ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV-A (FOR JUDGMENT) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No.7188/2013 UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) ([HEARD BY: HON. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HON. MANOJ MISRA AND HON. ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.] ) Date : 28-03-2023 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Appellant(s) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Wasim Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra S Srivatsa, Adv. Mr. Albhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR The Court passed the following J U D G M E N T Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar pronounced the judgment for the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra and His Lordship. The appeal is rejected in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) [Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file]
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7188 OF 2013 UNNIKRISHNAN CV AND OTHERS …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T Aravind Kumar, J. 1. Appellants are claiming promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I and Assistant Engineer as per Column 11 of General Reserve Engineer Force Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Recruitment Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘GREF Rules, 1982’ for sake of brevity). Short facts necessary for disposing of this appeal are crystallized as under:
2 Between 1977 and 1986, appellants came to be appointed to the posts of Overseers/Surveyor Draughtsman (Field and Topo) in accordance with the provisions of column No. 7 of GREF Rules, 1982. The next promotional post from Surveyor Draughtsman/Overseers is the post of Superintendent Grade- II. Petitioners were possessing ITI certificate at the time of their appointment as prescribed under Column 7 of Schedule I of GREF Rules, 1982. On being appointed they were given opportunity to pursue course in Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED, for short) at Government expenditure from CME Pune and were awarded Diploma certificate after completion of the course. Some of the appellants came to be promoted to Superintendent BR II and some of them were denied. The posts held by the Appellants as on date of presentation of Writ Petition before the High Court is tabulated hereinbelow for convenience and immediate reference: S.No . Petitioner’s Name Date of Appoint- ment with initial post Date of promotion with Post 1. GS159693P UNNIKRISHNAN CV 23-07-1983 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo) 31-12-1993 Supdt BR-II 2. GS160939 BHAGWAN DAS 06-07-1984 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo) 15-04-2001 Supdt- BR-II 3. GS162102 SURJIT DAS 21-06-1985 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Not yet promoted
3 Topo) 4. GS159880 KARAMJIT MALIK 12-10-1983 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo) 23-08-1664 Supdt BR-II 5. GS162098 MOHINDER SINGH 21.06.1985 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo) 03.03.2008 Supdt BR-II 6. GS159704 RAMNIVAS 29-07-1983 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo) 17-12-1993 Supdt BR-II 7. GS157772L BALKAR SINGH 23-08-1982 Overseer 31.01-2002 Supdt BR-II 8. GS158152F BALWINDER SINGH 01-09-1982 Overseer 12-02-2001 Supdt BR-II 9. GS159017 ABHIMANYU SINGH 01-11-1982 Overseer Not yet promoted 10. GS157742 PARAMJIT SINGH 19-08-1982 Overseer 04-01-2000 Supdt BR-II 11. GS162099 JASVEER SINGH 21.06.1985 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo) 06.03.2008 Supdt BR-II 12. GS162867 RISHIKESH MALLIK 16.01.1986 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo) 05.03.2008 Supdt BR-II 13. GS155226 RAJENDER SINGH 27-12-77 Overseer 15-09-1986 Supdt BR-II 14. GS120857 BS NEGI 31.05-1975 Overseer 16-12-1986 Supdt BR-II 15. GS155089 SAMUEL T 18-18-1977 Overseer 21-10-1986 Supdt BR-II 16. GS161008 RAJENDRAN NAIR 02-08-1984 Overseer 28-02-2008 Supdt BR-II 17. GS159881 SACHCHIDANAND 12-10-1983 Surveyor 03-02-1995 Supdt BR-II
4 SINGH Draughtsman (Fd & Topo) 18. GS156203-S, JAGBIR SINGH 15.12.81 S/D Man (Fd/Topo) 14-09-1992 Supdt BR-II Aforesaid data would indicate that first promotional post was superintendent BR Grade-II and most of the appellants as indicated hereinabove are serving in the said post after having been promoted between 1993 to 2008. 2. Non-granting of promotion to Grade-I and Assistant Engineer is said to be the cause of action for filing the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 167 of 2013 wherein it was contended that as per column 11 of GREF Rules, 1982, they are entitled to be promoted to said post which has been denied by Union of India on the premise that column 11 of GREF Rules, 1982 provides that a candidate should possess “Diploma in Civil Engineering” whereas appellants were possessing “Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design”. The High Court by Impugned Order rejected the prayer of the appellants on the ground that: (i) Appellants’ claim for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I is premised on two grounds, i.e., firstly the so-called equivalence declared by the AICTE in November, 2000, and secondly, the order of the Division Bench
5 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1364 of 1998, dated 03.08.2005. As far as first contention is concerned, the High Court was of the opinion that AICTE Notification recognized the diploma in the respective filed as eligible qualification and no more. It was also held that notification in terms nowhere recognizes that the diploma accorded by the College of Military Engineering is equivalent to a degree, which is the essential qualification for holding the post of Superintendent Grade-I. (ii) While dealing with second contention, High Court took note of the judgment dated 03.08.2005 rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1364 of 1998 which revealed that grievance of the writ petitioner therein was though he had held a two-year diploma-which was deemed sufficient by the respondents qua others similarly placed, had been denied promotion. Whereas the relevant qualification which an aspirant has to possess for the post of Superintendent Grade-I is a degree. The order of the Division Bench revealed that said Court had considered the rule to be one which prescribed that incumbent ought to have a three-year diploma, a fact situation which is entirely different from the present case. 3. Mr. Tapas Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently contended that juniors of appellants having Civil
6 Engineering/Electrical and Mechanical Engineering diploma from CME, Pune have been promoted to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-II immediately after passing of diploma from CME Pune and yet Appellants have not been promoted to the higher rank till date. Contending that as per the extant rules, appellants are entitled for the promotional post they have sought for appeal being allowed and prayers sought for in the Writ Petition being granted. 3.1 Per contra Shri A.K. Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for Union of India has supported the stand taken before the High Court and by reiterating the same before this Court has contended that as per Rule 11 of the GREF Rules, 1982, appellants are not possessing requisite qualification and they are not eligible to be promoted. 3.2 After bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we are of the considered view that point for our consideration which lies in the narrow compass is: Whether the appellants are entitled to be promoted to the post of Superintendent BR, Grade-I? 3.3 The GREF Rules 1982 have been framed by the Union of India under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules
7 stipulates that it applies to the posts specified under Column 1 of the Schedule annexed to the Rules. The qualification prescribed under Column No. 11 of the Schedule for promotion to the post of Superintendent Building and Roads Grade-I reads as under: SCHEDULE Name of Post Number of posts Classification Scale of pay Whether Selection Post or non- selection post Age limit for direct recruits Educational and other qualification required for direct recruits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Superintendent Buildings and Roads Grade-I 420 subject to variation dependent on work load General central Service Group ‘C’ Non- Gazetted Non- Ministerial Rs.550- 20-650- 25-750 Selection Between 18 and 30 years (Reliable for Government servants upto 35 years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Government). Note: This crucial date for determining the age limit shall be the closing date for receipt of applications from candidates in India (other than those in Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep). In case, of appointment through the Essential: Recognized degree in Civil Engineering or
8 Employment Exchanges, the crucial date for determining the age limits shall be the last date upto which Employment Exchanges are asked to submit the names. Whether age and educational qualifi- cations prescribed for direct recruit will apply in the case of promotees Period of probation if any Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by pro- motion or by deputation/ transfer and percentage of the vacancies to be filled by various methods. In case of recruitment by promotion/ deputation/ transfer, grades from which promotion or deputation or transfer to be made If a Depart- mental Promotion Committee exists, what is its composition Circumstances in which Union Public Service Com-mission to be consulted in making recruitment 8 9 10 11 12 13 Age: No Qualifications, No. excerpt as provided against Column II 2 years Direct recruitment 10% failing which by promotion, failing which by deputation/ transfer, promotion- 90% failing which from the Army on posting/ transfer and failing which by direct recruitment Promotion Superintendent, Buildings and Roads, Grade II with recognized Diploma in Civil Engineering with 5 years regular service in the grade in General Reserve Force. Deputations/ Transfer: Officers holding analogous/ equivalent posts under the Central /State Governments or posts in the scale of Rs.425- 700 or equivalent with 3 years regular Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ Departmental Promotion Committee for considering Promotion and Confirmation: Lt. Col. Superintending Engineer- Chairman Major/ Executive Engineer/ Civilians Officer, Grade- I- Member Not applicable
9 service in the grade and possessing the qualification prescribed in column 7. (Period of deputation ordinarily not exceeding 3 years) For promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I, the prescribed or requisite qualification is from the candidates/employees working as Superintendent, BR Grade-II with recognized Diploma in Civil Engineering with 5 years regular service in the Grade in General Reserve Engineering Force. The officers who are on deputation/transfer and holding analogous/equivalent posts under the Central and State Governments or post in the scale of 425-700 or equivalent with 3 years regular service in Grade and possessing the qualification prescribed in column No. 7 are also entitled to be considered for being promoted as superintendent BR Grade-I. 4. The contentions which came to be raised before the High Court by the writ appellants were two-fold, namely, (i) a direction for promotion to the post of Grade-I being issued, and (ii) a direction to the Union of India to grant pay- scale of 5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996 in accordance with recommendation of 6 th Central Pay Commission. It was also contended that
10 Diploma is equivalent to Degree which is required for recruitment to the post of Grade-I. It is in this background the High Court vide paragraph 4 of impugned judgment has examined this argument and negatived the contention of the appellants, holding that claim is without any basis and on account of appellants not possessing Degree their claim came to be rejected. However, in so far as claim with regard to the grant of pay-scale as sought for was granted and undisputedly there is no challenge by the Union of India to the second prayer granted. It is only the first prayer wherein promotion which was sought for, which has been negatived has been assailed in the present appeal. 5. In this background, the qualification as prescribed in column No. 11 of GREF Rules, 1982 when perused, would indicate that candidate who is seeking promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I has to possess “Diploma in Civil Engineering” with 5 years regular service in the grade of General Reserve Engineering Force. Whereas appellants are possessing Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED), which fact is not seriously disputed by them. Mr. Tapas Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has fairly conceded before this Court that an erroneous proposition was put forth before the High Court, namely, it was contended that Diploma is equivalent to a Degree and as such negating said contention, the High Court though justified its conclusion had erred in ignoring the consistent stand that
11 had been taken by the Appellants, namely, Diploma in DED possessed by them is that of 2 years course and though column 11 prescribes Diploma in Civil Engineering for being promoted as Superintendent BR-Grade-I is to be treated as equivalent and this aspect was required to be considered by the High Court is an argument which looks attractive at first blush. However, on a careful perusal of the extant Rules as applicable for promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-II, said contention has to be necessarily rejected for reasons more than one. Firstly , before the High Court appellants attempted to justify their claim contending “Diploma” is equivalent to a “Degree” and as such being entitled for promotion which has been negatived by the High Court and rightly so. Secondly , appellants tried to justify their claim contending rule as applicable for direct recruitment would be applicable for recruitment by promotion, which has not been accepted by the High Court. In so far as the contention regarding qualification for promotion, the rule itself is explicit and clear, namely, it prescribes for promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I only, those candidates possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering with 5 years regular service in the grade in General Reserve Engineering Force would be eligible. No doubt, said rule is silent with regard to Diploma in Civil Engineering being either 3 years or otherwise. It is an undisputed fact that appellants possess ‘Diploma in DED’ and not ‘Diploma in Civil
12 Engineering’. It is trite law that courts would not prescribe the qualification and/or declare the equivalency of a course. Until and unless rule itself prescribes the equivalency namely, different courses being treated alike, the courts would not supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies. 6. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr ., 1 this Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically with whether a distance education course was equivalent to the degree of MA (English) of the appellant university therein, the Court held that no material had been produced before it to show that the distance education course had been recognized as such. 7. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors 2 , it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various 1
(2009) 1 SCC 610 2
(2019) 2 SCC 404
13 qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine. (Emphasis supplied) 8. The diploma courses offered by College of Military Engineering, Pune, (CME) has been recognized as a course for recruitment to the post under the Central Government vide notification dated 01.02.2001, issued by Ministry of Human Resource Development (Annexure P-8). Said notification does not indicate diploma courses specified therein which are recognized by the Government of India are to be treated as equivalent. No material has been placed on record by the appellants to demonstrate that Diploma in DED is equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering. 9. The presumption on which the Writ Petition seems to have been presented is on the premise that appellants have been denied promotion on the ground that they possess a two year diploma not three year diploma, by completely ignoring the fact that denial of promotion is on the ground that candidates do not possess the prescribed requisite qualification namely “Diploma in Civil Engineering” and “Diploma in DED” possessed by them
14 is not as prescribed under the Rules. It is no doubt true that eligibility for promotional post namely Superintendent BR Grade-I is not conditioned by any year wise stipulations vis-a-vis the diploma course. In that view of the matter, prayer of the appellants cannot be granted for the reasons indicated hereinabove and we do not find any fallacy in the reasons assigned by the High Court. 10. For the reasons afore-stated, we are of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be rejected and accordingly it stands rejected as being devoid of merits. Costs made easy. .……………………….J. (Sanjay Kishan Kaul) ………………….…….J. (Manoj Misra) …………………..……J. (Aravind Kumar) New Delhi, March 28, 2023
1 ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 7188/2013 UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 152425/2018 - ADDITION / DELETION / MODIFICATION PARTIES IA No. 35475/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION IA No. 14612/2017 - IA FOR DIRECTIONS IA No. 158674/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 02-03-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR For Appellant(s) Mr. Tapas Das, Adv. Mr. A. Deb Kumar, Adv. Ms. Dumni Soren, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, AOR Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A. No.152425/2018 is allowed. Application for permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures is allowed. IA No. 35475/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION IA No. 14612/2017 - IA FOR DIRECTIONS No orders are required. Applications stand disposed of.
2 In the course of hearing it emerges that the impugned judgment is predicated on a rationale that for the appellants to be eligible for promotion, they must possess a degree. However, as urged by the appellant, the Rules require a degree for a direct recruitment while for the promotees the Rules stipulates a diploma. The matter does not rest at this as it appears from the other pleadings that the respondent(s) Department seeks to carve out a distinction between the two year diploma and three year diploma to deny the appellants their consideration for promotion. However, the Rule is silent on the number of years of diploma course and does not dispute that the diploma obtained by the appellant is recognized by the AICTE. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a synopsis. We permit the respondents to file a synopsis running into not more than three pages in the next two days. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. (ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.113 IN COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 7188/2013 UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 152425/2018 - ADDITION / DELETION / MODIFICATION PARTIES IA No. 35475/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION IA No. 14612/2017 - IA FOR DIRECTIONS IA No. 158674/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 23-02-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA For Appellant(s) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR (N.P.) For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R None appeared on behalf of the appellant. List next week. (RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (BEENA JOLLY) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 7188/2013 UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 152425/2018 - ADDITION / DELETION / MODIFICATION PARTIES IA No. 35475/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION IA No. 14612/2017 - IA FOR DIRECTIONS IA No. 158674/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 03-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Appellant(s) Mr. Tapas Das, Adv. Mr. A. Deb Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra S. Srivastva, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List this matter before a Bench of which one of us (S. Ravindra Bhat, J.) is not a Member. (RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (POONAM VAID) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
1 ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 7188/2013 UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 152425/2018 - ADDITION/DELETION/ MODIFICATION PARTIES IA No. 35475/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION IA No. 14612/2017 - IA FOR DIRECTIONS IA No. 158674/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 27-07-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Appellant(s) Mr. A. Deb Kumar, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Wasim A Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv. Mr. Qadria, Adv. Mr. Akbhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghavendra S Srivasta, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R We really do not appreciate that on the one hand the matter was listed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on 28.02.2022 seeking an early hearing of the appeal and when the appeal now comes
2 up for hearing, a request for adjournment is made that there is change of the counsel for the appellant yesterday. A copy of the annexures to the appeal be supplied to learned counsel for the respondents. List on 02.08.2022. [CHARANJEET KAUR] [POONAM VAID] ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.2 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).7188/2013 UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (Application for Early hearing is to be listed. IA No.14233/2022 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION) Date : 28-02-2022 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI For Appellant(s) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. S.Wasim A.Qadri, Sr.Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R IA No. 14233/2022 In C.A.No.7188/2013 This is an application filed on behalf of the applicants/appellants for early hearing of appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants/appellants and on carefully perusing the averments made in the application, we see no reason to entertain the same. IA No.14233/2022 is, accordingly, dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (R.S. NARAYANAN) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No.7188/2013 UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 111079/2019 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION) Date : 19-08-2019 This IA was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT For Appellant(s) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Manindra Dubey, Adv. Ms. Priyanka, Adv. Mr. B.N.P. Pathak, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Application for early hearing of the Civil Appeal is dismissed. (VISHAL ANAND) (RAJ RANI NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Listed on: 05/04/2017 BEFORE COURT No:06 Item No: 109 SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 7188 OF 2013 WITH INTERLOLCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3/2017 (Application for directions filed on 14/02/2017 by Counsel for the appellant/applicants.) Unnikrishnan CV & Ors. ...Appellants Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS . ...Respondents OFFICE REPORT It is submitted that Connsel for the appellants has on 14/02/2017 filed an application for directions (Regd. I.A. No.3/2017.) (Copy Placed with appeal paper books) was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 27/03/2017 with office report dated 7/03/2017, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “ List interlocutory application alongwith appeal on 5 th April, 2017.” It is further submitted that there are 4 respondents in this appeal. All respondents are represented by Mr. D. S. Mahra, Advocate. Service of Notice of lodgment of petition of appeal is complete. It is also submitted that counsel for the appellant has filed the statement of case but counsel for the respondent has not filed the statement of case so far, list of dates has been filed at SLP stage hence civil appeal is ready for hearing. It is lastly submitted that Counsel for the appellant has on 31 st March, 2017 filed rejoinder affidavit and copy of the same has been placed with appeal paper books. The appeal alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 30 th day of March, 2017. Sd/= ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. Copy to: 1*.Mr. Vinod Kr. Tewari, Advocate ( 37, Law Chamber) 2.MR. D.S. Mahra, Adovate (Central Agency.) * Please serve copy of application on Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate and file proof of service forthwith. Sd/= ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
. Mj
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.13 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 3/2017 in Civil Appeal No(s). 7188/2013 UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (for directions and office report) Date : 27/03/2017 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Appellant(s) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari,Adv. Mr. Pramod Tiwari,Adv. Mr. Satyam Pandey,Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari,Adv. Mr. Pradip Dubey,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. A.K. Panda,Sr.Adv. Mr. S.Wasim A. Qadri,Adv. Ms. Sunita Rani Singh,Adv. Mr. Robin Majumdar,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List interlocutory application along with appeal on 5 th April, 2017. (Madhu Bala) (Veena Khera) Court Master Court Master
Listed on: 27/03/2017 BEFORE COURT No:13 Item No: 06 SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOLCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3/2017 (Application for directions filed on 14/02/2017 by Counsel for the appellant/applicants.) IN CIVIL APPEAL No. 7188 OF 2013 Unnikrishnan CV & Ors. ...Appellants Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS . ...Respondents OFFICE REPORT It is submitted that Connsel for the appellants has on 14/02/2017 filed an application for directions (Regd. I.A. No.3/2017.) Copy of the same has been placed with appeal paper books. It is further submitted that there are 4 respondents in this appeal. All respondents are represented by Mr. D. S. Mahra, Advocate. Service of Notice of lodgment of petition of appeal is complete. It is also submitted that counsel for the appellant has filed the statement of case but counsel for the respondent has not filed the statement of case so far, list of dates has been filed at SLP stage hence civil appeal is ready for hearing. The application in the appeal above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 07 th day of March, 2017. Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. Copy to: 1*.Mr. Vinod Kr. Tewari, Advocate ( 37, Law Chamber) 2.MR. D.S. Mahra, Adovate (Central Agency.) * Please serve copy of application on Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate and file proof of service forthwith. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR . Mj
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.13 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A. 3/2017 in Civil Appeal No(s). 7188/2013UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(for directions and office report)Date : 27/03/2017 This application was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALITFor Appellant(s) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari,Adv.Mr. Pramod Tiwari,Adv.Mr. Satyam Pandey,Adv.Mr. Vivek Tiwari,Adv.Mr. Pradip Dubey,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. A.K. Panda,Sr.Adv.Mr. S.Wasim A. Qadri,Adv.Ms. Sunita Rani Singh,Adv.Mr. Robin Majumdar,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List interlocutory application along withappeal on 5 th April, 2017. (Madhu Bala) (Veena Khera) Court Master Court Master
ITEM NO.96 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR DR. K.ARUL Civil Appeal No(s). 7188/2013 UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 25/11/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Mohd. Muztaba, Ad. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Shrabani Chakrabarty, Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matter falls under the complete category. Registry to process for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. (DR. K. ARUL) Registrar
Ä ITEM NO.96 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR DR. K.ARUL Civil Appeal No(s). 7188/2013 UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 25/11/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Mohd. Muztaba, Ad. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Shrabani Chakrabarty, Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matter falls under the complete category. Registry to process for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. (DR. K. ARUL) RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2014.11.2717:34:11 ISTReason:
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 2/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 7188/2013 UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (for early hearing and office report) Date : 26/09/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH For Appellant(s) / For Applicant(s) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, A.S.G. Ms. Ranjana Narayan, Adv. Mr. Y.P. Mahajan, Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Interlocutory Application No. 2 of 2014 is rejected. (RAJESH DHAM) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
0 ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 2/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 7188/2013 UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (for early hearing and office report) Date : 26/09/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH For Appellant(s)/ For Applicant(s) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, A.S.G. Ms. Ranjana Narayan, Adv. Mr. Y.P. Mahajan, Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Interlocutory Application No. 2 of 2014 is rejected. (RAJESH DHAM) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byRajesh DhamDate: 2014.09.2617:59:35 ISTReason:
ÐITEM NO.1 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. No.1 in CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7188 OF 2013UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for directions and office report)Date: 11/04/2014 This Application was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDAFor Appellant(s) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, ASG Ms. Ranjana Narayan, Adv. Mr. Radhakanta Tripathy, Adv. For Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The application seeking direction cannot be granted by way of an interim order. Hence, the application is rejected. The counsel for the applicants/appellants is at liberty to move an application for early hearing. (Neetu Khajuria) (S.S.R. Krishna) Sr.P.A. Assistant Registrar
ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).14880/2013(From the judgement and order dated 11/01/2013 in WPC No.167/2013 of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report)Date: 26/08/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDAFor Petitioner(s) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Adv. Mr.Pramod Tewari, Adv. Mr.Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master
\214ITEM NO.40 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).14880/2013(From the judgement and order dated 11/01/2013 in WPC No.167/2013 of TheHIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)UNNIKRISHNAN CV & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report)Date: 29/04/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAIFor Petitioner(s) Mr.Pallav Sisodiya, Sr.Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Adv. Mr.Pramod Tiwari, Adv. Mr.Pradeep Dubey, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The petitioners are directed to file an affidavit showing thatthey possess the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post ofSuperintendent BR-II in the particular branch. List the case after two weeks. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master