the time this separate
examination was conducted, "general recruitment" candidates E
already selected and appointed - Dy. Collectors selected by
"limited recruitment" appointed in 1994 - They claimed
seniority over Dy. Collectors selected by "general recruitment"
and appointed in 1993 - Claim allowed by High Court on
ground that r.22(ii)(e) was applicable - Justification of- Held: F
t Not justified, since r.22(ii)(e) was inapplicable.
213rd vacancies of Deputy Collectors in the Andhra
Pradesh State Service were required to be filled up by
promotion. There was dearth of ST candidates for being
promoted to the post of Deputy Collectors. The State G
Government decided to fill up 12 promotional posts
reserved for ST candidates by limited direct recruitment
of ST candidates. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service
' Commission issued advertisement for selection of Deputy
589 H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A Collectors, both by "general recruitment" and "limited
..
recruitment". Applications were filed before the
Administrative Tribunal challenging the selection process.
The Tribunal directed that there should be a separate
examination for the "limited recruitment" candidates and
B by the time this separate examination was conducted, the
"general recruitment" candidates were already selected
and appointed. The Deputy Collectors selected by "limited
recruitment" were appointed w.e.f. 9-12-1994. They filed • ~

application before the Tribunal claiming entitlement to be
c placed above the Deputy Collectors selected by general
recruitment who had been appointed to the service one
year earlier i.e. w.e.f. 9-12-1993. The Tribunal rejected the
claim of seniority. The High Court, however, upheld the
claim holding that Rule 22(ii)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh
State and Subordinate Sevice Rules was applicable and
D
that the candidates selected by "limited recruitment" were
not at fault for the delay in their appointment. Hence the ~ '4111

present appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
E HELD: 1. The Deputy Collectors appointed vide
G.O.M. Order No. 1251 dated 9.12.1994 are not entitled to
be placed above the Deputy Collectors who were
appointed vide G.O.M. Order No. 1265 dated 9.12.1993.
[Para 17] [601-E, F]
F ~
2.1. Rule 22(ii)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh State and
Subordinate Sevice Rules is applicable only when there
is general recruitment and when there were no reserved
candidates, these posts were to be filled up by a limited
recruitment. Such a limited recruitment should be held
G
immediately after the general recruitment is made. The rule
22(ii)(e) is intended to protect the interests of the reserved
candidates. But as these 12 vacancies came to be
converted from the promotion vacancies, they had a
different channel of limited recruitment as the candidates
H
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. 591
P. BHASKAR AND ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
,,.,
-. were not available for promotion. [Para 15] [600-F, G; A
601-A]
2.2. Such recruitment, however, could not be done
by the Public Service Commission in time, thereby their
appointment could be made much after the general
recruitment. As the facts disclose, there was only one B
general recruitment and that was followed by the limited
recruitment of these 12 posts. It may be due to the delay
.... I
caused by the Public Service Commission that there could
not be timely appointment of the candidates who were
recruited by limited recruitment. However, various orders c
passed by the Tribunal also stood in the way of having
recruitment as scheduled by the Commission. All those
orders had become final and they are binding on the
authorities. [Paras 15, 16] [601-8, D, E]
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
,,,.,
< - 1617-11618 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7. 7.2005 and
22.8.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in W.P. Nos. 10604/2004 and 10965/2005. E
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 1619-1620, 1621-1622 and 1623-1624
of 2008.

~
- C.S. Rajan, L. Nageswara Rao, Dipankar P. Gupta, F
Jaideep Gupta, M.L. Varma, P. Niroop, Anil Kumar Tandale,
Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr Singh, Rahul Shukla (for Mr. TV.
George), P. Vittal Rao, T. Anamika, Anupam Lal Das, K.G.
Gopalakrishnan, Deepa Kirti Verma, Venkateswara Rao
Anumolu, Sateesh Galla, Harshvardhan Reddy, C. Masthan G
Naidu, Guntur Prabhakar and K.S. Rana for the appearing
parties.
... The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. 1. Leave granted. H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 3 S.C.R.

A 2. The Appeals arising out Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. ,,-
...
24667-24668 of 2005 are filed by the Government of Andhra
Pradesh and the other Appeals are filed by the officers who
were aggrieved by the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 10604/2004 and 10965/2005. The
B writ petitioners in W.P. No. 10604/2004 filed OA No. 6246 of
1998 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal") contending that they should
be declared as seniors to the Deputy Collectors who were ' ~

appointed on 9.12.1993, though they were appointed as Deputy
c Collectors on 9.12.1994.
3. The facts, in short, are as follows.
The appointment to the post of Deputy Collectors is
governed by the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Executive
Branch) Rules, 1992, framed under proviso to Article 309 of the
D
Constitution of India. As per these Rules, 113rct of substantive
vacancies in the category of Deputy Collectors have to be filled
up by direct recruitment and 213rd of the vacancies by promotion -· ,.
from the feeder cadre of Tehsildars. Rule 22 of the Andhra
Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter
E referred to as "the Rules") provides for reservation in favour of
the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and oth~r
categories. Rule 22 (ii) (e} of the Rules enables the Government
that if in any recruitment qualified candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes are not available,
F limited recruitment confined to such candidates could be
1
resorted to. As 213rd of the vacancies of Deputy Collectors have
to be filled up by promotions, there wc..s dearth of candidates in
the category of the Scheduled Tribes for being promoted to the
post of Deputy Collectors. In 1991 the posts of Deputy Collector
G to be filled up by promotion from the Scheduled Tribes
candidates accumulated to 12 and then on 15.11.1990, the
Head of Department sent a proposal to government to consider
filling up of 12 Scheduled Tribe candidates by direct recruitment ,.
to fill up the 12 carry forward vacancies. The Government
H accepted the proposal and issued GO Ms. No. 264 dated
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. 593
P. BHASKAR AND ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
., 01.04.1991 and set apart 12 posts of Deputy Collectors to be A
~

filled up by the Scheduled Tribes candidates by "limited
recruitment". Steps were taken to recruit the eligible candidates
through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (for
short "the Commission").
4. Meanwhile, as part of the general recruitment, the B
Commission had issued advertisement on 1.8.1990 inviting
t
applications with a view to undertake recruitment to different
"" categories of posts in Group 1 and 2(a) of the Andhra Pradesh
~
State Service, including the category of Deputy Collector. This
selection consisted of both 'general recruitment' and 'limited c
recruitment'. The process of selection consisted of preliminary
examination and final examination. A preliminary examination
was held on 27.1.1991, but on 5.2.1991 the Government of
Andhra Pradesh revised the maximum age limit of the
candidates. In view of this relaxation of age granted to the D
candidates, fresh applications were called for and for additional
wt' ""'· applicants a preliminary examination was held on 14.4.1991.
The Commission prescribed '88' marks as cut-off marks and
the main examination was held on 9.11.1991. Some Original
Applications were filed before the State Administrative Tribunal E
challenging the selection process. The Tribunal gave certain
directions. These OAs were disposed of by the Tribunal on
4.6.1992 with the following directions :-
a) "The selection for general recruitment pursuant to the
-. advertisement No. 8/90 as well as the supplemental F
advertisement shall be confined to the vacancies meant
for direct recruitment for the various services which were
available on 01.05.1990 as contemplated by G.O. Ms.No.
103 GAD di. 03.02.67. For this purpose the State
Government should immediately arrive at the correct figure G
of vacancies for each service (together with reservations
under Rule 22 of the General Rules) and communicate the
same to the Commission. The General Administration
"\
Department under the Chief Secretary, will co-ordinate
and monitor the correct number of vacancies meant for H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. •
.-

A such direct recruitment. For the selection for these
...
vacancies the result of the main examination already held
together with the oral test or interview shall be basis. The
Commission has to take steps to call for interview such
number of candidates as are required in terms of the
B advertisement, keeping in view the vacancies and the
ranking of the candidate in the main examination. This
process should be completed expeditiously preferably
within a period of four months. ' ..,
b) A separate main examination to be held for selection
c of the candidates for the vacancies to be filled by limited
recruitment. The number of vacancies available at the
relevant time including GOs of 1991 referred to earlier
together with the ranking of the SC and ST candidates in
the preliminary examination may be used for calling them
D for the main examination and for selection. The
Commission to fix a separate cut off mark on the basis of
the relevant criteria, namely, number of vacancies, number > ~
of candidates available and the requirements of the
notification. This should also be done expeditiously
preferably within a period of six months.
E
c) The candidates belonging to SC and ST who have
come up in the general recruitment in accordance with
their quota in a selection as per direction (a) need not be
disturbed and the remaining candidates belonging to SC
F and STs to be considered for li'mited recruitment as per
direction (b).
d) The State Government will forthwith take steps for
identifying the vacancies for general direct recruitment for
Group-I service arising subsequent to the relevant date in
G 1990 as contemplated by G.O.Ms.No. 103. On the
vacancies being notified, the Commission will proceed to
issue the advertisement indicating the year of which
selection relates and the approximate number of f
vacancies. The vacancies which are to be included in the
H selection pursuant to this direction shall be deleted from
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. 595

.. P. BHASKAR AND ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

the selection to be held as per direction (a): A
e) Any candidate who has secured less than the cut off
mark (i.e. 88) in the preliminary examination but has
appeared pursuant to any interlocutory order of the Tribunal
or otherwise, will not be considered as eligible for the
main examination. B

-
•
f f) To dispel grievances regarding valuation in the second
preliminary examination, it is appropriate that the
Commission publishes on its notice-board and makes
available for inspection by any candidate, list of marks c
obtained by candidates who are called for oral test on the
basis of the result in the main examination as per direction
(a).

g) The Government and the Commission take steps for
regular direct recruitment as contemplated by the statutory D
. ~- provisions referred to earlier and GO.Ms.No. 103."
5. Main examination for Group I of general recruitment was
conducted on 9.11.1991 and after the directions given by the
Tribunal, a separate main examination was conducted for the
E
12 ST posts drawing the candidates from the two preliminary
examinations. Deputy Collector from General recruitment I were
appointed w.e.f. 9.12.1993.

6. As regards limited recruitment undertaken earlier, written
v ....
test was held in May 1993 and selected candidates were F
appointed on 9.12.1994. The appellants who were appointed
on 9.12.1994 filed O.A. No. 6246/1998 before the Tribunal
claiming that they were entitled to be placed above the
candidates selected and appointed as Deputy Collectors on
9.12.1993. The Tribunal rejected their claim of seniority and held
G
that they were not entitled to be placed above the Deputy
Collectors who were appointed on 9.12.1993.
'\ 7. The Deputy Collectors who were appointed on 9.12.1994
challenged this decision by filing W.P. Nos. 10604/2004 and
10965/2005 claiming the very same relief. The writ petitions H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
v

A were considered by a Division Bench of the High Court and the
Division Bench could not agree on the question of seniority being
assigned to the writ petitioner therein and the matter was placed
before another learned Judge who agreed with one of the
Judges of the Division Bench. The majority judgment of the High
B Court is to the effect that 12 Deputy Collectors who were
selected by limited recruitment and appointed as such on
9.12.1994 were entitled to get seniority over the officers who .,...
were app,ointed as Deputy Collectors by general recruitment '
on 9.12.1993. The majority judgment of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh is challenged on various grounds.
c
8. It is submitted by the Counsel appearing for the State
that the seniority of the officers who are directly recruited to the
service is determined as per Rule 33 of the Rules. The relevant
portion of Rule 33 is as follows:
D "Rule 33. Seniority:
,. .
(a) The seniority of a person in a service, class,
category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced
to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by
E the date of his first appointment to such service, class,
category or grade. If any portion of the service of such
person does not count towards probation under Rule 10
(a), (iv), 1O(c), 16, 37(d), or 42(d) his seniority shall be
determined by the date of commencement of his service
which counts towards probation. > \
F
This sub-rule shall be deemed to have been in force on
and from the 1st October, 1933 in the case of State
Services and on and from the 1st October, 1934 in the
case of subordinate services; but shall not affect the
G seniority of any member of a service, which may have
been fixed expressly or by implication before the 19th
November, 1941 or any orders as to seniority which may
have been passed by competent authority before the ~

19th November, 1941:

H Provided that the seniority of a probationer or approved
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. 597
..,, P. BHASKAR AND ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
....
probationer in a service, class, category or grade from A
which he stood reverted on the 1st November, 1956 or
prior to that date, shall be determined in the state-wide
gazetted posts and the non-gazetted posts in the
Departments of the Secretariat and the offices of the
Heads of Departments, with reference to the notional 8
date of continuous officiation arrived at by adding the
f total length of officiation with or without breaks in that
service, class, category or grade pror to the 1st November,
1956 to the date of re-appointment made thereafter in
accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (c) of Rule 8; c
but it shall not disturb the inter-se-seniority which obtained
in the Andhra State.
(emphasis supplied)
(b)The appointing authority may, at the time of passing an
. order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to D
-""<
a service, fix either for the purpose of satisfying the rule of
reservation of appointments or for any other reason the
order of preference among them; and where such order
has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance
with it; E
Provided that for the purpose of promotion to the next
higher category of gazetted posts, the inter-se-seniority of
persons recruited direct to the subordinate services during
the period commencing on the 1st November, 1956 and
F
ending with 31st December, 1973, separately in Andhra
and Telangana regions, shall be determined by the ranking
assigned by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service
Commission in the common ranking list or by the
competent authority as the case may be, after following
the rule of reservation. G

(c)
(d)
""
(e)
(f)
H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 3 S.C.R.

~
•
A 9. Based on the above rule, it was contended that the
Deputy Collectors by limited recruitment were appointed only
on 9-12-1994 whereas Deputy Collectors who are recruited by
general selection were appointed to the service on 9-12-1993.
Therefore, in any case, the officers who are subsequently
B appointed cannot claim seniority over the officers who have
already been appointed previously.

10. The Counsel for the respondents drew our attention to
Rule 22 (ii) (e). of the Rules which says that the limited
recruitment confined to candidates belonging to Scheduled
c Castes or, as the case may be, Scheduled Tribes shall be made
immediately after the general recruitment to select and appoint
qualified candidates when the reserved candidates are not
available in the general recruitment. Rule 22 (ii) (e) reads as
follows:
D
"If in any recruitment qualified candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes or as the case may be the Scheduled
Tribes are not available for appointment to any or all the
vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes or, as the
cases may be, Scheduled Tribes, a limited recruitment
E confined to candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes
and/or as the case may be Scheduled Tribes, shall be
made immediately after the general recruitment to select
and appoint qualified candidates from among persons
belonging to these communities to fill such reserved .
F vacancies."
11. It was pointed out that in the earlier recruitment,
sufficient Scheduled Tribe candidates were not available and,
therefore, the Government issued direction to fill up the
vacancies of Scheduled Tribe candidates and such recruitment
G
should have been made first and then the general recruitment
should have been made by the Commission.
,
12. In order to decide the above controversy raised by the I
appellants and the respondents, it is to be noticed that, in this
H case, the Commission issued an advertisement no. 8/90 for
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. 599
P. BHASKAR AND ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
....
" selection to the post of Deputy Collectors and various other A
categories. This advertisement was for selecting the candidates
for general recruitment as well as for limited recruitment. The
Commission conducted a Combined Preliminary Examination
on 27.1.1991. A cut off mark of '88' was fixed for selecting
candidates to appear for the main examination. The result of B
the Preliminary examination was announced on 25.7.1991. The
main examination was scheduled to be held on 9.11.1991.
'I'
Original applications were filed before the Administrative
Tribunal challenging the cut off mark that was fixed at '88'. The
Tribunal held that the cut off mark of '88' was illegal. It was directed c
that there should be a separate main examination for the limited
recruitment candidates and this separate main examination was
conducted only in May 1993. By that time, the general
recruitment candidates were already selected and they were
appointed on 9-12-1993. It may also be important to note that
D
when advertisement no. 8/90 was issued by the A.P. Public
Service Commission, the.number of candidates to be recruited
by limited recruitment was not fixed and the number of posts
were identified only by the Government Order dated 1.4.1991.
It is also to be noted that these 12 posts ought to have been
filled up by promotion of ST candidates. As sufficient candidates E
were not available in the feeder category to fill up the post of
Deputy Collectors, they were sought to be recruited by limited
recruitment. It may also be noticed that a series of original
petitions were filed before the Administrative Tribunal and they
had given several directions as to how selection is to be F
conducted. That is evident from the Order passed by the Tribunal
on 4.6.1992. This ultimately caused delay in the appointment of
Deputy Collectors who were recruited by limited recruitment and
they could join only on 9.12.1994. There may be delay on the
part of the Commission in conducting the selection of the limited G
recruitment. Though they initially intended to have the combined
recruitment of general as well as limited candidates, this did
-'\ not happen due to various reasons.
13. Once the appointment had already taken place, under
H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R.

,._
,,.
A normal circumstances, the seniority is to be fixed on the basis
of Rule 33(a) of the Rules. The Deputy Collectors who were ·
recruited by general recruitment were appointee one year prior_
to the appointment of the contesting respondents herein. They
claimed seniority over the candidates who were appointed one
B year prior to their appointment and filed the OA before the
Tribunal only in the year 1998, about 4 years after their joining
the service. Moreover, the fact that all the officers who were given •
posting on 9.12.1993 as Deputy Collectors were not impleaded
in the Original Application. It was argued that the question of
c seniority was agitated before the Tribunal and the Government
was a party and there was no finalization of the seniority till the
date of the filing of OA. However, it is difficult to believe that they
were not aware that they were treated as juniors to the officers
who were already appointed and that the seniority list was not
maintained till that date.
D
14. The contention of the Counsel for the respondents that
Rule 22(ii)(e) has application in a situation where general
recruitment is held and when sufficient number of reserved
category candidates were not available and then Government
E orders for a limited recruitment, such limited recruitment confining
to reserved candidates shall be made immediately after the
general recruitment.
15. In the instant case, 12 vacancies of Deputy Collectors
were decided to be filled up by limited recruitment and the posts •
F were identified on 1.4.1991. All the 12 posts were ordered to
be filled up by limited recruitment as there were no sufficient
candidates to fill up by promotion. Rule 22(ii)(e) is applicable
only when there is general recruitment and when there were no
reserved candidates, these posts were to be filled up by a limited
G recruitment. Such a limited recruitment should be held
immediately after the general recruitment is made. The rule
22(ii)(e) is intended to protect the interests of the reserved
candidates and if again a general recruitment is made, there
will be non-availability of reserved. candidates and even if they
H are recruited subsequently, they would be much junior to the
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. 601
P. BHASKAR AND ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
""
general candidates and they would be ranked as very junior to A
all the general candidates who had been appointed earlier. But
as these 12 vacancies came to be converted from the promotion
vacancies, they had a different channel of limited recruitment
as the candidates were not available for promotion. But
unfortunately such recruitment could not be done by the Public B
Service Commission in time, thereby their appointment could
'f be made much after the general recruitment. As the facts
disclose, there was only one general recruitment and that was
followed by the limited recruitment of these 12 posts.
16. The two learned Judges, of the High Court were of the c
view that Rule 22(ii)(e) is to be applied and the candidates
recruited by limited recruitment have been appointed early and
as there was delay in their appointment for no fault of theirs,
they were entitled to get seniority over the candidates who were
already appointed on 9.12.1993. This cannot be justified in the D
facts and circumstances of the case. It may be due to the delay
caused by the Public Service Commission that there could not
be timely appointment of the candidates.who were recruited by
limited recruitment. Various orders passed by the Tribunal also
stood in the way of having recruitment as scheduled by the E
Commission. All those orders had become final and they are
binding on the authorities.
17. As the contesting respondents were appointed as
" Deputy Collectors vide G.O.M. Order No. 1251 dated 9.12.1994
they are not entitled to be placed above the Deputy Collectors F
who were appointed vide G.O.M. Order No. 1265 dated
9.12.1993. The Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 24667-
24668 of 2005 filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh are
allowed.
G
18. The Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 25382-25383
of 2005; SLP (C) No. 26434-26435 of 2005 and SLP (C) No.
-\ 26436-26437 of 2005 are accordingly disposed of in the light
of the Judgment in the appeal filed by the State.
B.B.B. Appeals disposed of. H