# / v. Anoop Kumar Rathore

- **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 1080
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-08-04
- **Case number:** Special Appeal (D) No. 318 of 2006
- **Bench:** C.K. Prasad, C.J. A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/v-anoop-kumar-rathore-40624
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(Direct Recruitment) Rules 1985- Rule
23-Rule provides mode of selectionwritten test and Hindi typing test-only
these candidate after qualifying in both
test on basis of merit shall be called for
interview-advertisement
provides
preference
of
Hindi
Type
knowing
Candidates-
petitioner
respondent
qualify
in
written
test
but
remain
unsucess in type test-nor called for
interview-held-on conflict of rules as
well
as
in
advertisement-rule
shall
prerail as per law developed by apex
Court-held-petitioner/ respondent can
not be selected- order passed by Single
Judge-set a side.

Held: Para-27

In
view
of
the
judgment
dated
09.09.2005 having been set aside by us,
we
have
no
hesitation
in
further
expressing the same opinion in respect
of
the
judgment
dated
12.01.2009
passed in Writ Petition No.51691 of
2006, inasmuch as the said judgment
proceeds on the same presumption and
findings that were drawn in favour of the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.7660 of

## Text

1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
3. We have also gone through the
Full Bench judgement of our High Court
reported in 2005 (4) ESC 2378 (All)
Sarika Vs. State of U.P. and others
where also it has been held that the
reservation will be made, if required, for
the
judicial
service
by
the
State
Government, then it should be made in
consultation with the High Court.
Therefore, when such Full Court of this
High Court did not approve any such
proposal for reservation, we are of view
that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be
considered and as such writ petition is
liable to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed, however, without imposing
any cost.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDITION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED ALLAHABAD:04.08.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE C.K. PRASAD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Special Appeal (D) No. 318 of 2006
With
Special Appeal (D) No. 615 of 2009

Superintending Engineer, Jhansi Lalitpur
Circile, P.W.D. Jhansi and others

 ...Appellants/Respondents
Versus
Anoop Kumar Rathore

...Respondent/Petitioner

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri K.S. Kushwaha, S.C.
Sri M.S. Pipersenia, Addl. CSC

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Indra Raj Singh

U.P. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff
(Direct Recruitment) Rules 1985- Rule
23-Rule provides mode of selectionwritten test and Hindi typing test-only
these candidate after qualifying in both
test on basis of merit shall be called for
interview-advertisement
provides
preference
of
Hindi
Type
knowing
Candidates-
petitioner
respondent
qualify
in
written
test
but
remain
unsucess in type test-nor called for
interview-held-on conflict of rules as
well
as
in
advertisement-rule
shall
prerail as per law developed by apex
Court-held-petitioner/ respondent can
not be selected- order passed by Single
Judge-set a side.

Held: Para-27

In
view
of
the
judgment
dated
09.09.2005 having been set aside by us,
we
have
no
hesitation
in
further
expressing the same opinion in respect
of
the
judgment
dated
12.01.2009
passed in Writ Petition No.51691 of
2006, inasmuch as the said judgment
proceeds on the same presumption and
findings that were drawn in favour of the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.7660 of
1999. Therefore, the judgment dated
12.01.2009
passed
in
Writ
Petition
No.51691 of 2006 is also set aside.
Case law discussed
JT 2007(3) SC 352.

(Delivered by Hon'ble C.K. Prasad, C.J.)

1. These two special appeals arise,
though against separate judgments dated
09.09.2005 and 12.01.2009 respectively,
out of common questions of law and fact
pertaining to the same process of selection
on the post of Junior Clerk in the Public
Works
Department,
against
an
advertisement dated 10.08.1998 published
by the Chief Engineer, Public Works
Department, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, where
the respondent-petitioner Anoop Kumar
Rathore (hereinafter referred to as the
''petitioner') claimed appointment on the
basis of the said selection.
3 All] Superintending Engineer and others V.Anoop Kumar Rathore
1081
2. The dispute raised by the
petitioner is that knowledge of Hindi
typewriting was only a preferential
qualification, and not essential, as per the
advertisement itself, and therefore, the
appellants - employer could not have
disqualified
the
candidature
of
the
petitioner on that count. The stand of the
appellants in response is that the word
preference in the advertisement was a
mistake, and that the Rules provide for
knowledge of Hindi typewriting as an
essential qualification for the post in
question, which would prevail as against
an error in the advertisement. The learned
Single Judges while allowing the writ
petitions have found favour with the plea
of the petitioner, hence these appeals
under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

3. Short facts giving rise to the
present appeals are that the petitioner
applied for the post of Junior Clerk in the
Public Works Department in the Jhansi
Region against the advertisement issued
by the Chief Engineer of the said region
dated 10.08.1998. He appeared in the
written
examination,
which
was
conducted on 13th December 1998 and by
a subsequent letter dated 5th February
1999, he was called upon to appear in the
typing test scheduled on 13.02.1999. The
petitioner appears to have made himself
available for the typing test, but could not
qualify the same. The result of the written
test was declared and a merit list was
prepared, which was sent to the State
Government.
The
petitioner
was,
however, not interviewed, as only those
candidates were called for interview who
qualified in the Hindi typing test with a
speed of 25 words per minute.

4. At this stage, the petitioner filed
Writ Petition No. 7660 of 1999 praying
for a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondent authorities (appellants herein)
to give him an opportunity to appear in
the interview for the post of Junior Clerk
and thereafter declare his result. This
Court entertained the writ petition and
thereafter vide order dated 26.02.1999
stayed the declaration of the result of the
said selections. Out of the selected
candidates, one Santosh Kumar Yadav
filed Writ Petition No. 7903 of 2000 and
the said writ petition was heard along
with Writ Petition No. 7660 of 1999,
where after by an order dated 20.04.2001,
the interim order dated 26.02.1999 was
modified directing the respondents therein
to declare the results, which were made
subject to the final decision of the writ
petition. These facts are mentioned in the
order dated 26.08.2006 passed by the
Chief
Engineer,
Public
Works
Department, Jhansi Region, Jhansi.

5. The writ petition filed by the
petitioner, i.e. Writ Petition No. 7660 of
1999
was
finally
decided
on
9th
September
2005
after
exchange
of
affidavits, and the learned Judge held that
the qualification of possessing proficiency
in
Hindi
typewriting
was
only
a
preferential qualification as per the
advertisement for the post in question,
and since it was not an essential
qualification, the Department had erred in
excluding
the
petitioner
from
the
interview. Accordingly, a direction was
issued
to
interview
the
petitioner
separately and to convey the result of the
said interview to the Board for final
consideration. The Department preferred
Special Appeal (Defective) No. 318 of
2006 assailing the said judgment, which
was presented before the Court on
1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
08.05.2006 and an order was passed on
11.05.2006 to list the appeal after the
delay
condonation
application
was
disposed off.

6. The Department interviewed the
petitioner on 24.07.2006 in compliance of
the directions of this Court. The petitioner
also filed Contempt Petition No. 2092 of
2006 alleging disobedience of the order
dated 09.09.2005, in which an order was
passed on 27th July, 2006 directing the
Chief Engineer to decide the claim of the
petitioner within a period of six weeks.
Accordingly,
the
Chief
Engineer
proceeded to consider the claim of the
petitioner and rejected the same by order
dated 26.08.2006.

7. The aforesaid order dated
26.08.2006 gave rise to Writ Petition No.
51691 of 2006 preferred by the petitioner
assailing the said order on the ground, that
once this Court had already held that
knowledge of Hindi typewriting by a
candidate was a preferential qualification,
then the same could not have been made a
ground to reject the candidature of the
petitioner. The said writ petition was
finally allowed on 12.01.2009 by this
Court, which has given rise to Special
Appeal (Defective) No. 615 of 2009. It is
in the aforesaid backdrop that both the
appeals have been heard and are being
disposed off together.

8. Shri M.S. Pipersenia, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the appellants,
addressed the Court in both the appeals
and Shri Indra Raj Singh has been heard
in response thereto on behalf of the
petitioner - Anoop Kumar Rathore.

9. Shri Pipersenia, while advancing
his
submissions
in
Special
Appeal
(Defective) No. 318 of 2006 against the
judgment of the learned Judge dated
09.09.2005, urged that the said judgment
proceeds on an erroneous assumption of
fact as well as in law, inasmuch as the
knowledge of typewriting in Hindi, as
reflected in the advertisement dated
10.08.1998 as a preferential qualification,
was a mistake and which had been
pointed
out
through
the
averments
contained in the counter affidavit and
further,
even
otherwise
the
Rules
applicable to the controversy clearly
provide
the
knowledge
of
Hindi
typewriting as an essential qualification
and not as a preferential qualification. He
contends that in view of the above, the
finding recorded by the learned Judge in
the judgment dated 09.09.2005 treating
the knowledge of Hindi typewriting as a
preferential qualification is erroneous and,
therefore, the same deserves to be set
aside. For this, he has invited the attention
of the Court to the contents of the
advertisement, the averments contained in
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
State in the writ petition as well as the
provisions contained in the Public Works
Department
Ministerial
Establishment
Rules 1965, the Subordinate Offices
Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment)
Rules 1975, the U.P. Subordinate Offices
Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment)
Rules, 1985 and the Uttar Pradesh
Procedure for Direct Recruitment for
Group "C" Posts (Outside the Purview of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Public
Service
Commission)
Rules,
1998.
On
the
strength of the relevant Rules prescribed
therein, Shri Pipersenia contends that
since the Rules provide for knowledge of
Hindi
typewriting
as
an
essential
qualification, therefore, the learned Judge
3 All] Superintending Engineer and others V.Anoop Kumar Rathore
1083
committed an error in accepting the
contention on behalf of the petitioner that
the said qualification was preferential.

10. Shri Indra Raj Singh, on the
other hand, urged that the advertisement
clearly indicates that the knowledge of
typing in Hindi was a preferential
qualification and the Rules 1998, which
have an overriding effect read with the
subsequent amendments, ruled out the
possibility of possession of the knowledge
of typewriting in Hindi as an essential
qualification.

11. Shri Indra Raj Singh further
contends that since the order passed by
the
Chief
Engineer
on
26.08.2006
suffered from the same infirmity, and
since the learned Judge in the judgment
dated 09.09.2005 had already held that the
qualification was only a preferential
qualification, therefore, the subsequent
writ petition filed by the petitioner, i.e.
Writ Petition No. 51691 of 2006 was
rightly allowed and, as such, the judgment
dated 12.01.2009 also does not require
any interference at the instance of the
appellants.

12. Shri Pipersenia, in rejoinder, has
urged that the judgment of the learned
Judge dated 12.01.2009 in Writ Petition
No. 51691 of 2006, giving rise to Special
Appeal No. 615 (Defective) No. 2009, is
founded on an earlier decision of this
Court dated 09.09.2005. Therefore, in the
event the judgment dated 09.09.2005 is
set aside, then the judgment dated
12.01.2009 in the subsequent writ petition
has also to fall through. He contends that
the order of the Chief Engineer dated
26.08.2006 is valid and in accordance
with the Rules and, therefore, the same
was unjustifiably interfered with by the
learned Judge.

13. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, it would be
appropriate to refer to the relevant Rules,
which have been relied upon by the
contesting parties. From the record, it
appears
that
for
the
purposes
of
recruitment to the post of ministerial staff,
the State Government framed "Rules for
the Recruitment of Ministerial Staff to the
Subordinate
Offices",
which
were
promulgated on 11.07.1950 and published
in the gazette on 16.07.1950. Rule 6 of
the said Rules provided as follows:-

"6. Subjects of the test. - (1) The
competitive tests shall comprise a written
test as well as an oral test.

(2) The subjects of the tests and
maximum marks on each subject shall be
as follows:-

Subjects

Marks
Oral
1. Personality ... ... ... ...

 25
2. General knowledge and suitability for
the particular post.

 25
Written
1. Simple drafting (in Hindi) ... ... 50
2. Essay and Precis writing
 50
 (in Hindi)
3. Simple drafting and Precis
writing (in English)

 50
Optional
1. Typewriting in English
and Hindi ...

 50
2. Shorthand in Hindi
and English ...

 50
__________________________________
NOTE- Candidates must take one of
the optional subjects but may take both if
they so choose."
1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
14. The aforesaid Rule along with
the other provisions in the said Rules was
incorporated as Appendix ''B' in "the
Public Works Department Ministerial
Establishment Rules, 1965". The relevant
Rule 5 (2) is quoted below:-

"5. Sources of recruitment -
(1) ... ... ...
(2). Direct recruitment to the post of
Junior Noters and Drafters, Record
Keepers, Routine Clerks and the Lower
Grade Clerks in all the offices shall be
made on the results of a competitive
examination prescribed in the ''Rules for
the Recruitment of Ministerial Staff to the
Subordinate Offices' published under
Government notification no.0-1119/IIB/50, dated July 11, 1950, as amended
from time to time.
NOTE- A copy of the Rules referred
to above in force at the time of
commencement of these rules in given in
Appendix ''B' to these rules."

15. These Rules continued to be in
vogue till the new Rules were framed by
the State Government notified on 29th
July, 1975 known as "the Subordinate
Offices
Ministerial
Staff
(Direct
Recruitment) Rules, 1975". The aforesaid
Rules were made applicable to all the
departments as per Rule 2 of the said
Rules. Simultaneously, the said Rules
were given an overriding effect insofar as
the pre-existing Rules were inconsistent
with the said Rules. This provision was
contained in Rule 3 thereof. The State
Government, however, through a specific
Rule 20 of the said Rules further
rescinded the Rules for the Recruitment of
Ministerial Staff to the Subordinate
Offices, which had been promulgated on
11.07.1950 and published in the gazette
on 16.07.1950, referred to hereinabove.
Thus, the Rules 1975 thereafter held the
field. The State Government promulgated
another set of new Rules known as "the
U.P. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff
(Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985", which
also has an overriding effect insofar as the
previous Rules are inconsistent in this
regard. Rule 35 of the said Rules provided
for regulation of other matters, if they
were not specifically covered by the said
Rules. Sri Pipersenia, during the course of
his submission, specifically invited the
attention of the Court to sub-rule (5) of
Rule 23, which makes a provision for the
procedure of selection on the post of
Clerk/Typist. The same is quoted below:-

"23. Procedure of Selection.-(1). ...
... ...
(2) .... ... ... ...
(3) .... ... ... ...
(4) .... ... ... ...
(5) In the case of candidate to be
selected for the post of clerk/typist as also
for any other post for which typing has
also been prescribed as an essential
qualification only those candidates who
know typewriting will be considered
and final assessment of merit shall be
made only after adding the marks
obtained in Hindi typewriting. The
candidates shall be required to appear at a
competitive test for Hindi typing. Marks
shall be allowed for Hindi typing out of
the maximum marks of 50. The marks
obtained in Hindi typing shall be added to
the marks already obtained under sub-rule
(4) and the final merit list shall in such
case be prepared on the basis of aggregate
marks." (Emphasis supplied).

16. The aforesaid Rule, therefore,
clarifies that in the case of a candidate to
be selected for the post of a Clerk or
Typist, only those candidates who know
3 All] Superintending Engineer and others V.Anoop Kumar Rathore
1085
Hindi typewriting would be considered
and the final assessment of merit shall be
made only after adding the marks
obtained in the Hindi typewriting.

17. Sri Indra Raj Singh, questioning
the applicability of the said Rule, urged
that the said Rule would apply only to the
post of Clerk-cum-Typist and, therefore,
the said Rule would not be applicable in
the present case.

18. Having given our anxious
consideration to the aforesaid aspect of
the matter, we are unable to subscribe to
the suggestion made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the
aforesaid Rule would apply in the case of
a candidate applying for Clerk-cumTypist. The words Clerk and Typist are
clearly segregated by an oblique stroke,
which clearly means the said words do
not, in any way, suggest a single post of
Clerk-cum-Typist, rather the placement of
the words are clearly narrated in the
alternative and separate. The words
cannot be construed to mean a post, which
has both the connotations.

19. Nonetheless, taking any view of
the matter, whether the post is of a Clerk
or a Typist or a Clerk-cum-Typist, the
position remains the same, namely that
the candidate for any of such posts has to
qualify a Hindi typewriting test for being
selected.

The
advertisement
also
clearly
indicates the post of a Junior Clerk and,
therefore, the essential qualification of
typing as prescribed in the said Rule is
clearly relatable to both the posts
separately. A candidate applying for the
post of a Clerk shall only be considered
provided such a candidate knows typing
as well. It is a well-known Rule of
Interpretation that the Legislature or the
Rule-making
Authority
cannot
be
presumed to have used surplusage and the
literal meaning has to be given its true
sense. Viewed from any angle, it is more
than clear that the Rule provides that for
both the posts, i.e. posts of Clerk as well
as Typist, a candidate should know
typewriting in order to enable him to
qualify for appointment on such a post.
The preparation of the final merit has to
be
made
after
assessment
of
the
knowledge of tying as indicated in the
aforesaid Rule. We are, therefore, of the
firm view that the post of Junior Clerk,
which was advertised by the Department,
was clearly governed by the qualifications
prescribed and referred to herein above
under the 1985 Rules.

20. It is further clear that the
Department itself realized its mistake and
error in the advertisement and took up a
clear stand before the learned Judge in
Writ Petition No.7660 of 1999 that the
advertisement suffered from an error to
the effect that the knowledge of typing
was a preferential qualification. The said
position has been reiterated before us by
the learned counsel for the appellants that
the word "preferential" occurring against
the column of "knowledge of typing" was
a clear mistake and de hors the Rule
aforesaid. The order dated 26.08.2006,
which was impugned in Writ Petition
No.51691 of 2006, also narrates the same
position. We do not find any error in the
stand taken by the appellants and,
therefore, we hold that the knowledge in
typing
in
Hindi
was
an
essential
qualification as per the Rule aforesaid and
that the advertisement suffered from an
error to that extent. In view of this, the
conclusion drawn by the learned Judge in
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
the judgment dated 09.09.2005 does not
appear to be in conformity with law.

21. At this juncture, it would be apt
to record that whenever there is a conflict
between the Rules and the advertisement,
it is settled law that the Rules would
prevail. Reference may be had to the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. Vs. U.P.
Public Service Commission & Ors., JT
2007 (3) SC 352.

22. This is not a case where any
change of qualification has been brought
about after the advertisement was made.
This is a clear case where the incorrect
qualification
was
reflected
in
the
advertisement. A qualification, which was
essential under the Rules, was wrongly
referred to as a preferential qualification.
In our opinion, an incorrect advertisement
referring to a wrong Rule would neither
create or confer a right on a candidate to
claim selection nor would it give rise to
any legitimate expectation to a candidate,
in law. The Rule on the date of
advertisement, which has been pointed
out on behalf of the appellants, was very
much in existence and was applicable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could
not successfully dispute the applicability
of the Rules 1985.

23. Sri Indra Raj Singh alternatively
urged that the Rules 1998 have an
overriding effect. We have perused the
same and the said argument is stated only
to be rejected, inasmuch as the Rules
1998 are the Rules of procedure and they,
in no way, take away the impact of the
substantive Rules, which held the field on
the date when the advertisement was
issued. Even otherwise, the Rules 1998, in
no way, contradict the Rules 1985 and
rather they supplement the same, as
would be evident from a perusal of Rules
5 and 6 of the Rules 1998.

24. We may hasten to add that the
Rules have been subsequently modified in
the year 2001 and even thereafter, but
such modifications are not at all relevant
to be discussed herein, as this matter
specifically concerns the 1985 Rules that
were
applicable
on
the
date
of
advertisement, i.e. 10.08.1998. No other
Rule apart from the Rules 1985 was
applicable in respect of the selections in
question in the year 1998 and the learned
counsel for the petitioner could not show
anything to the contrary.

25. In view of the findings aforesaid,
we are of the view that the learned Single
Judge committed an error in allowing
Writ Petition No.7660 of 1999 and
permitting
the
petitioner
to
be
interviewed. We, accordingly, set aside
the judgment dated 09.09.2005 passed in
Writ Petition No.7660 of 1999.

26. The judgment in Writ Petition
No. 51691 of 2006 dated 12.01.2009
appears to have been delivered under the
impression that the said judgment dated
09.09.2005 had become final and had not
been challenged. We may record that the
judgment dated 09.09.2005 had already
been assailed through Special Appeal
(Defective) No.318 of 2006, which fact
appears to have escaped the notice of the
learned
Judge,
while
rendering
the
judgment dated 12.01.2009. In view of
the fact that Writ Petition No.7660 of
1999 stands dismissed upon the judgment
dated 09.09.2005 having been set aside,
the very foundation of the judgment dated
12.01.2009 is taken away. Accordingly,
the petitioner would, therefore, not be
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another V. Bharat Press and others
1087
entitled to any benefit under the judgment
dated 09.09.2005 and, therefore, he would
not be entitled for being considered
against the post of Junior Clerk in
question.

27. In view of the judgment dated
09.09.2005 having been set aside by us,
we
have
no
hesitation
in
further
expressing the same opinion in respect of
the judgment dated 12.01.2009 passed in
Writ
Petition
No.51691
of
2006,
inasmuch as the said judgment proceeds
on the same presumption and findings that
were drawn in favour of the petitioner in
Writ Petition No.7660 of 1999. Therefore,
the judgment dated 12.01.2009 passed in
Writ Petition No.51691 of 2006 is also set
aside.

28. Accordingly, both the special
appeals are allowed and the writ petitions
filed by the petitioner, i.e. Writ Petition
No.7660 of 1999 and Writ Petition
No.51691 of 2006 are dismissed.

29. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.10.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37549 of 2009

Dr. Ram Chandra Agrawal and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Bharat Press and others

 ...Defendant-Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manish Trivedi
Sri A.K. Bajpai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.K. Gupta
Sri Nikhil Kumar
Sri Shikha Singh
U.P. Urban Building (Control of Rent
and Eviction) Act 1972 Sec-21(i) (a)-
Bona-fide need-Land lord -very old
man-suffering
from
massive
heart
attack-strictly restrained from using
stairs-his son being Doctor-wants to
open
a
clinic-rejection
by
the
authorities below- held-not proper if
the case remanded-very purpose of
eviction frustrated.

Held: Para 27

I am conscious of the fact that this
Court cannot reevaluate the evidence
and
substitute
its
own
findings
because two views are possible. A bare
perusal of the release application,
objections filed by tenants and the
various affidavits it is abundantly clear
that the landlords (psetitioners) who
are owners, require the shops for their
personal need. They are the first and
the rightful claimant to use their own
property as they want it. This is a
situation where father and son with
their spouses are facing a number of
problems and therefore the release of
the shops cannot be refused. The very
purpose of the Act stands frustrated if
the two judgments of the courts are
left to stand.
Case law discussed
AIR 1999 Supreme Court, 100, 2009(1) ARC,
829, 2008(3) ARC 532.(2000)1 SCC, 679,
2000 SCF BRC,24, (1996) 5 SCC, 353,
(2002) 5 SCC, 397:2002 SCFBRC 388, AIR
1965 AP 435, (1979)1 SCC 273: 1986
SCFBRC 346, JT 2002(10) SC 203:2003
SCFBRC 137, JT 2004(Suppl.1) SC 538: 2004
SCFBRC 338, 1977 ARC 46, 2007 (68)
ALR,555, 2007(68) ALR, 603, 2008(71) ALR,
857, 2009(2) ARC,715, 2003(1) ARC, 256,
(1993) 3 SCC, 483, AIR 2002 Supreme
Court,200, 2004 All. C.J., 304 (S.C.).