PREM CHAND DESHANTRI vs LABOUR on 19 October 2026

ORDER

Per Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

The applicant being aggrieved by the order of the respondent for not regularizing his services to the post of Section Supervisor with effect from 05.03.2009 i.e. the date of his promotion on ad hoc basis , the applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and sought following reliefs:- “(i) The impugned order dated 13.04.2017 (Annexure A/1) to the extent of its applicability to Rajasthan Region may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The Applicant's service on the position of Section Supervisor be regularised from the date of his ad hoc promotion i.e. 05.03.2009 or in the alternative from the date of vacancy.

(iii) The Applicant may kindly be held entitled for all consequential benefits arising herein, of which he is legally entitled, along with interest.

(iv) Any other direction or order which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the Applicant.”

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- 2.1 The applicant was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the respondent department and posted at Udaipur on 29.07.1991. He was subsequently promoted to Upper Division Clerk vide office order dated 02.02.1994. The applicant averred that the service conditions of the applicant were governed by the Staff and Conditions of Service Regulations 1962. However, the Central Board, after exercising power conferred by sub-section 7(a) and 5(d) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, framed the recruitment rules

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

3 OA No.268/2022

known as Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Section Supervisor (Head Clerk) (Regional Office) Recruitment Rules 1992 for regulating the method of recruitment and were given effect from 28.07.1992. As per the provisions laid down in the aforestated rules, the post of Section Supervisor is to be filled 66.67% by promotion on the basis of seniority- cum-suitability and balance 33.33% by promotion through departmental examination, failing which through direct recruitment. 2.2 It is apt to mention that the examination quota was introduced with a view to offer an accelerated career progression to the departmental employees having better merit in addition to the departmental promotion seniority quota and direct recruitment. Consequently, the department notified the Employees' Provident Fund Departmental Examination Scheme 2002 for filling up of post of Section Supervisor/Assistant in the regions as well as at the Headquarter. Subsequently, the department notified order dated 13.08.2004 to conduct departmental examination in various States including Rajasthan for the post of Section Supervisor under 33.33% promotion through departmental examination quota. 2.3 Thereafter, the respondent no.4 conducted said departmental examination for the aforesaid post on 05.10.2004 and 06.10.2004. However, the respondent no. 4 did not notify the number of vacancies existing at the time of conducting of the examination. The applicant participated in the examination for promotion to the post of Section Supervisor. He was declared qualified and was listed at serial no.17 in the list of qualified candidates. Meanwhile, the respondents gave promotion to the post of Section Supervisor against the vacancies arising

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

4 OA No.268/2022

in Rajasthan from time to time, wherein it was stated that the promotion was given to the 10 person from seniority quota and 3 person from examination quota. Further, seven other persons were also promoted as a Section Supervisor on ad hoc basis with effect from 05.03.2009. 2.4 The applicant has relied upon the information supplied by the respondents to him under RTI filed by the applicant herein wherein it was mentioned that a total of 47 vacancies were available in the Rajasthan from 2004-2005 to 2017-2018 on the post of Section Supervisor under the Departmental Examination quota. The respondent also supplied the information that against the available vacancies from 2004-2005 to 2010-2011, 13 persons from the selection list had been adjusted against the 13 vacancies. However, in spite of four vacancies existing in 2011-12, only one vacancy was filled by the respondent against the Departmental Examination quota. Meanwhile, some of the applicant in the Gujarat region have filed OA number 263/2010 before the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench challenging a promotion of official working on ad hoc basis pursuant to the Departmental Examination held in the State of Gujarat on 31.07.2007. The CAT Ahmedabad Bench decided the case on 09.05.2012 wherein it was held that merit list prepared on the basis of the result of Departmental Examination conducted on 31.07.2007 cannot operate in perpetuity. 2.5 In pursuance to the order of the Ahmedabad CAT Bench, the respondent, Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner (Zones) issued a letter to all Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in charge of Regional Offices on 13.04.2017, stating that all the Section Supervisor promoted under Examination quota may be issued show-cause notice as

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

5 OA No.268/2022

to why they should not be reverted to their original cadre. It is appropriate to mention that the facts with reference to the employee promoted to the Section Supervisor on ad hoc basis in Rajasthan were clearly distinguishable from the employee who had been promoted on ad hoc basis through the Section Supervisor in Gujarat. Therefore, the clarification was sought by respondent no.4 from respondent no.2 vide its letter number 26.07.2013 regarding regulation in the cadre of Section Supervisor under Examination quota, however, no response was received by the respondent no.4. 2.6 However, in compliance of the order of the CAT Ahmedabad Bench and subsequent directions issued by respondent no.3 to all the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner Zones and all the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in charge of the regional offices vide letter number 13.04.2017, the Regional Office a blanket order and tried to make it applicable with retrospective effect without inviting objection or giving personal hearing to the party affected in considering the fact that no subsequent exam took place in Rajasthan like Gujarat, where examinations were held in 2000, 2001 and 2007. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 sent another reminder to respondent no.2, reiterating therein that six officials including the applicant having been working on ad-hoc basis for more than 8 years, therefore considering their continuous service as Section Supervisors and their age profile, six supernumerary posts may be created to accommodate them instead of their reversion to the lower cadre. Meanwhile the applicant also sent a representation on 01.06.2017 to the respondent no. 5 stating therein that the order of the CAT Ahmedabad is not applicable to the applicant as the

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

6 OA No.268/2022

same pertains to the examination conducted in 2007 whereas no such examination was held in Rajasthan in that year, since the applicant has qualified the 2004 examination. However without considering the representation of the applicant and the recommendation made by the respondent no.4, the respondent department issued a letter dated 23.03.2018 directing therein that the limited departmental competitive examination for promotion to the post of Section Supervisor would be conducted as per the Employees Provident Fund Section Supervisor Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Scheme 2017. 2.7 Being aggrieved from the aforesaid decision of the respondent the applicant submitted a representation dated 02.04.2018 to the respondent number 5 stating therein that he had been working on the post of Section Supervisor on ad-hoc for since 9 years which is affecting his seniority, and therefore, requested that he may be considered for regularization with effect from 05.03.2009 i.e. the date of promotion on ad-hoc basis. The representation of the applicant was forwarded by the respondent no.4 to respondent no.5 on 03.04.2018. However the respondent without considering the fact that applicant had been working diligently with respondents for more than 27 years, the representation of the applicant was not considered. Further the respondent regularized the service of the applicant as a section supervisor with effect from 01.10.2020 under the seniority cum suitability quota without giving any benefit of more than 11 years of service rendered by the applicant since 05.03.2009 when he was promoted to the post of Section Supervisor. Therefore, the applicant has filed this present OA on the following ground.

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

7 OA No.268/2022

2.8 The action of the respondents is unjust illegal discriminatory and causing serious prejudice to the career of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the content and facts filed by the applicant of OA no.263/2010 before the CAT Ahmedabad Bench were different, which sought direction to set aside the select list of 09.01.2009 and ad hoc promotion which was beyond the number of vacancies available on the date of examination, which were decided on 13.03.2015. It is apt to mention that the select list prepared for Rajasthan region on 10.03.2005 has neither been challenged nor was the examination conducted in 2004. Therefore, impugned order of the respondent dated 13.04.2017 for reverting the applicant and other similarly situated employee from the Section Supervisor to UDC cannot be made applicable retrospectively. 2.9 He also mentioned that the respondent had promoted one person against the vacancy arising in year 2011-12. They could have promoted other three candidates including the applicant herein against the three vacancies available for the same year. He also contended that as per the selection list after promotion of the Shri Jay Prakash Pandey, Shri Narendra Singh and Shri Virendra Singh against the seniority quota, the applicant and another one person were left from giving the regular promotion on Section Supervisor. Therefore, the act of the respondents is discriminatory and arbitrary in non-granting regular promotion to the petitioner by holding back three vacancies for the year 2011-12. 2.10 He also supported his argument by stating that the respondent no. 4 had himself requested to the Headquarters for creation of supernumerary post to safeguard the interest of the petitioner vide its

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

8 OA No.268/2022

letter dated 15.05.2017.Therefore, on the basis of the above fact, the case of the applicant be considered and he may be allowed regular promotion with effect from 05.03.2009 i.e. the date of giving him ad hoc promotion on the basis of departmental examination competitive examination.

3. E-converso, the respondents submitted their reply wherein they have denied the averments made by the applicant and averred that the applicant had challenged the order dated 13.04.2017 issued by the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner-II (HRM), Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, New Delhi, which had been issued in compliance of the order passed by the CAT Ahmedabad Bench, upheld by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is apt to mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to examine the matter and dismiss the SLP on merit, as such the judgment rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench is applicable to all region of offices of the respondent Employees' Provident Fund Organization in India. Therefore respondents had not committed any illegality, infirmity in issuing the order dated 13.04.2017, averred the respondents. 3.1 Respondent further contended that the Section Supervisor examination was a qualifying examination as per the provisions of the rules accordingly the examination was conducted on the basis of vacancy called from the regional office, against the available vacancy. It was also submitted that the order dated 05.03.2009 for ad hoc promotion was issued on the basis of recommendation of the DPC held on 05.03.2009, which was reviewed on 22.04.2014 in the meeting of

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

9 OA No.268/2022

Review DPC meeting. Accordingly an order dated 25.04.2014 was issued regarding regular promotion to the post of section supervisor under seniority quota and examination quota. Therefore, the recommendation of the DPC dated 05.03.2009 ceased to exist after the review DPC dated 22.04.2014 was conducted wherein the proceeding of the DPC dated 16.01.2009 and 15.03.2009 were reviewed. 3.2 The averment of the applicant is not based on the available facts at the relevant point of time that there were vacancies available and the applicant was not regularly promoted to the post of Section Supervisor as those vacancies were arisen after the review DPC on 22.04.2004 reviewed the available vacancy and the persons in place. He also admitted that before the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench on 09.05.2012, the select panel of the earlier examination was used to fill the vacancy of the subsequent years, which was challenged by some of the employees in the Gujarat region before the CAT ,Ahmedabad Bench against the continuation of the selected panel in perpetuating on the ground that having a large number of candidates already in the select panel who had cleared the examination in the earlier year, they would not get a chance to get selected in the Section Supervisor examination. The CAT Ahmedabad Bench decided the issue on 09.05.2012 and ordered to operate the impugned select list up to the extent of reported vacancy and additional post created in Section Supervisor vide Headquarter letter dated 26.12.2008. This judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, in Special Civil Application No.2554/2016 which was dismissed on 11.07.2016 and upheld the judgment of CAT Ahmedabad Bench and

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

10 OA No.268/2022

subsequently the same was also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.03.2017 in SLP (Civil) CC No.4928-4930 of 2017 and 4579 of 2017. 3.3 As the department had exhausted all the legal course remedy available at relevant point of time, therefore, respondent had not left any choice but to implement the order dated 13.03.2015 passed by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad. In compliance of the said instructions, the official namely Shri Dinesh Sharma and Shri Jai Prakash Pandya, who were promoted under examination quota against the vacancy of the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 had been reverted to the post of SSA. Moreover, the applicant had also been promoted to the post of Section Supervisor under seniority quota on regular basis vide order dated 28.12.2020. 3.4 The averment of the applicant is contrary to the judicial pronouncement that the order of the CAT Ahmedabad Bench is not applicable to the employee working in the Rajasthan region. Since it has been upheld by the Apex Court on merit vide their judgment dated 06.03.2007, it is applicable to the entire country encompassing the same set of employees. Accordingly, in compliance of the direction and judicial pronouncement by Hon’ble Apex Court, a direction was given by the respondent no.3 vide letter number 13.04.2017 for restricting the promotion of the employee on the basis of departmental competitive examination to the extent of available vacancy at the time of notification of the examination. Further, the applicant could not be accommodated upto the year of 2008-09 for promotion to the post of Section Supervisor

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

11 OA No.268/2022

under Limited Departmental Examination quota, therefore, he could not be given regular promotion from retrospectively. 3.5 Learned counsel for the respondents referred the case of officials namely Shri Dinesh Sharma and Shri Jai Prakash Pandya, who were promoted under examination quota against the vacancy of the year 2010- 11 and 2011-12 had been reverted back to the post of SSA vide order of the department dated 28.12.2020. It is also the fact that applicant was promoted on ad hoc basis and as such he could not be accommodated for promotion to the post of Section Supervisor under examination quota due to non-availability of vacancy upto 2008-09, and as per the decision of the CAT Ahmedabad Bench, the said select panel cannot be operated for subsequent vacancies. However, the applicant has been promoted to the Section Supervisor on regular basis under seniority quota as per his seniority with effect from 01.10.2020. Since the ad hoc promotion of the applicant was on the basis of departmental examination quota without having any available vacancy during the year 2008-09, whereas his regular promotion was based on the seniority-cum-suitability with effect from 01.10.2020, therefore, he cannot be given the regular promotion from the date of his ad hoc promotion to the post of Section Supervisor which would be contrary to the direction given by Hon'ble CAT Bench, Ahmedabad, which was also upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no merit in OA and the same may be dismissed.

4. The applicant filed rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments made by the respondent in their reply and further averred that the coordinate bench of CAT Jaipur Bench in similar case of the similarly

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

12 OA No.268/2022

situated employees in Original Application challenging the similar notice in OA no. 295/2020, (Dinesh Sharma versus EPFO and others), had allowed the application filed by the applicant and quashed the reversion order notices. Moreover, the CAT Jaipur Bench had also discussed the order of the CAT Ahmedabad Bench, Hon'ble High Court Gujarat and decided that same cannot be implemented for the employee working in the Rajasthan region. Therefore, he again reiterated his prayer that his OA deserves merit and same may be allowed.

5. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the contextual guideline available on record.

6. It is admitted fact that applicant was appointed as LDC on 29.07.1991 and subsequently he was promoted as a UDC on 02.02.1994. Thereafter as per the Employees Provident Fund Departmental Examination Scheme, 2002, he was allowed to participate in the competitive departmental examination against 33% quota, where according to the list he was declared qualified and his name appeared at serial no. 17. However, it is evident from the arguments of both the parties that in the year of 2008-09, there were limited vacancies which were less than 17 in numbers, therefore, he could not be promoted on regular basis as Section Supervisor, however, he was given on ad hoc promotion. Subsequently the applicant had been given regular promotion on the post of Section Supervisor on 01.10.2020 on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability quota. 6.1 Now the core issue is that whether the applicant is entitled for regular promotion from the date of his ad hoc promotion, which was on

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

13 OA No.268/2022

the basis of departmental competitive examination quota with effect from 05.03.2009 whereas he was given regular promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability quota with effect from 01.10.2020. 6.2 In order to address the above issue, it is appropriate to mention some of the facts. It is evident that the similar facts were also discussed before CAT Ahmedabad Bench, Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and also Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein the basic principle was discussed and decided i.e. whether the select panel prepared on the basis of departmental competitive examination in a particular year can be allowed to operate perpetually against the vacancy available in subsequent years? After detailed deliberation, it was decided by the aforesaid Courts that the departmental competitive examination is a provision to the meritorious employees which is limited to the available vacancies in a particular year when the departmental examination is notified, and it cannot be operated in perpetuity. 6.3 In the present case also, the fact is that merit of the applicant was beyond the available vacancy at the time when the departmental examination was held on 05.10.2004 and 06.10.2004. Therefore, in our considered view, his case is squarely covered by the principle and ratio decided by CAT Ahmedabad in OA No.263/2010, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court also. Moreover, mere perusal of the promotion order on ad-hoc basis dated 05.03.2009 (Annexure-A-4), it is clearly mentioned in the Column No.3 of condition that ‘the period of ad-hoc promotion will not count towards his probation or seniority in the event of promotion of regular basis. The effective date of regular promotion in the cadre of the Senior Supervisor in respect of official

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

14 OA No.268/2022

mentioned in the order shall be the date of assumption of charge to the post of Section Supervisor within 3 days of receipt of this order, failing which the individual shall be liable to lose his/her seniority in the cadre of SS and his/her candidature shall not be considered for the aforesaid promotion in future. 6.4 Moreover, the para 5 and 6 of the Office Memorandum No.28036/1/2012-ESTT ( D) dated 3rd April, 2013 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, provides as follows:- “5. As already provided in this Department's O.M. No.22011/3/75-Estt.(D) dated 29th October, 1975, and reiterated in O.M. No. 28036/8/87-Estt. (D) dated 30.03.1988 and O.M. No.28036/1/2001-Estt. (D) dated 23.07.2001, an ad-hoc appointment does not bestow on the person a claim for regular appointment and the service rendered on ad-hoc basis in the grade concerned also does not count for the purpose of seniority in that grade and for eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade. As per existing provisions, these facts are to be clearly spelt out in the orders of the ad-hoc promotions/ ad-hoc appointments. Therefore, such ad-hoc arrangements are neither in the interest of the individuals nor the organizations concerned. It is, thus, not appropriate to resort to ad-hoc arrangements in a routine manner. 6 As per existing instructions vide O.M. No.28036/8/87-Estt. (D) dated 30.03.1988 and O.M. No.28036/1/2001-Estt. (D) dated 23.07.2001, the total period for which the appointment/ promotion may be made, on an ad-hoc basis, keeping in view the exceptionalities anticipated in these OMs, by the respective Ministries/ Departments, is limited to one year only. These instructions further provide that in case of compulsions for extending any ad- hoc appointment/promotion beyond one year, the approval of the Department of Personnel and Training is to be sought at least two months in advance before the expiry of the one year period. Also, if the approval of the Department of Personnel & Training to the continuance of the ad-hoc arrangement beyond one year is not received before the expiry of the one year period, the ad-hoc appointment/promotion shall automatically cease on the expiry of the one year term. Notwithstanding these provisions, instances have come to notice of this Department where Ministries/ Departments have continued ad-hoc arrangements beyond one year without express approval of this Department, and later on, approached this Department to seek ex-post facto approval for continuation of such arrangements. It is reiterated that continuation of any ad-hoc arrangement beyond one year and release of pay

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

15 OA No.268/2022

and allowances for the same, without express approval of this Department is not in order.” 6.5 Therefore, there is explicitly laid down guidelines issued by DoPT that ad hoc promotion cannot entitle any employee for regular promotion or the service rendered on ad-hoc basis in the grade concerned does not count for the purpose of seniority in that grade, and also for eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade. Moreover, we are in agreement with the basic principle of the promotion on the basis of Departmental Examination quota that it is a career opportunity to meritorious employee and this opportunity is available to the extent of available vacancies and such select panel cannot be operated in perpetuity in order to give chance to the meritorious junior employees through Departmental Examination in subsequent years. 6.6 So far as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the judgment of Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 295/2020, along with connected matters, is concerned, we would like to clarify that the issue involved in the aforesaid matter was different from the issue arising in the present matter. The applicants in the above referred matter, were issued show cause notices on 13.04.2017, asking them to show cause why they should not be reverted from the post of Section Supervisor (SS), to which they were promoted following the examination held in the year 2004 since they were in excess of the sanctioned posts of Section Supervisor (SS) under the EQ, including those additionally created until 26.12.2018.Whereas, in the present matter, the applicant is not facing any show cause notice rather, vide an Office Order dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-R/8), whereby, he had already been promoted as a Section Supervisor on regular basis under seniority

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

16 OA No.268/2022

quota w.e.f. 01.10.2020 prior to filing the present OA. During pendency of the case, he has been further promoted to the post of Enforcement Officer vide Office Order dated 29.12.2022.The applicant never raised any grievance against his regular promotion by way of filing any representation. While filing the present O.A. also, the applicant has not questioned his promotion under the seniority quota w.e.f. 01.10.2020. After a period of two years from getting promotion that too without seeking any modification in the office order dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-R/8), he is seeking a direction against the respondents to regularize his services from the date of his ad hoc promotion i.e. 05.03.2009. 6.7 So far as, the effect of the judgment passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal is concerned, it did not disagree with the judgment passed by Ahmedabad Bench in OA No. 263/2010, rather in para No. 6 of its judgment, Jaipur Bench, observed that there can be no dispute that the conclusion reached by the Ahmedabad Bench, about the examination to select candidates for the EQ being a competitive examination, and, not a qualifying examination, has reached a finality after this decision is confirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. This decision can certainly be called a decision in rem, which must be followed, as argued by the respondents, like the law of the land. However, even laws, normally, have prospective application and we must see whether the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench was indeed intended to lay down a law (or to pronounce a decision in rem) with retrospective application. While dealing with the question of retrospective application of the judgment, the Jaipur Bench held that the most justifiable way to implement the

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

17 OA No.268/2022

decision of CAT, Ahmedabad Bench all over the country would be to do it prospectively. 6.8 Thus, the Jaipur Bench decision does not alter the legal position settled by Ahmedabad Bench with regard to operation of the select list in perpetuity. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Application No. 5231/2015, filed against the order of Ahmedabad Bench in O.A. No. 263/2010 (supra), decided on 13.03.2015, observed that the merit-list prepared on the basis of earlier departmental examination, cannot be permitted to be operated till it is exhausted and the same shall be restricted to only those notified/declared vacancies at the time of taking the departmental examinations and the same cannot be termed operative for subsequent vacancies notified for a particular region. 6.9 The Special Leave Petition [Yusuf V. Mansuri & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.] filed against the order of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, was rejected therefore, the case of the applicant, who is seeking promotion under the Examination Quota, based on the select list issued on 09.01.2009, is not sustainable. 6.10 In the present matter of applicant, the question of retrospective or prospective application of judgment of Ahmedabad Bench, is not in dispute. The decision of the Jaipur Bench was passed in different circumstances where-under, applicants of that OA were given show cause notices proposing their reversion. The applicant herein, has unnecessarily challenged the communication dated 13.04.2017 (Annexure-A/1), issued by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

18 OA No.268/2022

(EPF Organisation), wherein, direction issued was, ‘to issue show cause notices’, as to reversion to their original cadre. Since the applicant is not being reverted, he has wrongly challenged the above communication. The applicant, after availing of the benefit of promotion under the seniority quota vide order dated 28.12.2020, cannot seek promotion under examination quota on the basis of the select list of 2020. It was not enforceable after deciding the controversy by Ahmedabad Bench in OA No. 263/2010 (supra). 6.11 In view of the above, in our considered view, there is no infirmity and illegality in the order passed by the respondents. The OA lacks merit, hence dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Dr. HUKUM SINGH MEENA) (RAMESHWAR VYAS)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Rss

Songara

Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara