Supreme Court of India
N.F. SALIversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1992 INSC 267
- Decided
- 8 October 1992
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- KULDIP SINGH
Holding
Rule 6(2) of the 1973 Rules is inconsistent with and therefore not applicable to the selection process under the 1985 Special Recruitment Rules, rendering the Tribunal’s order setting aside the selections invalid.
Summary
The Karnataka Government framed special recruitment rules in 1985 to appoint Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates to certain Group A and B posts, prescribing a Board‑conducted oral test and a specific procedure for publishing merit lists. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the Board’s selections before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, arguing that Rule 6(2) of the 1973 Direct Recruitment Rules, which requires the publishing of marks after each interview day, applied by virtue of Rule 7 and that its non‑observance vitiated the selection. The State contended that the 1973 rule was inapplicable to the 1985 special recruitment process and, even if applicable, was merely directory. The Tribunal held that Rule 6(2) did apply and set aside the selections, ordering a fresh interview. The Supreme Court, however, held that Rule 6(2) is inconsistent with Rule 4(5)(b) of the 1985 Rules and, due to the non‑obstante clause, cannot be read into the special recruitment procedure; consequently the Tribunal’s order was overturned. The appeals were allowed and the selections stood.
Issues considered
- Whether Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1973 applies to selections made under the Karnataka Civil Services (Special Recruitment of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1985.
- Whether Rule 6(2) can be read into sub‑rule 5(b) of Rule 4 of the 1985 Rules by virtue of Rule 7.
- Whether non‑observance of Rule 6(2) would vitiate the selection process.
- Whether the non‑obstante clause in Rule 3 of the 1985 Rules overrides the inconsistent provisions of the 1973 Rules.
Subjects
Special recruitmentScheduled CastesScheduled TribesCivil servicesSelection rulesRule interpretationNon obstante clauseAdministrative TribunalOral testPublication of marks
Judgment
N.F. SALi A
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
OCTOBER 8, 1992
B
[KULDIP SINGH, N.M. KASLIWAL AND
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.]
Kamataka Civil Services (Special Recrutiment of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Candidates of Certain Group 'A' and Group 'B' Posts)
Rules, 1985/Kamataka State Civil Services (Direct Recrui11nent by Selection) c
Rules, 1973 :
Rules 3,4,7/Rule 6(2)-Recruil1nent of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes candidates- Whether Rule 6(2) of 1973 Rules can be read into sub-
Rule 5(b) of Rule 4 by virtue of Rule 7-Whether Rule 6(2) of 1973 Rules D
applicable to selections made under the 1985 Rules.
The Kamataka Civil Services (Special Recruitment or Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Candidates to Certain Group 'A! and Group
'B' Posts) Rules, 1985, provided that notwithstanding the several rules . E
governing recruitment to· the cadres mentioned in the Schedule to the
Rules, a special procedure should be followed for filling up the number or
vacancies shown in Column 3 or the Schedule, by selecting and appointing
members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Two different
procedures were prescribed for ·the purpose, (i) posts mentioned under
Serial Nos. 1 to 3, were to be filled np by SC/ST candidates listed in order F
or merit on the basis or marks obtained by them in the relevant examina-
tion, and (Ii) for the posts mentioned under SI. Nos. 4 to 8, an oral test or
the candidates eligible for these posts was to.be conducted to assess their
suitability for post concerned and the candidates were to be listed in order
of merit on the basis of marks obtained in the oral test.
G
In the cases before this Court, the respondent State Government
constituted a Board for the purpose, as contemplated under Rule 4(1),
after obtaining particulars of eligible candidates from the various Univer-
sities in the State. The Board conducted oral test on three days and on the
basis of the oral test certain candidates were selected. H
885
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A The unsuccessful candidates thereupon approached the State Ad-
ministrative Tribunal questioning the validity of the selections made by
the Board on the grounds that (i) by virtue of Rule 7 of the Rules, sub-rule
(2) of Rule 6 of the Kamataka State Civil Services (Direct recruitment by
Selection} Rules, 1973 were applicable to the said selection process, that
according to Rule 6(2) of the 1973 Rules, the Selecting Authority should
B
publish on the notice board of its office on the day on which interview or
viva-voce was held or on the day following, but before .the commencement
of the interview or viva-voce on that day, a list of marks obtained by each.
candidate in the said interview or viva-voce and that in the selection in
question, the said requirement was not observed, which vitiated the entire
C process of selection, (ii) that the Interview was not conducted properly, and
(Iii) that the allocation of posts for different subjects had been made
Improperly vitiating the entire selection as such.
On behalf of the State it was contended that Rule 6(2) of the 1973
D Rules did not apply to selections made under the said Rules and, therefore,
It was not obligatory upon the Board to publish the list of marks obtained
by each of the candidates at the said oral test, that even if the said Rule
6(2) was held applicable, it was not mandatory and its non-observance did
not vitiate tlie selection, and that unless the selected candidates were
impleaded as respondents, their selection could not be set asid.,,
E
The Tribunal held that Rule 6(2) of 1973 Rules did apply to selec-
tions made under the Rules, and further that the non-observance of the
said sub-rule had vitiated the entire process of selection, and accordingly
directed the respondents to interview the candidates afresh and make the
selection.
F
Hence the candidates, whose selection and appointment was set
aside by the Tribunal, filed special Leave Petitions before this Court.
Allowing the appeals, by Special Leave, this Court,
G HELD : 1.1. Rule 6(2) of the Kamataka Civil Services (Direct
Recruit1nent by Seclectlon) Rules, 1973, being inconsistent with Rule
4(5)(b) of the Kamataka Civil Services (Special Recruitment of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Candidates of Certain Group 'A' and Group
'B' Posts) Rules, 1985, is not applicable to the selections made under these
H Rules. [897-B]
N.F. SALi v. STATE OFKARNATAKA 887
1.2. According to Clause (b) of sub-rule (S) of Rule 4 of the Kar- A
nataka Civil Services (Special Recruitment of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Candidates of Group 'A' and Group 'B' Posts) Rules,
1985, after the test conducted under Clause (a) of sub-rule (S) separate
lists of candidates in respect of each course specified by SI. Nos. 4 to 8 of
the Schedule should be prepared in the order of merit and from such lists, B
<aodidates equal to the number of vacancies indi<ated in the relevant
entries in column 3 should be selected. Whereas Rule 6(2) of 1973 Rules
says that Selecting Authority should publish on the notice board of its
office on the day on which interview/viva-voce is held or on the day
following,· a list of marks obtained by each candidate and where the
lnterview/viva-voce ls held on more than one day, the list of marks should C
be published at any rate, before the commencement of interview or viva-
voce on the succeeding day. [896 E-F)
1.3. Rule 6(2) of the 1973 Rules cannot be read Into sub· rule S(b)
of Rule 4 of the 1985 Rules, by virture of Rule 7 of the said Rules. Where
the oral test contemplated by sub-rule (S) of Rule 4 is held on more than D
one day, if Rule 6(2) of the 1973 Rules is held appll<able, the Selecting
Authority would be obliged to publish the list of marks at the end of each
day or at any rate before the oral test begins on the succeeding day;
whereas Rule 4(5) (b) of the Rules provides that such list should be
published only after the oral test contemplated by Rule 4(5) (a) is over. E
Further, the oral test and selection process under the Rules Is a special
process; it is not confined to one post or one <adre or one group; whereas
a normal selection is confined to a 'particular post or a group of posts. The
non-obstante clause lo Rule 3 of the Rules gives over-riding r; elfect to the
provisions of the Rules and as such the provisions of the 1973 Rules • to F
the extent of inconsistency - cannot be made appli<able to the selection
made under the Rules. [896 F-H; 897 A-BJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4046-47
of 1992.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.91/15.11.91 of Karuataka
Administrative Tribunal Bangalore in Applu. Nos. 1270 & l410/199L
R.S. Hegde and S.K. Aguihotri for the Appellant.
M.L. Verma, B.B. Dinkar, K.R. Nagaraja, M. Veerappa, Gopal Singh H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A and S.K. Bisaria for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
B Heard counsel for the parties.
With a view to bring the representation of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in certain Civil Services in the State of Karnataka to the
prescribed level, the Governor framed the Karnataka Civil Services (Spe-
cial Recruitment of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates to
C certain Group 'A' and ·Group 'B' posts) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred
to as the "Rules"). They were brought_ into force on 11.4.1985, the date of
publication in the Official Gazette. The cadres in Group 'A' and Group
'B', to which the said rules are made applicable are mentioned in the
Schedule (against SI. Nos. 1 to 5) and in the lists given below the Schedule
D (hereinafter referred to compendiously as the Schedule) appended to
Rules. Rule 2 defines the expressions 'Board' and 'Schedule'. 'Board'
means a Board constituted under Rule 4(1).
Rules 3 and 4 which constitute the core of the Rules read as follows:
E
"3. Appointment of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
candidates to certain Group 'A' and ·Group 'B' posts.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in.
F (i) The Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers
(Appointment by Compet.itive Examinations) Rules, 1966;
(ii) the Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruit-
ment by Selection) Rules, 1973;
G (iii) The Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment)
Rules, 1977;
(iv) the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of
posts referred to in the Schedule; or
H (v) any other rule providing for recruitment of Scheduled
N.F.SALI v. STATE OF KARNATA.KA [JEEVAN REDDY,J.] 889
Castes and Scheduled Tribes, A
Such number of eligible candida~es belonging to
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as indicated in
Column 3 of the Schedule who have pllSSCd the courses
specified in the corresponding entries in column 2 thereof
shall, subject to the availability of vacancies, be appointed B
every year to the posts specified in column 4 thereof in
the manner provided for in these .rules.
4. Selection of candidates (1) The Government shall, for
the purpose of selection of candidates for appointment
under these rules, constitute a Board consisting of the
c
following members, namely :-
(a) The Additional Chief Secretary ...... Chairman
(b) A Vice-Chancelor of an University established by law
in the State of Karnataka, nominated by the State Govern-
D
ment. ...... Member
( c) An eminent educationist, nominated by the State
Government. ...... Member
(2) The Board shall, immediately after the end of every
E
academic year, commencing from and including 1982-83,
obtain from the Universities established by law in the State
of Karnataka, the names of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes c1111didates, who have studied in an
educational institution in the State of Karnataka for not F
less than five years before passing the Pre-University
Course Examination and who have passed in such
academic year from such U Diversities any of the courses
specified in column 2 of the Schedule, in first attempt
securing the 1st or 2nd or 3rd positions among the
G
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates.
(3) Separate lists of such candidates, in respect of each
course specified in column 2. of the Schedule, shall be
prepared arranging their names in the order of merit
determined on the basis of marks secured in the examina- H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A tion passed by them in such academic year to pass such
course.
( 4) From each of the lists prepared under sub-rule (3) in
r.espect of courses specified at SI.No. 1 to 3 in the Schedule
such number of candidates as is equal to the number
B indicated in the corresponding entires in column 3 shall
be selected, in the order in which their names are arranged
in the list, for appointment to the posts specified in· the
corresponding entries in column 4 thereof.
c (5)(a) The candidates specified in the lists prepared in
respect of courses specified at SI. Nos. 4 tO 8 in the
Schedule shall be called for an oral test· to. assess the
suitability of the candidates in all respects for the posts
concerned. Maximum marks for the test shall be 100. The
oral test shall be conducted by. the Board.
D
(b) After the test conducted under clause (a), separate
lists of candidates in respect of each course specified at
SI. Nos.4 to 8 shall be prepared arranging their names in
the order of merit, merit being determined on the basis
of marks secured in the test. From each of such lists such
E
number of candidates as is equal to the number indicated
in the corresponding entries in column 3 shall be selected
in the order in which their names appear in the lists for
appointment to the posts specified in Column 4.
F Provided that where a candidate becomes eligible for
appointment to two or more alternative posts the selection
shall be made on the basis of the marks secured in the
test and the preference indicated by candidate in writing.
(6) The names of candidates selected under sub-rules (4)
G and (5) shall be sent to the concerned appointing authority
who shall appoint them to the concerned post."
The Schedule appended to the Rules contains four columns. A look
at the Schedule is necessary for a proper understanding of the procedure
H prescribed by Rules 3 and 4:
N.F.SALI v.STATEOFKARNATAKA[JEEVANREDDY,J.] 891
SCHEDULE A
s. Courses No.of Post to which
No. Candidates Candidates
to be are to be appointed.
appointed.
1. 2. 3. 4.
B
1. B.Sc. (Ag.) Degree 3 Agricultural Officer or
Asst!. Agricultural Officer
2. B.V.Sc. Degree 3 Asstt. Surgeons of
Veterinary Services
3. M.B.B.S. Degree 15 Asstt. Surgeons or
Equivalent Posts in the Health c
&
· Family Welfare Department or
Lecturers in Medical
.
4. B.E. Degree 15 Education Department
(Civil Mechanical or Assistant Executive Engineer in
Electrical) Public Works/Irrigation Deptt. D
Post-Graduate 3 or
5.
Dcgrye in inspectors of Factories/Boilers
agricultrual Science Asstt. Director of Agriculture.
Post-Graduate 5
6. Degree in Arts. E
10 In any of the Group-
A posts shown below
Post-Graduate 5 In any of the Group-
7. Degree in Science B posts shown below.
10 In any of the Group-
A Posts shown below. F
Post-Graduate 5 In any of the Group-
8. Degree in Commerce B posts shown below.
10 In any of the Group-
A posts shown below.
In any of the Group-
B posts shown below. G
GROUP 'A' POSTS
1. Assistant Commissioner
2. Assistant Controller of State Accounts Department. H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992)SUPP. l S.C.R.
A 3. Commercial Tax Officer.
4. Treasury Officer.
5. Assistant Labour Commissioners.
B 6. District Development Assistants.
7. Deputy Superintendent of Police.
8. Deputy Director of Youth Services.
9. Assistant Cemmandants.
c
10. Readers in Collegiate Education Department.
11. Education Officers in the Department of Public Instruction.
12. District Officers of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Welfare.
D
GROUP 'B' POSTS
1. Tahsildars
2. Assistant Commercial Tax Officers.
E
3. Labour Officers.
4. Assistant Controllers of Weights and Measures.
5. Assistant Director of information and Publicity.
F
6. Assistant Superintendent of Prisons.
7. Assistant Registrars of Co-operative Societies.
8. Deputy Superintendent of Excise.
G
9. Employment Officers.
10. Assistant Director of Youth Services/District Youth Service
Officer.
ff 11. Assistant Superintendent of Land Records.
N.F. SALi v. STATEOFKARNATAKA[JEEVAN REDDY,J.] 893
12. Chief Officer Grade-I. A
13. Assistant Treasury Officers.
14. District Marketing Officers.
15. Lecturers in Collegiate Education Department. B
16. Head Masters of High Schools.
17. Assistant Director of Bureau of Economics and Statistics.
18. Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce.
c
GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA
By Order and in the name of the
Governor of Karnataka,
M.M. Naik, D
Joint Secretary to Government
Department of Personnel &
Administrative Reforms.
(Services Rules)'
E
Rule 5 says that these rules shall ramain in force in respect of each
of the cadres specified in column 4 of the Schedule until the representation
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe candidates in each of these
cadres reasches fifteen and three percent respective!)'.. Rule 6 empowers
the Government to amend the Schedule and to remove difficulties by
issuing appropriate directions. Rule 7 says that all other rules for the time F
being in force regulating recruitment and conditions of services made
under the proviso to Article 309 shall be applicable to candidates selected
under these rules, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions
of the said rules. Rule 8 repeals an identical set of rules issued in 1984,
while saving any action taken thereunder. G
A reading of Rules 3 and 4 discloses the following scheme. Not-
withstanding the several Rules goveruing recruitment to the cadres men-
tioned in the Schedule, a special procedure shall be followed for filling up
the number of vacancies shown in column 3 of the Schedule by selecting
and appointing members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. For H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A this purpose a Board has to be constituted in the prescribed manner. Two
different procedures are prescribed for filling up the posts mentioned in
the Sched1!1e. So far as the posts mentioned under SI. No.1 to 3 are
concerned, they should be filled by SC/ST candidates who have passed the
requisite examination {specified in column 2 of the Schedule) in the first
B attempt, securing first, second or third positions among the SC/ST con-
didates. The candidates who have passed the said courses commencing
from 1982-83 must be considered for this purpose provided they have
studied in an educational institution in the State of Karnataka for a period
of not less than five years before passing the Pre-University Course Ex-
amination. These candidates have to be listed in the order of merit deter-
C mined on the basis of marks obtained by them in the relevant examination.
So far as the posts mentioned under SI. NQs. 4 to 38 of the Schedule are
concerned, a different procedure is prescribed. The candidates eligible for
these posts shall have to be called for an oral test to assess their suitability
for the post concerned. At the end of the oral test, seperate lists of
D candidates in respect of each post specified under SI. Nos. 4 to 8 has to be
prepared in the order of merit based on the marks secured at the oral test.
From such merit list, candidates equal to the number of vacancies indicated
in the corresponding entires in column 3 have to be selected.
Now, let us examine the facts of the case in the light of the above
E legal position. After obtaining the particulars of eligible candidates from
the various Universities in the. State, a Board was constituted by the
Government of Karnataka as contemplated by Rule 4(1). The Board
conducted the oral test on 12th, 13th and 14th November, 1990. (Evidently
we are concerned in this case with selection to the posts specified under
F SI. Nos. 4 to 8 of the Schedule and not with posts specified under SI. Nos.
1 to 3). On the basis of the oral test, certain candidates were selected. The
unsuccessful candidates thereupon approached the Karnataka Administra-
tive Tribunal by way of Applications No.1270, 1410 and 1895 of 1991
questioning the validity of the selections made by the Board in November,
1990. The grounds urged by them before the Tribunal were :
G
(i) By virtue of rule 7 of the Rules, sub-rule {2) of Rule 6 of the
Karnataka State Civil Services {Direct recruitment by Selection) Rules,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as "1973 Rules") are applicable to the said
selection process. According to Rule 6(2) of the 1973 Rules, "the Selecting
H Authority shall publish on the notice board of its office on the day on which
N.F.SALI v.STATEOFKARNATAKA[JEEVANREDDY,J.] 895
interview or viva-voce is held or cin the day following but before the A
commencement of the interview or viva-voce on that day, a list of marks
obtained by each candidate in the said interview or viva-voce". At the
impugned selection, the said requirement was not observed, which vitiates
the entire process of selection.
(ii) The interview was not conducted properly. B
(iii) The allocation of posts for different Subjects has been made
improperly vitiating the entire selection as such.
On behalf of the State it was contended that Rule 6(2) of the 1973
Rules does not apply to selections made under the said Rules and that, C
therefore, it was not obligatory upon the Board to publish the list of marks
obtained by each of the candidate at the said oral test. It was also submitted
that even if the said Rule 6(2) is held applicable, it is not mandatory and
its non observance does not vitiate the selection. Another contention urged
by the State, was that unless the selected candidates are impleaded as D
respondents, their selection cannot be set aside.
The Tribunal rejected the second and third contentions urged by the
appellants before it. It also rejected the State's contention that no relief
can be granted in those applications without impleading the selected
candidates. It agreed with the petitioners (Respondents 5 to 17 in these E
appeals) that Rule 6(2) of 1973 Rules does apply to selections made under
the Rules and further that the non-observance of the said sub-rule has
vitiated the entire process of selection. Accordingly, it allowed the applica-
tion filed before it and directed the respondents before it to interview the
candidates afresh and make the selection in accordance with law.
F
These special leave petitions are preferred by condidates whose
selection and appointment was set aside by the Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Rule 6(2) has
no application to the selections made under the said Rules and that even G
if it does, the Rule being merely directory does not vitiate or invalidate the
process of selection. Rule 7 of the Rules and Rule 6(2) of 1973 Rules read
thus:
"7. Application of other rules :- All other rules for the
time being in force and such other rules and amendments H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A as may be made from time to time regulating recruitment
and conditions of service made under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India in so for as they
are not inconsistent with the provisions of these rules shall
be applicable to candidates selected for appointment
under these rules.'
B
"Rule 6(2) The selecting authority shall publish on the
notice board of its office on the day on which interview
or viva-voce is held or on that day following but before
the commencement of the interview or viva-voce on that
c day, a list of marks obtained by each candidate in the said
interview or viva-voce: . .
Provided that where the interview or viva-voce is held
in any place other then the place of its office, the said list
shall be published in such other place."
D
According to clause (b) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 4, after the test
conducted under clause (a) of sub-rule 5, separate lists of candidates in
respect of each course specified by SI. Nos. 4 to 8 of the Schedule shall be
prepared in the order of merit and from such lists, candidates equal to the
E number of vacancies indicated in the relevant entires in column 3 shall be
selected. Whereas Rule 6(2) of 1973 Rule says that Selecting authority shall
publish on the notice board of its office on the day on which interview/viva-
voce held or on the day following, a list of marks obtained by each
candidate. It further provides that where the interview/viva-voce is held on
F more than one day, the list of marks shall be published at any rate, before
the commencement of interview or viva-voce on the succeeding day. The
question is whether Rule 6(2) can be read into-sub-rule 5(b) of Rule·4 by
virtue of Rule 7 of the said Rules. We think 'not. Take a case, where the
oral test contemplated by sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 is held on more than one
day; if Rule 6(2) of the 1973 Rules is held applicable, the Selecting
G authority would be obliged to publish the list of marks at the end of each
day or at any rate before the oral test begins on the succeeding day;
whereas Rule 4(5)(b) of the Rules provides that such list shall be published
only after the oral test contemplated by Rule 4(5)(a) is over. It must also·
be remembered that the oral test and selection process under the Rules is
H a special process; it is not confined to one post or one cadre or one group;
N.F.SALI v.STATEOFKARNATAKA[JEEVANREDDY,J.] 897
where.s a normal selection is confined to a particular post or a group of A
posts. (As many as 30 to 35 cadres are specified in the Schedule appended
to the Rules). The non-obstante clause in Rule 3 of the Rules gives
over-riding·' effect to the provisions of the Rules and as such the provisions
of the 1973 Rules - to the extent of inconsistency - cannot be made
applicable to the selection made under the Rules. We are, therefore, of the B
opinion that Rule 6(2) of the 1973 Rules being inconsistent with Rule
4(5)(b) of the Rules, is not applicable to the selections made under the
Rules. On this ground alone these appeals are liable to be allowed.
In view of the opinion expressed in the preceding para, it is not
necessary for us to go into the question whether non observance of Rule C
6(2) of 1973 Rules vitiates the selection. Nor is it necessary for us to
consider whether Rule 6(2) is mandatory or directory.
The appeals are accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal
impugned in these appeals is set aside. No order as to costs.
D
N.P.V. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Special recruitment"Sign in to search