Delhi High Court
Food Corporation Of India & Ors vs Manoj Kumar Singh & Ors on 29 September, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No.90/2014
Reserved on: 10th August, 2016
% Date of Decision: 29th September, 2016
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Ajit Pudussery and Ms. Shruti S.
Hazarika, Advocates.
versus
MANOJ KUMAR SINGH & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Swastik, Advocate.
LPA 91/2014
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Ajit Pudussery and Ms. Shruti S.
Hazarika, Advocates.
versus
BIBHUTI BHUSAN SAHU & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Swastik, Advocate.
LPA 92/2014
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Ajit Pudussery and Ms. Shruti S.
Hazarika, Advocates.
versus
PRASHANT SINGH KHOKAR ..... Respondent
LPA 255/2015 + connected Page 1 of 21
Through Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Swastik, Advocate.
LPA 93/2014
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Ajit Pudussery and Ms. Shruti S.
Hazarika, Advocates.
versus
PHOOL CHAND MEENA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Swastik, Advocate.
LPA 94/2014
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Ajit Pudussery and Ms. Shruti S.
Hazarika, Advocates.
versus
SH PARVINDER SINGH & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Swastik, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
The present intra-Court appeals arise from the common order dated
13th November, 2013, whereby W.P. (C) Nos. 3129/2011, 1145/2012,
1459/2012, 1460/2012, 2297/2012 filed by the respondents have been
allowed, holding that the appellants were wrong in not counting the training
period as Management Trainees as qualifying experience for direct
recruitment to the post of Assistant General Manager (Technical). As it was
still disputed whether the respondents would qualify even when the training
period as Management Trainees was counted, and since the factual position
was unclear, the impugned order dated 13th November, 2013 records as
under:-
"12. One thing which is clear is that a person's candidature
can only be considered if that candidate is otherwise
qualified in terms of requirement specified in the
advertisement. This aspect cannot and could not be
disputed by either of the parties. Since there is shortcoming
on both the sides, it is therefore eminently just that now a
fresh consideration takes place of whether or not the
petitioners have the necessary 5 years experience as on the
date of the advertisement in question having been issued on
8.1.2011. In order to determine this aspect, respondent no.1
will designate an appropriate/competent officer who will
hear each of the petitioners who will be entitled to file all
documents to show that they have the necessary 5 years
experience. If the competent officer of the respondent no.1
decides that one or more of the petitioners do not have the
necessary 5 years experience, then, a specific
communication giving the specific reasons as to why the 5
years experience is not completed by one or more
petitioners, will be given to the petitioners. If the
petitioners at that stage are dis-satisfied on account of any
alleged illegal action of the respondent no.1, then
petitioners at that stage can approach the Court.
13. The writ petition is disposed of by directing that
respondent no.1 will consider afresh the eligibility of the
petitioners of having 5 years experience as on 8.1.2011. In
terms of this judgment, so far as the training period is
concerned, the same will be counted as a period of
experience required in terms of the advertisement because
of the reasons given hereinabove. So far as the other
periods are concerned, so as to total up to the 5 years
experience required, these aspects will be examined by the
competent officer of the respondent no.1 after hearing the
petitioners, putting to them the necessary queries, asking
them to file the necessary documents with respect to the
queries which are raised by the competent officer, and
thereafter, passing an order giving reasons and addressing a
specific communication accordingly to the petitioners if
they meet or do not meet the qualification criteria of 5
years experience. This order will be communicated to the
petitioners, who if entitled in law, can challenge the
rejection, if so done as regards one or more of the
petitioners, by the respondent no.1 for the appointment to
the post of Assistant General Manager (Technical) with the
respondent no.1. The aforesaid exercise be now completed
within a period of three months as jointly prayed for by the
parties, and for that period and further till the decision is
communicated to the petitioners of their rejection if any
and also for a further period of 15 days thereafter, the
interim orders passed by this Court reserving posts of
Assistant General Manager (Technical) will continue. The
writ petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid
observations. Parties are left to bear their own costs."
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
respondents and are inclined to allow the present appeals.
3. The essential qualifications stipulated for appointment to the post of
Assistant General Manager (Technical) through direct recruitment were;
(i) A degree in Agriculture, or a degree in Science with a Diploma in
Food Technology or a Master's degree in Zoology or Biochemistry or
equivalent qualifications;
(ii) Five years' experience in the storage of food-grains and maintenance
of stocks or in the examination, inspection and analysis of food grains in
Government or Public/Private Ltd. Undertakings. The experience
acquired as Junior/ Senior Research Fellows while pursuing higher
studies would be reckoned as required experience.
Desirable: knowledge of toxicology of insecticides, raticides and
fumigants in use in grains stocks.
4. Pertinently, the Recruitment Rules stipulate that 1/3rd of the posts of
Assistant General Manager (Technical) are to be filled by way of direct
recruitment and 2/3rd posts by promotion through selection from persons
who have five years' experience as Manager (Technical).
5. The respondents herein were working as Managers (Quality Control)
with the appellant Corporation. They were inducted as Management
Trainees, in terms of the scheme approved by the Board of Directors of the
appellant Corporation on 8th October, 1996.
6. On 4th August, 1993, the Board of Directors had approved a proposal
for recruitment, through competitive examination, of fresh candidates,
possessing requisite qualifications but without any experience, as
Management Trainees and then absorbing them as Managers after intensive
"on the job training". The scheme was approved by the Government of India
vide letter dated 4th November, 1993. However, due to strong sentiments
and resistance by the existing employees, who felt that their promotional
avenues would be adversely affected, the follow up and induction of
Management Trainees had remained in abeyance. By the aforesaid resolution
dated 8th October, 1996, the scheme was re-introduced by the Board. As per
the resolution, the Management Trainees were entitled to a consolidated
monthly stipend during the training of one year, in addition to being eligible
for Travel Allowance and Dearness Allowance as admissible to Managers
during training. On successful completion of the training, they were to be
appointed as Managers at the minimum scale of pay applicable to the post of
Managers.
7. Pursuant to their selection as Management Trainees, the respondents
underwent training for one year. The letters of selection had specifically
stated that on successfully completing the induction training programme, the
respondents would be posted as Managers (Quality Control). The
respondents would be paid a consolidated stipend, which varied between
Rs.6,000/- and 16,400/-, depending upon the year of selection. They were
paid regular scale pay of the post of Manager after the successful completion
of training, and from the date they assumed charge as Managers. After
appointment as Managers they were on probation for a period of one year,
which term could be extended for a further period not exceeding one year.
8. The training programme, placed on record, would indicate that it was
broken into four phases i.e. A, B, C & D. The number of working days
earmarked in each phase was stipulated. The training programme envisaged
visits to training locations in order to enable the trainees to familiarize
themselves with different aspects across the supply chain such as stack
formation, siding depot loading and unloading, good shed loading etc. Phase
A was spread across 151 calendar days which included 88 days of lectures in
addition to familiarization of work in all divisions over 20 days and an
additional 24 days of field visits. After the completion of the first two stages
of phase A, a common evaluation test was to be conducted across all cadres
in which five papers were prescribed. There was another examination over a
period of 5 days at the final stage of phase A. In phase B, the trainees were
attached to specified operational centres in zones not of their preference for a
period of 90 days. In phase C, the trainees were to be posted in applied
cadres in other non-preferred zones, as far as possible, also for a period of 90
days. Phase D related to examination and evaluation after the completion of
the earlier phases and was to last for a period 5 days. Phases B and C carried
a weightage of 10 marks in each, to evaluate the performance of each trainee.
9. Perusing the aforesaid programme, its contents, etc., it is clear that the
persons selected, who could be fresh graduates, had to undergo both
theoretical as well as practical training. The practical training was to be
under the supervision and control of the Central Training Institute, New
Delhi. The scheme also envisaged evaluation of the performance of
Management Trainees during and at the end of the course.
10. The advertisement calling for applications to the post of Assistant
General Manager (Technical) had stipulated that experience acquired as a
Junior/Senior Research Fellow while pursuing higher studies would be
counted or reckoned as required experience. This stipulation reflects that a
specific postulate was made for those who had undertaken relevant post-
graduate research. The aforesaid stipulation was meant to equate candidates,
who had pursued higher studies/research and had not opted to take up
employment. This stipulation would not assist and help the respondents. The
Management Trainees were not junior or senior research fellows. The
minimum qualification prescribed for selection as Management Trainees was
a graduation degree. In fact the respondents do not claim, and have not
asserted or alleged, that the Management Training programme should be
equated with, or treated as, time spent on pursuing higher studies as a junior
or senior research fellow and, therefore, should be reckoned for computing
the "experience". The aforesaid stipulation would, in fact, negate the
contention of the respondents that the time spent on training as a
Management Trainee would be counted and included in the work experience
of 5 years as prescribed. The training or study period was not to be included
as work experience unless the candidate had post graduate qualifications and
was pursuing higher studies as a junior/senior research fellow.
11. The submission that the requirement of practical experience can be
equated with, or is identical to, on-the-job training is far-fetched, fallacious
and has to be rejected. Training entails theoretical instruction and practical
exposure by instructors and others who have requisite practical experience
and expertise. On-the-job training is undertaken under the careful watch and
supervision of the instructors and experts. An employee on the other hand
gains self taught knowledge through experience and by watching others. An
employee, as per the job profile, is required to implement directions of
superiors and to take decisions while on the job and working. It cannot be
doubted that work experience counts, and is of great relevance and
importance, for it enhances understanding, awareness and knowledge.
Training may have a similar objective, but the two differ and are not equated
to each other by persons in trade and business. An employee enjoys far
greater "freedom" and creativity while working and performing his job. The
responsibilities are significantly and perceptibly higher. The expectation,
requirement and responsibilities of a trainee are palpably lower and not
equivalent to what is expected and required from an employee. Trainees,
even if inquisitive and constructive, are required to imbibe, follow and learn
what they are told by the instructor.
12. In these circumstances, we do not think that the practical or on-the-job
training included in the period of training as Management Trainees
undergone by the respondents can be treated as qualifying experience under
the advertisement. The experience stipulated was specific and particular to
storage of food-grains and maintenance of stocks, or in the examination,
inspection and analysis of food grains in Government or Public/Private Ltd.
undertakings.
13. What had weighed with the single Judge, and is the cornerstone of the
impugned decision, was the Circular No. 59 of 1986 dated 22nd September,
1986 and the Government of India's order dated 8 th March, 1983. Both of
them have been reproduced in the impugned judgment, and for the sake of
clarity, are reproduced below:-
"CIRCULAR NO. 59 OF 1986
NO.EP.16(11)/82 Dated: September 22, 1986
Subject: Application of Rules, Regulations, Instructions,
Orders issued by the Central Government in The Food
Corporation of India
As per the directions of the Central Government under
Section 6(2) of the Food Corporations Act, 1964, all the
concerned in the Corporation are hereby informed that in
all cases where there are no specific provisions in the Food
Corporation Act, 1964, or Rules or Regulations or
Instructions made thereunder, the Food Corporation shall
follow the Central Government Rules Regulations,
Instructions, Orders issued from time to time on the subject
where relevant.
2. All the concerned in the Corporation are, therefore,
advised to follow the Central Government Rules,
Regulations, Instructions, Orders in the absence of any
specific Rules, Regulations Instructions, Orders in the
Food Corporation of India. It is also clarified that wherever
Food Corporation of India's Rules/Regulations/Instructions
are clear, there shall be no need to follow the Government
Rules/Regulations/Instructions/Orders etc. on the subject.
3. This issues with the approval of the Chairman.
Sd/-
A.K.Pandey
Personnel Manager"
XXXXXX
"Govt. of India's order dated 8.3.1983
"Period of training before appointment to be treated as
'duty' for eligibility to sit for departmental
examinations.-
The Staff Side of the National Council (JCM) had
suggested inter alia that the service rendered by an
employee during the training period before his regular
appointment to the grade be treated as duty for eligibility to
sit for the departmental examination.
2. The request made by the Staff Side of the National
Council (JCM) has been examined and it has been decided
that in all cases where pre-service training is considered
necessary before actual appointment to the post, the period
spent by an officer on training immediately before such
appointment would count as qualifying service for the
purpose of eligibility for appearing in departmental
examinations, even if the officer is not given the scale of
pay of the post but only a nominal allowance."
14. Circular No.59 of 1986 dated 22nd September, 1986 states that the
appellant Corporation would follow the Central Government Rules,
Regulations, Instructions or Orders in the absence of specific provisions,
Rules, Regulations or Instructions made by or under the Food Corporation of
India Act, 1964. However, where rules, regulations or instructions of the
Corporation are clear, there would be no need to follow Central Government
Rules, Regulations, Instructions or Orders on the subject. In Swamy's
Pension Compilation relating to the Central Services (Pension) Rules, 1972,
Rule 22 and the Government of India's decisions, read as under:-
"22. Counting of periods spent on training
The Government may, by order, decide whether the time
spent by a Government servant under training
immediately before appointment to service under that
Government shall count as qualifying service.
XXXXXX
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA'S DECISIONS
(1) Pre-appointment training period counts as
qualifying service. [G.I. Dept. of Per. & A.R., O.M. No.
28/32/81-Pension Unit, dated 22.12.1983]-
The Staff Side to the National Council (JCM) had
suggested inter alia that the service rendered by an
employee during the training period before his regular
appointment to the grade may be treated as qualifying
service for pension.
2. The request made by the Staff Side of the National
Council (JCM) has been examined and it has now been
decided that in respect of Groups `C' and `D' employees,
who are required to undergo departmental training
relating to jobs before they are put on regular
employment, training period may be treated as qualifying
service for pension, if the training is followed
immediately by an appointment. This benefit will be
admissible to all Groups `C' and `D' employees even if
the officers concerned are not given the scale of pay of
the post but only a nominal allowance.
3. The Ministry of Finance, etc., are requested to bring
the above decision to the notice of all officers working
under them including those in the attached and
subordinate offices for their guidance.
4. These orders come into force with effect from 22nd
December, 1983.
5. Benefit of these orders will be available to all those
employees who retired on or after 22nd December, 1983.
6. No restriction is imposed on the admissibility of the
above benefit to the employees who were recruited in `C'
and `D' posts but retired from Groups `A' and `B' posts.
(2) Treatment of interruption between training and
regular appointment. [D.G., P&T., Memo No. 4/4/84-
Pen., dated 18.07.84]-
Reference Decision (1) above, some of the Circles, etc.,
have raised a doubt about treating the period of
interruption between training period and regular
appointment which is caused due to journey from
training place to the posting place or the non-availability
of post, etc. The position has been examined in
consultation with the Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms and clarified as follows:-
It is mentioned that the Decision (1) above is effective
from the date of issue, i.e., 22-12-1983. Thus, the
benefits of this order can be given to an officer who is in
service on that day and retires thereafter.
As regards treating the interruption period in between
training period and regular appointment, it is stated that
the training should be followed immediately by an
appointment which means that there should not be any
interruption. Even, if any interruption falls between the
training period and regular appointment, that should not
exceed the joining time admissible under the relevant
rules for the purpose of benefit to be given under
Decision (1) above.
In view of the position stated, it is requested that this
provision may be brought to the notice of all concerned
subordinate units including P & T Training Centres.
(3) Condonation of administrative delay in issuing
posting order after training, for counting training
period for pension. [G.I.. Dept. of Telecom, Letter No.
36-14/88-NB/T/Pen., dated 25.08.1990]-
1. Rule 22 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and
Government of India's Instructions issued on the subject
from time to time provide that a period of training can be
counted as qualifying service for the purpose of
pensionary benefits if the training is immediately
followed by appointment. Even if any interruption falls
between the training period and regular appointment, that
should not exceed the joining time admissible under the
relevant rules.
2. But instances have come to notice where there has
been administrative delay in giving appointment letters,
etc., after the training period is over and the appointment
takes more time than the joining time admissible under
the relevant rules.
3. The question as to how the intervening period in
such type of cases can be treated if it exceeds the joining
time admissible and the delay on the part of the
Government in giving appointment letters and as to
whether that intervening can be condoned, was referred
to Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare who
have advised that in cases where the delay is purely
administrative, they have no objection to condoning the
said period.
4. They have further advised that effort should be
made to eliminate the administrative delays particularly
where it is known in advance that the trainees have to be
given final appointment letters, etc."
15. A reading of Rule 22 indicates that the Government has the option and
can, by an order, decide whether the time spent by the Government servant
under training, immediately before appointment to service, is to be counted
as qualifying service for pension or not. The Government of India's order
dated 22nd December, 1983 was issued on the recommendation of the staff
side of the National Council for the Joint Consultative Machinery. As per
the said order, Group C and D employees required to undergo departmental
training relating to jobs before their regular appointment, were entitled to
count the training period as qualifying service for pension, if the training was
immediately before the appointment. We are not deciding or examining
whether the training period would qualify as service for purposes of pension.
The order itself would show that benefit was extended to Group C (Category
III) and D (Category IV) employees. The benefit is applicable even if the
Group C and D employees were given only a nominal allowance during the
training period. The said order would have no application to the post of
Managers which is a Group B (Category II) post and not a Group C
(Category III) post.
16. Thus, the training period as per Rule 22 of the Pension Rules per se or
ex facie is not to be counted as qualifying service even for pension unless
and until there is an order to that effect, and the Government has to direct
when the training period would be counted.
17. The Our attention was drawn to sub Rule (6)(b), Fundamental Rule 9,
which reads:-
F.R. 9. (6) (b) A Government servant may be treated as on
duty-
(i) during a course of instruction or training in India, or
(ii) in the case of a student, stipendiary or otherwise,
who is entitled to be appointed to the service of the
Government on passing through a course of training at a
University, College or School in India, during the interval
between the satisfactory completion of the course and his
assumption of duties.
The abovementioned Rule states that a Government servant may be
treated as on duty during a course of instruction or training in India, whether
as a student on stipendiary or otherwise, when the said person is entitled to
be appointed to the service of the Government after having completed the
course. Sub Rule (6) of Fundamental Rule 9, when it deems and treats a
trainee as on duty during the training or during the induction course, has a
different purpose and import than treating the period of training as work
experience. It ensures that candidates selected for Government service
undergoing training, adhere to and follow the rules and regulations
applicable to Government servants while on duty. Obviously Fundamental
Rule 9 would not apply for it relates to and postulates a different and distinct
situation. The mandate is different. The trainee must adhere to, and follow
rules applicable to the Government servants on duty.
18. Faced with the aforesaid difficulty, learned counsel for the
respondents had referred and relied on OM No.14034/5/81-Estt.(D) dated 8th
March, 1983, the relevant paragraphs of which have been reproduced above
in Paragraph 13.
19. The OM dated 8th March, 1983, by a deeming fiction states that
service rendered by an employee before his regular employment shall be
counted as qualifying service for purposes of eligibility for departmental
examination, even if during the training period the trainee is not given the
scale of pay equivalent to that of the post, and was paid only a nominal
allowance. The relaxation granted by the aforesaid O.M. is limited and
confined to treating and counting the training period as service/duty for the
purpose of appearing in departmental examinations. In the impugned
judgment, it has been observed that if the period of training could be counted
as experience for departmental examination, it should also be counted as
experience for direct recruitment to the post. We find difficulty in accepting
the said reasoning. The Office Memorandum gives a limited and restricted
concession to Government employees by treating the training period as
qualifying service, solely for the purpose of departmental examination. It
would apply equally to all governmental servants inducted to a post after a
training course and entitled to be considered for promotion on clearing or
qualifying in the departmental examination. Eligibility or relaxation granted
by counting the training period as experience for departmental examination
would not, as a sequitur, mandate that the training or course period would be
counted as work experience for all purposes. This is not so stated and
stipulated. In direct recruitment, candidates working in other departments
and organizations are also eligible and compete. It is an open selection and
not restricted or limited to departmental candidates. Relaxation by including
a training period for a particular set of trainees may cause grievance and
prejudice to others. Uniform and identical criteria must apply to all, when the
eligibility requirement is examined and interpreted. The training period is not
counted for any other purposes, including fixation of pay, increments, etc.
The Office Memorandum No.14034/5/81-Estt.(D) dated 8th March, 1983 is
distant and remote, for it does not suggest or elucidate that the training
period would count as work experience.
20. Noticeably, after completion of the stipulated training period and on
being appointed as Managers, the respondents were to remain on probation
for one year, extendable for a further period of one year. It is only after
successful completion of training, that an offer of appointment as Managers
was to be made. One such letter dated 5th November, 2009, which is on
record, would show that the respondents, upon appointment as Managers,
were entitled to the regular pay-scale plus allowances. The offer of
appointment was provisional and subject to verification of character
certificates, caste certificates etc. The training period was not counted for
fixation of pay, increments, etc.
21. Another reason has found favour with us in allowing these appeals.
The advertisement for appointment to the post of Assistant General
Managers (Technical) was published on 8th January, 2011. The applications
forms had to be filled up on-line on or before 07.02.2011. The onus was on
the candidates to satisfy themselves that they fulfill the eligibility criteria
before applying for the post. On the basis of the information and details
furnished by the applicants including the respondents, admit cards of eligible
candidates were uploaded on the internet on 20th March, 2011. The admit
cards of the respondents were not uploaded for the reason that the appellants
felt and had held that the respondents did not fulfill and meet the eligibility
requirements. The shortlisted candidates, meeting the eligibility
requirements, had appeared and participated in the written test held on 3rd
April, 2011. On the basis of the result in the written examination, the select
list of candidates securing the highest marks in the General and reserved
categories was prepared.
22. The first writ petition, W.P.(C) 3129/2011, raising the claim and
contention that the respondents were wrongly denied, and not issued admit
cards, was filed on 09.05.2011 i.e. more than one month after the written
examination. This writ petition was filed by Manoj Kumar Singh and 8
aggrieved candidates and was heard for the first time on 09.05.2011, when
an interim order was passed permitting the respondent no.1 Corporation to
proceed with the selection process, however restraining them from making
any appointments sequent thereto. Only thereafter did the respondents in
LPA Nos. 91-94/2014, ten in number, file the Writ Petitions (C) Nos.
1459/2012, 1145/2012, 2297/2012 and 1460/2012 respectively. Thus, the
writ petitions were filed after the written examination was held. This
inexplicable delay is a sufficient ground to deny the relief, on account of
laches. If the writ petitions in question are allowed, then the written
examination and the select list would have to be cancelled and quashed.
23. The writ petitions were initially predicated on the assertion that in
some cases, admit cards had been issued to candidates who had included the
Management Trainee program period as experience. The principle of equal
treatment was pleaded. The appellant Corporation avers that as a precept the
Management Trainee program period was not to be counted as work
experience. Erroneous or wrong issuance of admit cards would not confer a
legal right. Any discrepancy noticed at any point of the recruitment process
could be rectified to ensure compliance with the prescribed criteria. We
agree that if there was an error or mistake and admit cards had been issued to
those who had counted the Management Trainee period, ipso facto, would
not confer any legal right. Article 14 and the right to equality is an
affirmative right. The respondents cannot claim equity and seek direction
that illegality should be perpetuated, for a wrong admit card was issued in
another case. This contention must fail.
24. As a result of the interim orders passed in the writ petitions and
subsequently in the Letters Patent Appeals, of the 41 vacancies for the post
of AGM (Technical) advertised, 24 posts have not been filled up. This was
directed as appointment letters to 17 candidates had already been issued.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we would allow the present
appeals and set aside the impugned order dated 13 th November, 2013. The
writ petitions filed by the respondents would be treated as dismissed. There
would be no order as to costs.
-sd-
(SANJIV KHANNA)
JUDGE
-sd-
(SUNITA GUPTA)
JUDGE
September 29, 2016
NA/VKR
