2024 INSC 832 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. ________ OF 2024

[@ DIARY NO. 4407 OF 2023]

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9026 OF 2019

MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI …APPLICANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. ________ OF 2024

[@ DIARY NO. 5682 OF 2023]

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9026 OF 2019

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. ________ OF 2024

[@ DIARY NO. 10291 OF 2023]

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9026 OF 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 23273 of 2023]

J U D G M E N T

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 23273

of 2023.

2

2. The present applications/appeal have been filed praying

for a direction to the concerned authority to re-appoint the

applicants on the post of Technical Grade-II (Electrical) in

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter

referred to as “respondent-Corporation”) who were appointed

pursuant to the advertisement dated 6

th September 2014, by

setting aside the termination letter dated 13

th May 2018

issued by the respondent-Corporation against the applicants

herein.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present

applications/appeal are as given below:

3.1 The erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board

under the Uttar Pradesh Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948,

promulgated the U.P. State Power Parishad Operative

Employees Cadre Service Regulation s, 1995 (hereinafter

referred to as “1995 Regulations”).

3.2 With the enactment of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms

Act, 1999, the U.P. State Electricity Board ceased to exist

and was replaced by the respondent-Corporation.

3.3 The respondent-Corporation adopted the 1995

Regulations which prescribed the method of filling-up posts

3

of Technician Grade-II and set out the educational

qualifications in relation thereto.

3.4 By an office memorandum dated 29

th January 2011, the

Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation amended

the 1995 Regulations thereby prescribing that all

incumbents seeking selection to the post of Technician

Grade-II would be liable to hold a Certificate of 80 Hours

Course on Computer Concepts (hereinafter referred to as

“CCC certificate”) issued by Department of Electronics and

Accreditation of Computer Courses (hereinafter referred to as

“DOEACC”) and would need to produce the same certificate

at the time of interview.

3.5 By an office memorandum dated 25

th November 2011,

the respondent-Corporation provided that an equivalent

computer eligibility qualification to CCC certificate issued by

DOEACC would also be accepted.

3.6 On 6

th September 2014, the respondent-Corporation

issued an advertisement, thereby inviting applications for

appointments against 2,211 posts of Technician Grade -II

(Electrical). Possession of CCC certificate or its equivalent

computer qualification certificate was one of the mandatory

4

educational qualifications prescribed in paragraph 2 of the

advertisement. In terms of paragraph 7 of the advertisement,

the candidates were required to submit the CCC certificate at

the time of interview.

3.7 On 8

th November 2014, a written examination was

conducted and the applicants herein qualified the written

examination. The applicants herein, thereafter, appeared in

the interview conducted during the period from December

2014 to July 2015.

3.8 On 14

th July 2015, the final selection list was prepared

and published. The applicants herein were issued

appointment letters.

3.9 On 25

th July 2015, the unsuccessful candidates

preferred a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court

being Writ-A No. 41750 of 2015 and other connected

petitions seeking quashing of the select list dated 14

th July

2015, and revision of the select list by excluding those

candidates who had obtained CCC certificate on dates

subsequent to 30

th September 2014 as also those candidates

who did not possess CCC certificate as awarded by DOEACC,

5

since renamed as National Institute of Electronics and

Information Technology (hereinafter referred to as “NIELIT”).

3.10 Vide final judgment and order dated 7

th October 2017,

the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court quashed the

select list in question insofar as it includes candidates who

do not hold a CCC certificate conferred or recognized by

NIELIT. Further, the Single Judge directed the respondents

therein to re-draw the select list restricting it to the

candidates who hold a recognized CCC certificate or a

qualification recognized in law as being equivalent thereto.

3.11 Accordingly, on 13

th October 2017, the Electricity

Service Commission, UPPCL, directed the Chief Engineer(s)

and Superintending Engineer(s) to send the attested

photocopies of CCC certificates of selected candidates on the

2,211 posts of Technician Grade-II (Electrical) and to check

at their own level, whether the CCC certificate attached is

issued by an institution recognized by NIELIT (formerly

DOEACC) or its equivalent or not.

3.12 Thereafter, on 13

th May 2018, the Electricity Service

Commission, UPPCL, published the list of candidates whose

selection was not found to be in accordance with the

6

eligibility as per the direction of the learned Single Judge of

the Allahabad High Court contained in Writ -A No.

41750/2015 and other connected petitions. The aforesaid list

contained the names of the applicants herein.

3.13 Aggrieved thereby, the applicants herein filed a Writ

Appeal before the Allahabad High Court being Special Appeal

No. 585 of 2018 and connected petitions.

3.14 Vide final judgment and order dated 9

th May 2019, a

Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed the

Special Appeals filed inter-alia by the applicants herein and

set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned

Single Judge. The Writ Petitions were dismissed. Further, the

respondents therein were directed to restore the position

relating to the entire process of selection including the

appointments of selected incumbents as that was prior to

acceptance of the writ petitions.

3.15 Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the

Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, a number of

appeals were filed before this Court.

3.16 Vide final judgment and order dated 16

th December

2019 in Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019 and other connected

7

appeals titled Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of Uttar

Pradesh and Others

1, this Court allowed the appeals and

set aside the judgment and order passed by the Division

Bench of the Allahabad High Court. In paragraph 71, this

Court observed that the direction of the Single Judge of the

Allahabad High Court, indicates that select list insofar as the

candidates, who had certificates from NIELIT/DOEACC was

not quashed, their position in select list was not disturbed

and select list was partly quashed only with regard to those

candidates, who did not have CCC or NIELIT certificate.

3.17 Thereafter, the applicants herein filed a Writ Petition

under Article 32 of the Constitution being Writ Petition (C)

No. 1144 of 2022 with a prayer for a direction to the

respondents therein to restore/re-instate them in their

respective positions in their services, as the termination was

against the true letter and spirit of the judgment dated 16

th

December 2019 passed by this Court in the case of Mukul

Kumar Tyagi (supra).

3.18 This Court, vide order dated 30

th January 2023,

dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the applicants herein,

1

(2020) 4 SCC 86 : 2019 INSC 1380

8

however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, granted

liberty to the applicants to file an appropriate application in

the disposed of Civil Appeal (No. 9026 of 2019) with

connected matters and directed the Registry to entertain the

same.

3.19 In such facts, the present applications/appeal have

come up for hearing before this Court.

4. We have heard Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu , Shri Amit

Anand Tiwari and Shri Rana Mukherjee , learned Senior

Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants. We have also

heard Shri S.K. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondent-Corporation and Electricity

Service Commission.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the

applicants submitted that, as a matter of fact, vide Office

Memorandum dated 29

th January 2011, the 1995

Regulations were amended thereby prescribing that all

incumbents seeking selection to the post of Technician

Grade-II would be required to produce the CCC certificate

issued by DOEACC/NIELIT at the time of interview. It is

submitted that all such candidates who were selected in

9

pursuance to the said selection process and having the CCC

certificate on the date of the interview were eligible to be

continued. It is submitted that the interview process

continued for a long period from December 2014 to July

2015. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge of the

High Court vide its judgment and order dated 7

th October

2017 had set aside the selection process only of such

candidates who did not possess the CCC certificate.

6. It is therefore submitted on behalf of the applicants that

the approach of the respondent-Corporation in setting aside

the selection process even of such candidates who possessed

the CCC certificate at the time of interview on the ground

that they did not possess the same on the last date of

application i.e. 30

th September 2014 is totally erroneous.

7. Insofar as the plea of Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned

Senior Counsel is concerned, he submitted that, as per the

advertisement, even such of the candidates who did not

possess the CCC certificate at the time of interview but had

obtained the same prior to the last date of the interview i.e.

4

th July 2015 are entitled to be continued in service and their

selection could not have been set aside.

10

8. Shri Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent-Corporation, on the contrary,

submitted that, it is a settled position of law that the

requisite qualification has to be obtained prior to the last

date of submission of application. It is submitted that, as

such, the candidates who possessed CCC certificate on the

date of interview but did not possess the same on the last

date of submission of application are not entitled to be

continued. It is therefore submitted that the respondent-

Corporation has rightly terminated the services of such of the

candidates.

9. The present applications arise out of peculiar facts and

circumstances. The Board of Directors of the respondent -

Corporation, vide office memorandum dated 29

th January

2011, amended the 1995 Regulations which provided that all

incumbents seeking selection to the post of Technician

Grade-II would be required to hold the CCC certificate issued

by DOEACC/ NIELIT. The amended resolution required CCC

certificate to be mandatorily possessed by the candidates at

the time of interview.

11

10. By another office memorandum dated 25

th November

2011, the respondent -Corporation provided that an

equivalent computer eligibility qualification to CCC certificate

issued by the DOEACC would also be accepted.

11. On 6

th September 2014, the respondent -Corporation

issued an advertisement thereby inviting applications for

appointments against 2,211 posts of Technician Grade-II

(Electrical). The said advertisement provided two mandatory

qualifications. The first one being the High School or its

equivalent examination of Board of Higher Secondary

Education, U.P. passed with Science & Mathematics subjects

and All India/State Professional Certificate in Electrical

Trade. The second qualification required a CCC certificate or

its equivalent computer qualification certificate. As per

clause 7 of the said advertisement, merely permitting a

candidate to appear in the written test would not earn

him/her a right to selection. It was also provided that the

scrutiny of the certificates of the candidates would be carried

out at different levels.

12. In pursuance of the said advertisement, a written

examination was conducted on 8

th November 2014. The

12

interviews were held from December 2014 to July 2015. The

final selection list was prepared and published on 14

th July

2015.

13. Subsequent to the publication of the final selection list,

the unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection

process. The challenge was made on two grounds. Firstly,

such of the candidates who had obtained CCC certificate

after the last date of advertisement i.e. 30

th September 2014

could not have been selected. Secondly, the candidates who

did not possess the CCC certificate as awarded by DOEACC/

NIELIT but submitted certificates from private institutions

with the self-certification about their equivalence to CCC

certificate issued by DOEACC/NELIT could also not be

selected.

14. It will be relevant to refer to the conclusions arrived at

by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in its judgment

and order dated 7

th October 2017, which read thus:

“CONCLUSIONS

In the end, the Court records the following

conclusions:-

1. A recognised qualification is an essential facet

of Article 16 of the Constitution.

13

2. No rights can be recognised in a candidate

aspiring to enter public service on the strength

of an unrecognized qualification or one granted

by an institution which is not conferred the

authority to grant the same in accordance with

law.

3. The qualification as prescribed by the

respondents does not merit interference at the

behest of the petitioners.

4. The decision of the Board of Directors of the

Corporation dated 23 November 2015 was an act of

ratification and therefore does not merit

interference.

5. The Commission failed to undertalce any enquiry

in respect of equivalence of qualifications. It

undertook a wholly perfunctory exercise and that

too prompted only by the interim directions of this

Court.

6. Even in this exercise no accepted or legally

sustainable norms were applied to adjudge the

equivalence of certificates.

7. The equivalence of qualifications cannot be

left to depend or rest upon a self certification of

candidates.

8. No certificate can possibly be accorded

equivalence unless an enquiry is addressed

towards its course content and syllabus.

9. None of the candidates holding other than

CCC certificates were shown to hold

qualifications recognisable in law. Their

inclusion in the select list has clearly tainted

the recruitment exercise. It has resulted in the

induction of candidates who were not entitled to

be selected or offered appointment.

10. Since their inclusion in the select list is

invalid and would consequently merit the select

list being redrawn, the petitioners are not liable

to be non suited on the basis of the cut off

marks prescribed by the Commission.

14

Accordingly and in light of the above

discussion and the conclusions recorded above, the

select list prepared by the respondents is rendered

unsustainable and must in consequence be set

aside.

The writ petitions preferred by the non selected

candidates are therefore allowed to the extent

indicated below. The Court negatives the challenge

to the decision of the Board of the Corporation

dated 23 November 2015 and the condition of

eligibility contained in the two advertisements. All

interim orders operating on the writ petitions shall

stand discharged in order to enable the Commission

to proceed in the matter in light of the directions

being issued herein after.

Writ Petition No. 18129 of 2017 shall stand

disposed of in light of the above and the directions

issued herein.

The select list drawn up pursuant to the

advertisements in question insofar as it includes

candidates who do not hold a CCC certificate

conferred or recognised by NIELIT is quashed.

The respondents shall in consequence

redraw the select list restricting it to candidates

who hold a recognised CCC certificate or a

qualification recognised in 'law as being

equivalent thereto. The Commission shall as a

result of the above, reframe the merit list and

publish the results thereof afresh. All

consequences to follow.”

[emphasis supplied]

15. It could thus be seen that the learned Single Judge held

that a recognized qualification is an essential facet of Article

16 of the Constitution of India. It was held that no rights can

be recognized in a candidate aspiring to enter public service

15

on the strength of an unrecognized qualification or one

granted by an institution which is not conferred the authority

to grant the same in accordance with law. It was held that

the equivalence of qualifications could not be left to depend

or rest upon a self-certification of candidates. It was further

held that no certificate could possibly be accorded with

equivalence unless an enquiry is addressed towards its

course content and syllabus.

16. The learned Single Judge, in unequivocal terms, has

held that inclusion of such of the candidates who did not

possess CCC certificate had clearly tainted the recruitment

exercise. It is also pertinent to note that the learned Single

Judge had set aside the select list only insofar as those

candidates who did not hold the CCC certificate conferred or

recognized by DOEACC/ NIELIT. The learned Single Judge

directed that the respondent -Corporation shall in

consequence redraw the select list restricting it to candidates

who hold a recognized CCC certificate or a qualification

recognized in law as being equivalent thereto.

17. Subsequent to the judgment of the learned Single

Judge, the Electricity Service Commission, on 13

th October

16

2017, directed the Chief Engineer(s) and Superintending

Engineer(s) to send the attested photocopies of CCC

certificates of selected candidates and to check at their own

level, whether the CCC certificate attached is issued by an

institution recognized by DOEACC/NIELIT or its equivalent

or not. Subsequently on 13

th May 2018, the Electricity

Service Commission published a list of candidates whose

selection was not found in accordance with the eligibility as

per the direction of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad

High Court. The said list also contained the names of the

candidates who were possessing the CCC certificate on the

date of their interview. Consequently, their services also

came to be terminated.

18. Various writ appeals came to be filed before the Division

Bench of the High Court. The learned Division Bench, vide

judgment and order dated 9

th May 2019, held that the

finding of the learned Single Judge that possession of CCC

certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT was erroneous. It held that

for computer literacy, self-certification was always acceptable

and therefore, the CCC certificate having the self-certification

could very well be accepted. The Division Bench thereby

17

allowed the appeals reversing the judgment and order of the

learned Single Judge and dismissing the writ petitions.

19. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court

was carried to this Court in three appeals in the case of

Mukul Kumar Tyagi (supra). It will be relevant to refer to

the following observations of this Court:

“53. The candidates who had CCC certificate

from NIELIT/DOEACC and who were included in

the merit list dated 14-7-2015 were not affected

by the judgment of the learned Single Judge

dated 7 -10-2017 [ Prashant Kumar

Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Writ A No. 41750 of

2015, order dated 7-10-2017 (All)] since the list

was quashed only insofar as those candidates

included in the merit list who did not have CCC

certificate by NIELIT/DOEACC. The Division Bench

in the impugned judgment [Deepak Sharma v. State

of U.P. Special Appeal No. 585 of 2018, order dated

9-5-2019 (All)] has erroneously held that employer

after judgment dated 7-10-2017 [Prashant Kumar

Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Writ A No. 41750 of 2015,

order dated 7-10-2017 (All)] did not take into

consideration the CCC certificate

of DOEACC or NIELIT. The following are the

observations made by the Division Bench in this

regard:

“… Heard the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the rival parties. At the

threshold, it would be appropriate to

state that the employer after accepting

the judgment given by the learned Single

Bench has prepared a fresh select list

and, while doing so, the certificate issued

by DOEACC relating to “CCC” has not been

taken into consideration….”

18

54. The Division Bench was not correct in making

the above observations since neither the learned

Single Judge vide its judgment dated 7 -10-2017

[Prashant Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Writ A No.

41750 of 2015, order dated 7-10-2017 (All)] directed

for not taking into consideration CCC certificate

by DOEACC nor Corporation or Commission

deleted those names from the merit list who had

CCC certificate from DOEACC.”

[emphasis supplied]

20. It can thus be seen that this Court has, in unequivocal

terms, held that the candidates who had CCC certificate from

DOEACC/NIELIT and who were included in the merit list

dated 14

th July 2015 were not affected by the judgment of

the learned Single Judge dated 7

th October 2017, since the

list was quashed only insofar as those candidates included in

the merit list who did not have CCC certificate by

DOEACC/NIELIT. This Court has, in unequivocal terms, held

that the learned Single Judge, vide its judgment and order

dated 7

th October 2017, had neither restrained the

respondent-Corporation from taking into consideration the

CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NIEL IT nor had it

directed that the respondent-Corporation delete those names

from the merit list who had CCC certificate from

DOEACC/NIELIT. From paragraph 55 of the said judgment,

19

it would be clear that this Court was of the considered

opinion that the CCC certificate as mentioned in the

advertisement dated 14

th September 2014 was CCC

certificate as granted by DOEACC/NIELIT.

21. A perusal of the said judgment of this Court would

reveal that this Court upheld the finding of the learned Single

Judge that the advertisement dated 14

th September 2014 did

not envisage self-certification of the candidate of equivalence

to CCC certificate. It further held that the self-certification by

the candidates of their computer qualification was not

sufficient to treat them having passed the required

qualification. It will further be relevant to refer to the

following observations of this Court in the said case:

“71. The above direction indicates that select list

insofar as the candidates, who had certificates

from NIELIT/DOEACC was not quashed, their position

in the select list was not disturbed and select list

was partly quashed only with regard to those

candidates, who did not have CCC

or NIELIT certificate. The object or purpose of the

direction was to scrutinise the qualifications of

those candidates, who have claimed equivalent

certificate. The above direction of the learned

Single Judge was only for the purpose to

scrutinise the qualification of those candidates,

who are found possessing equivalent computer

qualification so as to retain their names in the

select list. After the judgment of the learned Single

20

Judge dated 7 -10-2017 [Prashant Kumar

Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Writ A No. 41750 of 2015,

order dated 7-10-2017 (All)] , the Commission in

revising the merit list accepted the guidelines given

under the Government Order dated 3 -5-2016. The

guidelines prescribed under the Government Order

dated 3-5-2016 are as follows:

“(a) The qualification of High School or

intermediate examination with an

independent subject or Computer Science

from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar

Pradesh or from any Institution/Education

Board/Council established by the Central

or any State Government.

(b) If any candidate has obtained diploma

or degree in Computer Science then he

shall also be eligible to be recruited as

Junior Assistant/Stenographer.”

72. Thus, in the revised select list apart from

candidates, who had CCC certificates

from DOEACC/NIELIT, the candidates who were

covered under guidelines dated 3 -5-2016 were

also treated as equivalent to CCC and were given

place in the merit list subject to marks secured

by them in the written test and interview.”

22. It can be seen that this Court held that the object and

purpose of the direction was to scrutinize the qualifications

of those candidates, who had claimed equivalent certificate.

It was only for the purpose to scrutinize the qualification of

those candidates, who were found possessing equivalent

computer qualification so as to retain their names in the

select list. It is further clear that the direction given by the

21

learned Single Judge was applicable, apart from the

candidates who were having CCC certificate from

DOEACC/NIELIT, to the candidates who were covered under

the guidelines dated 3

rd May 2016 and were also treated as

equivalent to CCC certificate. Ultimately, this Court upheld

the finding of the learned Single Judge and held that there

was no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned

Single Judge.

23. It can be seen from the said judgment that an appeal

was made to this Court that since number of vacancies were

still available, the candidates who were initially in the select

list dated 14

th July 2015 and went out of the select list due to

redrawing of the select list, they could be accommodated.

However, this Court did not issue any direction in that regard

and permitted such candidates to make representation which

was to be considered by the respondent-Corporation.

24. It is thus clear from the aforesaid that such of the

candidates who were having CCC certificate issued by

DOEACC/NIELIT on the date of interview and who were part

of the select list dated 14

th July 2015 could not have been

terminated by the respondent-Corporation.

22

25. It also appears that the respondent-Corporation has

been taking contradictory stands. Before the High Court, it

took a stand that not only such candidates having CCC

certificate issued by DOEACC/NIEL IT but also such

candidates who had submitted certificate by self-certification

were also entitled to be considered. It is only now that the

respondent-Corporation is taking a stand that such of the

candidates who did not have CCC certificate on 30

th

September 2014 i.e., the last date of application could not be

considered as eligible candidates. The stand is contrary not

only to its advertisement dated 6

th September 2014 but also

to the office memorandum of the Board dated 29

th January

2011 vide which the 1995 Regulations were amended.

26. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that services

of such of the candidates who were selected in the select list

dated 14

th July 2015 and had produced the CCC certificate

at the time of the interview could not have been terminated.

We find that the respondent-Corporation has grossly erred in

terminating their services. At the same time, we are not

inclined to accept the contention of those candidates who did

not have CCC certificate even on the date of their interview

23

but have obtained the same subsequently. When the

advertisement as well as the 1995 Regulations required the

CCC certificate to be produced at the time of interview, if it is

permitted to produce the same subsequent to the date of

interview, it would be contrary to the advertisement and the

1995 Regulations.

27. It was also sought to be urged on behalf of the

respondent-Corporation that such a relief could not have

been granted by the present applications. We clarify that,

this Court itself vide order dated 30

th January 2023, while

disposing of the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India, granted a liberty to file an appropriate

application in disposed of CA No. 9026 of 2019 with

connected matters. This Court has subsequently observed

that, in peculiar facts and circumstances, if such application

was filed, the same would be entertained by the Registry of

this Court.

28. We therefore find that the present case is a fit case

wherein this Court should exercise its extraordinary

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

The respondent-Corporation has misinterpreted the

24

judgment of the learned Single Judge and terminated the

services of the applicants who were otherwise entitled to be

continued as per the judgment. It is further pertinent to note

that the view taken by the learned Single Judge has been

affirmed in unequivocal terms by this Court. We find that if

we fail to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India in these cases, it will be permitting

continuation of illegality committed by the respondent -

Corporation.

29. In the result, we pass the following order:

(i) The present applications/appeal are allowed;

(ii) Such of the applicants who found place in the select

list dated 14

th July 2015 and who

possessed/produced the CCC certificate at the time

of their interview are directed to be reinstated

forthwith;

(iii) Though they would not be entitled to back wages for

the period during which they were out of

employment, they would be entitled to placement in

the seniority list as per their positions as in the select

list dated 14

th July 2015 with continuity in service

25

with all consequential benefits including pay fixation,

terminal benefits etc.; and

(iv) Application(s) of impleadment/intervention are

allowed.

30. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in

the above terms. No order as to costs.

..............................J.

(B.R. GAVAI)

................................J.

(K.V. VISWANATHAN )

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 05, 2024.