1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.11853-11854 OF 2018

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS 30797-30798 OF 2017)

ZAHOOR AHMAD RATHER AND ORS ETC ..APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SHEIKH IMTIYAZ AHMAD AND ORS ETC ..RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11855 OF 2018

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO 31196 OF 2017)

JAVID AHMAD DAR AND ORS ..APPELLANTS

VERSUS

NASEER AHMAD MIR AND ORS ..RESPONDENTS

REPORTABLE

2

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C)Nos 30797-30798/2017:

1.Leave granted.

2.These appeals arise from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High

Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated 12 October 2017. While allowing the

Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court set aside a judgment of a learned

Single Judge and, in consequence, directed that the writ petitions shall

stand dismissed.

3.By a Government Order dated 4 December 1996, 23,297 posts were

created in various departments of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 5,330

fresh posts were created in the Power Development Department, including

among them 3,675 posts of Technician-III and 200 posts of Junior Engineer.

The qualification for the post of Technician-III was “Matric with ITI”. The

qualification for the post of Junior Engineer, which ranks higher in the

hierarchy of posts, was a B E (electrical) / diploma (electrical).

4.On 23 February 2013, an advertisement was issued by the J & K

State Service Selection Board (SSSB) for filling up the posts of Technician-

III in the Power Development Department for various districts including

3

Budgam, Srinagar and Ganderbal. Note 3 of the advertisement contained

the following stipulations, which every applicant was required to fulfil:

“(3) In possession of the prescribed academic/

professional/ technical qualifications and fulfil all other

eligibility Conditions wherever required as shown against

each post in the Annexures by or before last date of

receipt / submission of application forms i.e. 31.3.2013”

The advertisement also contained the following stipulation in Note 12:

“12. The prescribed qualifications reflect the bare minimum

requirement of the job and mere possession thereof shall

not entitle a candidate to be called for written test/ interview

and also grant weightage to the higher qualification in

relevant line / discipline as may be decided by the Board.”

Annexure C 1 to the advertisement specified the qualifications prescribed

for each post which was advertised. For the post of Technician-III in the

Power Development Department, the prescribed qualification was:

“Matric with ITI in relevant trade.”

5.The appellants applied for the post of Technician-III. The first

appellant holds a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. Appellants 2, 3 and 4

hold a Diploma in Electronics and Communication. Appellants 5 and 6 hold

a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. None of them possesses the ITI

certification.

4

6.On 14 August 2014, a list of disqualified candidates was notified by

the SSSB. The appellants were not part of that list and were called for a

written test on 23 August 2014. On 20 November 2014, a notification was

issued for the purpose of shortlisting candidates who had cleared the

written test, for the interview. The notification reflected the category – open

or reserved – under which each candidate was considered. Interviews were

conducted for the districts of Budgam, Srinagar and Ganderbal at which the

appellants appeared.

7.On 31 January 2015, the SSSB held its 116

th

meeting at which,

among the subjects on the agenda, was the following:

“Agenda No. 11. During the course of scrutiny of

documents in the process of framing the selection lists for

the post of Technician-III (Power Development

Department), it has been observed that the Convener of

the Interview committee (in some districts) has conducted

the interview of candidates having Diploma in Electrical

Engineering provisionally while as in some other districts,

the candidates having Diploma in Electronics and

communication Engineering, Electrical Engineering, B.E.

(Electrical) have been declared as not eligible for the post

in question. Furthermore, the candidates having ITI trade

in general Electronic Mechanic, Weldar (Gas & Electric),

Instrument Mechanic, Weldar (Gas & Arc), Information

Technology and Electronic Systems Maintt. have also

been interviewed for the post in question.”

8.The Minutes of the Meeting record that the following decision was

arrived at by the Board:

5

“ After threadbare discussion, it was decided that only ITI

in relevant trade viz Electrician has to considered as

prescribed in the advertisement Notification.”

9.A select list was published on 23 April 2015. The appellants were not

included in the select list. The reason for the omission is that none of them

possessed an ITI qualification. Aggrieved by their non-inclusion, the

appellants instituted writ proceedings seeking consideration of their

candidature for selection to the post of Technician-III on the basis of their

position in the merit list. The appellants sought the quashing of the select

list framed for the three districts without considering their position in merit

and desired the reframing of the select list.

10.The learned Single Judge by a judgment dated 1 August 2017

allowed the writ petitions on the ground that it was not open to the SSSB to

exclude the appellants after the process of selection was set in motion and

they had been subjected to a written test as well as an interview. In the view

of the learned Single Judge, the rules could not have been changed after

the selection process had been initiated, particularly since the list of

disqualified candidates did not include them. The learned Single Judge

noted that a candidate possessing a Diploma – electrical is entitled to

appointment to the post of Junior Engineer which ranks higher than the

post of Technician – III. Hence, in this line of reasoning, if the appellants

were eligible to hold a higher post, their qualification was adequate for the

6

post of Technician-III and a Diploma in Electrical Engineering pre-supposes

the acquisition of the lower qualification of Matric with ITI. In this view of the

matter, the select list was quashed and the SSSB was directed to reframe it

according to the merit secured by the appellants and other candidates.

Directions were issued for making appointments on the basis of the select

list as reframed.

11.In the Letters Patent Appeals which were filed before the High Court,

the Division Bench reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The

Division Bench held that the advertisement mandated an ITI in the relevant

trade as a condition of eligibility and the SSSB had not granted any

weightage to a higher qualification, in terms of Note 12. Moreover, the

SSSB had categorically taken a decision on 31 January 2015 that it was

only an ITI in the relevant trade with a Matric qualification that meets the

prescribed qualifications. In arriving at this conclusion, the Division Bench

has inter alia relied on a judgment of this Court in P M Latha v State of

Kerala

1

.

12.Ms Kaveeta Wadia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellants has underlined the significance of the provisions contained in

Note 12 to the advertisement dated 23 February 2013. The submission is

that the prescribed qualification of a Matric with ITI is “the bare minimum

1 (2003) 3 SCC 541

7

requirement of job” and the Note contemplates that weightage can be

granted to a higher qualification in the relevant line or discipline as may be

decided by the Board. Learned counsel has buttressed her submissions by

urging that:

(i)a diploma is in fact a higher qualification than an ITI; and

(ii)ITI holders are entitled to a lateral entry to a diploma course in

Electrical Engineering.

Ms Wadia Placed reliance on a series of advertisements issued by the

Board and on the mark-sheets of ITI with a lateral entry to the diploma

course. Devoting a considerable amount of industry to her research, Ms

Wadia has painstakingly placed on the record these documents in the form

of a compilation on the record. Ms Wadia urged that there is no prohibition

on the holder of a diploma in seeking appointment as Technician-III.

Besides the fact that there is an absence of a prohibition, learned counsel

submitted that Note 12 clearly indicates that the prescribed qualifications

constitute the bare minimum requirement of the job and that a candidate

with a higher qualification cannot be disqualified. This, in her view, is also

the position which has been adopted by the Board in an affidavit filed in

April 2001 before the High Court in Ravinder Singh v State

2

. Learned

counsel relied on the orders passed in those proceedings by the High

Court. Finally it was urged, placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in

2 SWP 1706/2000 CMP No 2727/2000

8

Jyoti KK v Kerala Public Service Commission

3

that where a person has

acquired a higher qualification, it can be stated to presuppose the

acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post. In the absence

of any exclusion of a person holding higher qualifications, it was urged, a

diploma holder cannot be disqualified from applying for the post of

Technician-III.

13.On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the SSSB by Mr

Riyaz Ahmad Jaan, learned senior counsel, that:

(i)While creating the post of Technician-III, the qualification which

was prescribed by government was that of a ‘Matric with ITI’;

(ii)The SSSB is a creature of a statute and has a restricted mandate,

governed by its provisions;

(iii)The Board at its 116

th

Meeting resolved that in terms of the

advertisement, only holders of an ITI with Matric would be eligible

for the post;

(iv)The purpose of the above resolution was to bring about a

uniformity in the selection process;

(v)Note 12 of the advertisement is only an enabling provision which

permits the Board to assign a weightage to a higher qualification

for the purpose of shortlisting;

3 (2010) 15 SCC 596

9

(vi)The Board decided against the grant of any such weightage;

(vii) No right of the appellants has been infringed and the process

which has been followed is fair; and

(viii)The Board has plainly acted in pursuance of the position that the

prescribed qualification for the post of Technician-III is Matric with

ITI. A diploma holder does not fulfil that requirement.

Adopting these submissions, Mr Shoeb Alam, learned counsel for the State

of Jammu & Kashmir urged that the SSSB did not change the ‘rules of the

game’ mid-stream, as the learned Single Judge seemed to suggest. On the

contrary, the SSSB had affirmed the prescribed qualifications.

14.On 4 December 1996, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir

through its Planning and Development Department notified its sanction to

the creation of 23,297 posts. Among them was the post of Technician-III.

The qualification prescribed for the post of Technician-III is “Matric with ITI”.

15.The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralisation and

Recruitment Act, 2010 provides in Section 5 that appointment to district,

divisional and state cadre posts shall be made by the competent authority

on the basis of a selection made by the Public Service Commission or the

State Service Selection Board, as the case may be. Section 6 provides

thus:

“Section 6. Appointment to District Cadre posts – A person shall

be eligible to the appointment to a District Cadre post

only if he,-

10

(i) is a permanent resident of the State;

(ii)is a resident of the concerned district; and

(iii)possesses the prescribed qualification, eligibility and

experience for the post as specified under the

rules/orders regulating recruitment to such posts.”

(emphasis supplied)

16.Rules of 2010 have been framed under the provisions of the Act

4

.

Rule 6 provides for the constitution of the Services Selection Board. The

Board has a three-tier set up comprising of selection committees at the

state level, divisional level and district level. Rule 13 sets out the

procedure for inviting applications and eligibility for different cadres. Sub-

rules (1) and (3) of Rule 13 provide as follows:

“13. Procedure for inviting applications by the Board and

eligibility for applying to different cadres, -

(1) The Board shall advertise all State cadre vacancies

referred to it by the requisitioning authority and invite

applications for selection to the said posts from the

permanent residents of the State and possessing the

prescribed qualification, ability and experience for

such posts.

…

(3)The district offices of the Board shall advertise

the District cadre vacancies of the concerned district

referred to it by the requisitioning authority and invite

applications for selection to the said posts from such

permanent residents of the State who are residents of

that District and possess the prescribed qualification,

eligibility and experience for such posts .”

(emphasis supplied)

Rule 14(1) provides for the preparation of a select list:

4 Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010

11

“14. Procedure for preparation of select lists by the Board,

- (1) The Services Selection Board shall hold a written test

for all the eligible candidates who apply for the advertised

post (s). The viva-voce of the eligible candidates shall be

conducted by the designated Selection Committee of the

Board. The number of candidates to be called for viva-

voce shall not be less than three times and more than five

times the number of vacancies to be filled up. The final

selection shall be made by the Board on the basis of

marks / points obtained in viva-voce added to the marks /

points obtained in the written test plus the weightage that

may be provided for any higher / additional / special

qualification (on pro-rata basis).”

The select list which is finalised by the respective committees has to be

recommended to the requisitioning authority with the prior approval of the

Board, under Rule 14(4). The said rule reads thus:

“(4) The select list so finalized by the respective

Committees shall be equal to the number of vacancies for

which requisition was made and recommend it to the

requisitioning authority with prior approval of the Board.”

17.Under the above provisions as well as in the advertisement which

was issued by the Board, every candidate must possess the prescribed

academic/professional/technical qualification and must fulfil all other

eligibility conditions. The prescribed qualifications for the post of

Technician-III in the Power Development Department is a Matric with ITI in

the relevant trade. The Board at its 116

th

meeting took notice of the fact

that in some districts, the interviews had been conducted for candidates

with a diploma in Electrical Engineering while in other districts candidates

with a diploma had not been considered to be eligible for the post of

12

Technician-III. Moreover, candidates with an ITI in diverse trades had also

been interviewed for the post. The Board resolved at its meeting that only

an ITI in the relevant trade namely the Electrical trade is the prescribed

qualification specified in the advertisement.

18.The learned Single Judge was persuaded to accept the submissions

of the petitioners who had moved the Writ Petition primarily on two

grounds. The first was that the Board had changed the rules in the midst of

the selection process. In holding thus, the learned Single Judge was clearly

in error. The Board did not bring about any change in the rules or the

norms governing the selection mid-stream. There was no deviation from

prescribed requirement for the post, of ITI with Matric. In fact the Board

resolved to adhere to the qualification which was prescribed in the

advertisement. An anomalous situation had arisen as a consequence of

which, despite the prescribed qualifications, interviews of diploma holders

had been conducted in some districts. This was plainly in breach of the

conditions of the advertisement and was rectified by the Board. The second

ground which weighed with the learned Single Judge was that the holder of

a diploma is eligible for the higher post of Junior Engineer and hence a

candidate who holds a diploma must be “pre-supposed” to hold the lower

qualification of an ITI. This line of reasoning appears to be based on the

judgment of a two Judge bench of this Court in Jyoti KK (supra). Before

13

adverting to the decision in Jyoti KK, it would be necessary to advert to

some of the decisions of this Court on the subject.

19.In PM Latha (supra), a two judge Bench of this Court rejected the

contention that the B.Ed. qualification is a higher qualification than the

Trained Teachers Certificate (TTC) and that a B.Ed. candidate should be

held to be eligible to compete for the post of a primary school teacher. This

Court held:

“10. We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced

by the respondents that BEd qualification is a higher

qualification than TTC and therefore, the BEd candidates

should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On

behalf of the appellants, it is pointed out before us that

Trained Teacher's Certificate is given to teachers specially

trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas

for BEd degree, the training imparted is to teach students

of classes above primary. BEd degree-holders, therefore,

cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification

suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools.

Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment

should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or

BEd qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find

sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing

qualification for the post of primary teachers as only TTC

and not BEd. Whether BEd qualification can also be

prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be

considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot

consider BEd candidates, for the present vacancies

advertised, as eligible.”

5

[See also Yogesh Kumar v Government (NCT of Delhi)]

6

.

20.The decision in Jyoti KK arises from a case where the Public

Service Commission had invited applications to the post of a Sub-Engineer

5 id at page 546

6(2003) 3 SCC 548

14

(Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board. The qualifications

prescribed for the post were:

“2…

1. SSLC or its equivalent.

2. Technical qualifications—

(a) Diploma in Electrical Engineering of a

recognised institution after 3 years' course of study,

OR

(b) a certificate in Electrical Engineering from any one

of the recognised technical schools shown below with five

years' service under the Kerala State Electricity Board,

…

OR

(c) MGTE/KGTE in electrical light and power (higher) with

five years' experience as IInd Grade Overseer (Electrical)

under the Board.”

The appellants were holders of a B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering

or a Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering. The Public Service

Commission held that they were not eligible for selection. Rule 10(a)(ii) of

the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules 1956 contained the

following stipulation:

“10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these

Rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications

recognised by executive orders or standing orders of

Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a

post in the Special Rules and such of those higher

qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the

lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also

be sufficient for the post.” (emphasis

supplied)

A two judge Bench of this Court, while construing Rule 10 (a) held thus:

15

“7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that

when a qualification has been set out under the relevant

Rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down

and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High

Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification

must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the

lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to

attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those

higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of

the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also

be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher

qualifications in the same Faculty, such qualifications can

certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the

lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it

may not be necessary to seek far.”

7

“8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of Assistant

Engineer, degree in Electrical Engineering of Kerala

University or other equivalent qualification recognised or

equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post

when a direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification

that has to be obtained, obviously gives an indication that

such qualification is definitely higher qualification than

what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of

Sub-Engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of

degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes the

acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that

subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be

sufficient for that post.”

8

The Court also noted that there was no exclusion of candidates who

possessed a higher qualification.

21.The decision in Jyoti KK has been considered in a judgment of two

learned Judges in State of Punjab v Anita

9

. In that case, applications were

invited for JBT/ETT qualified teachers. Under the rules, the prescribed

qualification for a JBT teacher included a Matric with a two years’ course in

JBT training and knowledge of Punjabi and Hindi of the Matriculation

7 Id at page 598

8 Id at page 599

9 (2015) 2 SCC 170

16

standard or its equivalent. This Court held that none of the respondents

held the prescribed qualification and an MA, MSc or MCom could not be

treated as a ‘higher qualification’. Adverting to the decision in Jyoti KK,

this Court noted that Rule 10(a)(ii) in that case clearly stipulated that the

possession of a higher qualification can pre-suppose the acquisition of a

lower qualification prescribed for the post. In the absence of such a

stipulation, it was held that such a hypothesis could not be deduced:

“15. It was sought to be asserted on the basis of the

aforesaid observations, that since the private respondents

possess higher qualifications, then the qualification of

JBT/ETT, they should be treated as having fulfilled the

qualification stipulated for the posts of JBT/ETT Teachers.

It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid submission

of the learned counsel for the private respondents,

because the statutory rules which were taken into

consideration by this Court while recording the

aforesaid observations in Jyoti K.K. case [Jyoti

K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC

596] , permitted the aforesaid course. The statutory

rule, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for

the private respondents, is extracted hereunder: (SCC p.

598, para 6)

“6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:

‘10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these

Rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications

recognised by executive orders or Standing Orders of

Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a

post in the Special Rules and such of those higher

qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the

lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be

sufficient for the post..’”

(emphasis supplied)

A perusal of the Rule clearly reveals that the

possession of higher qualification would presuppose

the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed

for the posts. Insofar as the present controversy is

concerned, there is no similar statutory provision

17

authorising the appointment of persons with higher

qualifications.”

10

(emphasis supplied)

22.We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has

been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in

Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule

10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an

inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the

acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of

qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the

employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of

eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand

upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a

qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the

power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should

not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting

authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific

statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could pre-

suppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule

in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In

this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified

in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the

10 id at page 177

18

conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications.

We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.

23.While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer,

may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the

job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the

functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which

leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the

authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of

administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision

making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social

perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the

societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial

review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be

understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the

holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a

lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the

context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned.

24.Ms Wadia sought to draw sustenance from the fact that the holder of

an ITI certification can obtain lateral entry to the diploma course. The point

of the matter, however, is that none of the appellants fit the description of

candidates who had secured an ITI certification before seeking a lateral

19

entry to a diploma course. Plainly, when an ITI with matric is required, a

person who does not hold that qualification is not eligible.

25.The submission based on Note 12, urged by Ms Wadia, cannot be

accepted. The stipulation that the qualification prescribed is the bare

minimum requirement of the job emphasises that it is an essential

requirement, a threshold which cannot be dispensed with. Under Note 12,

the Board is entitled to assign additional weightage for a higher

qualification. Whether such a weightage should be assigned is a matter for

the Board to determine. The SSSB did not assign an additional weightage

for a higher qualification. In not exercising an enabling power, no fault can

be found with the SSSB. An enabling provision postulates a discretion

which may or may not be exercised. A candidate has no vested right to

assert that the Board must as a mandate assign an additional weightage to

a higher qualification. Whether to do so or not is a matter for the Board to

determine. All that Note 12 postulates is that the mere possession of the

prescribed qualification will not entitle a candidate to be called for the

written test or interview. The Board may shortlist among eligible candidates

by granting a weightage to a higher qualification in the relevant line or

discipline. But the words “as may be decided by the Board” in Note 12

indicate that the Board is vested with a discretion in pursuance of an

enabling power which it may or may not exercise.

20

26.Ms Wadia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants,

however, urged that a peculiar situation arises in the present case because

the appellants were permitted initially to appear for the written test and the

interview. Their names were not contained in the disqualification list. Ms

Wadia submitted that the appellants would have become age barred by

now to pursue any future application. Recourse to our jurisdiction under

Article 142 is warranted particularly since the appellants have spent nearly

four years in pursuing their quest for the job of Technician III. They had

even succeeded before the learned Single Judge. Hence, the rigors of the

hardship, which the appellants confront, can be met by a suitable direction

for age relaxation in their case. As we have noted in the earlier part of this

judgment, the appellants applied in 2013 in pursuance of the advertisement

that was issued by the SSSB. They were pursuing their remedies in the

writ proceedings which ultimately culminated in the order of the learned

Single Judge dated 1 August 2017. The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed

on 12 October 2017. Having regard to these circumstances, we are of the

view that the appellants should be granted an age relaxation to the extent

of four years should they apply for any other post that may be advertised

by the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the next two years. The age

relaxation of four years shall be available to the appellants for any post

advertised upto 30 November 2020. Save and except for the above

direction in regard to age relaxation, we have not interfered with the

21

judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeals

shall, accordingly, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.11855 of 2018 @ SLP (C)No 31196 of 2017:

27.Leave granted.

28.This appeal is also disposed of in the same terms, conditions,

observations and directions as in Civil Appeal Nos.11853-11854

of 2018 @ SLP (C) Nos 30797-30798 of 2017.

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

[UU Lalit]

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

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

New Delhi;

December 05, 2018