Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9193   OF 2013 (@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 23761/2011)

B. Amrutha Lakshmi …   Appellant

            Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. …    Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9194   OF 2013 (@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 16042/2012)

Irrinki Srinagesh …    Appellant

            Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. …    Respondents

J U D G  E M E N T

H.L. Gokhale J.

Leave Granted.

Page 2

2. We  will  first  deal  with  the  facts  and  legal  

submissions of the first SLP (C) 23761 of 2011. This appeal by  

Special  Leave  seeks  to  challenge  the  judgment  and  order  

dated 31.12.2010, rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra  

Pradesh  High  Court  in  Writ  Petition  No.  32290/2010,  

dismissing  the  same.   The  said  Writ  Petition  sought  to  

challenge  the  order  passed  by  the  Central  Administrative  

Tribunal (CAT) Hyderabad, dated 20.12.2010, on the Interim  

Application moved by the appellant in her Original Application  

No.  1291/2010,  wherein,  the  CAT rejected  the  said  Interim  

Application.

Facts leading to this appeal are as follows:-

3. The appeal is concerning the right of the appellant  

for  being  considered  for  the  selection  into  the  Indian  

Administrative Services (IAS) from the Non-civil services in the  

state  of  Andhra  Pradesh.   The  selection  into  the  IAS  is  

governed  by  the  All  India  Services  Act  1951,  and  IAS  

(Recruitment) Rules 1954.  There are three sources for being  

selected into the IAS as per the IAS (Recruitment) Rules 1954.  

They  are:-  (i)  by  direct  recruitment;  (ii)  by  promotion  of  a  

2  

Page 3

substantive  member  of  a  state  civil  service  and  (iii)  by  

selection  from  amongst  those  persons  who  hold  gazetted  

posts in substantive capacity in connection with the affairs of  

the State, and who are not members of a State Civil Service.

4. The vacancies in the IAS cadre for each particular  

State are notified by the Central Government.  In the present  

case, we are concerned with the three vacancies meant for  

category  (iii)  above  viz.  the  officers  of  Non  State  Civil  

Services, which were notified for the year 2011.  The case of  

the appellant is that, though she was eligible for being taken  

into the panel for consideration, she lost her opportunity due  

to the erroneous interpretation of the relevant rules by the  

respondent No. 1, State of Andhra Pradesh.  At the relevant  

time, she was working as the Assistant Commissioner of the  

Sales Tax, and she satisfied all the eligibility criteria, yet the  

Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Commercial Tax)  

Department,  Hyderabad,  Andhra  Pradesh,  and  the  

Commissioner  of  Commercial  Taxes,  Hyderabad,  Andhra  

Pradesh, respondent Nos.  2 and 3 respectively, restricted the  

zone of consideration only to the higher officers amongst the  

3  

Page 4

eligible  candidates  viz.,  to  the  Joint  and  Additional  

Commissioners of the Commercial Tax Department.

5. The appellant,  therefore,  filed  Original  Application  

No. 1291 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal  

(CAT) and prayed for the following main reliefs:-

“1.) This Hon’ble court may be pleased to declare   that the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering  the  case  of  the  applicant  for  being  proposed  for   appointment to I.A.S.,  in terms of I.A.S.  (appointment   by selection) Regulation 1997 is illegal and is contrary   to and violation of Regulation 4 of I.A.S. (appointment   by selection) Regulation 1997 and is also violative of   Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2). This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare   the action of the 5th respondent in not forwarding the  name of the applicant to 3rd respondent is illegal and  contrary to G.O.Ms NO. 634 dated 24.8.2007 and is also   contrary to Regulation No. 4 (1) of I.A.S. (appointment   by selection) Regulation 1997.

3). This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare   that  applicant  is  entitled  to  be  considered  by  the   Committee (as constituted under Regulation 3) by 2nd  respondent  for  appointment  to  I.A.S.,  by  selection   based on her  outstanding merit  and ability  and pass   such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may   deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.”

6. The appellant  prayed for  the  interim order  which  

read as follows:-

“In  the  above  circumstances  this  Hon’ble   Tribunal may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent  not to convene the meeting of the Committee and not   

4  

Page 5

to  consider  the  case  of  any  other  candidate(s)   proposed  by  the  3rd respondent  for  appointment  to   I.A.S.  by  selection  (of  A.P.  State  Non-SCS  Officers),   pending disposal of O.A., and pass such other order or   orders  as  this  Hon’ble  Tribunal  may  deem  fit  and   proper in the circumstances of the case.

In the alternative direct the 3rd respondent to  consider and propose the name of the applicant for   consideration by the 2nd respondent for appointment  by   selection  to  I.A.S.  before  the  cases  of  other   candidates are considered and pass such other order   or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and   proper in the circumstances of the case.”

7. The  CAT,  however,  declined  to  grant  the  interim  

relief  that  the  appellant  had  prayed  for.   The  

appellant  therefore,  carried  the  matter  to  the  

Andhra Pradesh High Court, where the High Court  

has held the restriction of the zone of consideration  

to  be  valid.   Being  aggrieved  by  this  order,  the  

appellant has filed this appeal by Special Leave.

8. Mr.  P.S.  Narshimha,  learned  senior  counsel  

appeared  for  the  appellant,  Mr.  A.T.M.  

Rangaramanujam, learned senior counsel appeared  

for  the  first  respondent  State  of  Andhra Pradesh,  

and the  Principal  Secretary  to  the Department  of  

Revenue (Commercial Taxes) Andhra Pradesh, and  

the  Commissioner  of  Commercial  Tax,  Andhra  

5  

Page 6

Pradesh.   Mr.  P.P.  Malhotra,  Additional  Solicitor  

General has appeared for respondent No. 4 Union of  

India  and  Mr.  Radhakrishnan,  learned  senior  

counsel for respondent No. 5 Union Public Service  

Commission.  

9. It  was  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Narshimha,  learned  

counsel  for  the  appellant,  that  the  relevant  

regulations  for  our  purpose  are  the  I.A.S.  

(Appointment  by  Selection)  Regulations,  1997.  

Clause No. 3, regulation Nos. 3 and 4 thereof, are  

relevant for our purpose.  Regulation 3 deals with  

the  determination  of  vacancies  to  be  filled.  

Regulation No. 4 lays down the provisions for the  

State  Government  to  send  proposals  for  

consideration  of  the  committee  referred  to  in  

regulation  No.  3,  which  is  the  committee  

constituted  under  regulation  No.  3  of  the  Indian  

Administrative  Services  (Promotion  by  

Appointment)  Regulations  1955.   These  two  

regulations Nos. 3 and 4 read as follows:-

6  

Page 7

     “3. Determination of vacancies to  be filled:

The Central Government shall, in   consultation with the State Government concerned,   determine  the  number  of  vacancies  for  which   recruitment may be made under these regulations   each  year.   The  number  of  vacancies  shall  not   exceed the number of substantive vacancies, as on   the  first  day  of  January  of  the  year,  in  which  the   meeting of the Committee to make the selection is   held.

      4. State  Government  to  send  proposals for consideration of the Committee:-

(1)  The  State  Government  shall   consider the case of a person not belonging to the   State Civil Service but serving in connection with the   affairs of the State who,

i)  is  of  outstanding  merit  and   ability; and

ii)  holds  a  Gazetted  post  in  a   substantive capacity; and

iii) has completed not less than 8   years  of  continuous  service  under  the  State   Government on the first day of January of the year in   which his case is being considered in any post which   has been declared equivalent to the post of Deputy   Collector in the State Civil Service and propose the   person  for  consideration  of  the  Committee.   The  number of persons proposed for consideration of the   Committee shall not exceed five times the number of   vacancies proposed to be filled during the year. Provided  that  the  State  Government  shall  not   consider the case of a person who has attained the   age of 54 years on the first  day of January of the  year in which the decision is taken to propose the   names for the consideration of the Committee. Provided also that the State Govt shall not consider   the case of a person who, having been included in an   earlier  Select  List,  has  not  been appointed  by the   

7  

Page 8

Central  Government  in  accordance  with  the   provisions of regulation 9 of these regulations.”

10. As  can  be  seen  from  these  two  regulations,  the  

Central Government has to determine the number vacancies  

for which recruitment may be made each year, which is to be  

done in consultation with the State Government.  The number  

of vacancies to be determined, shall not exceed the number  

of substantive vacancies, as on the first day of January of the  

year, in which the meeting of the selection committee is held.  

Regulation No. 4 lays down, that the State Government has to  

send the proposal  for  consideration of  the committee.  It  is  

important  to  note that  while sending the recommendations  

from Non Civil Services section, the Government has to see  

that (i) the person concerned is a person of outstanding merit  

and  ability,  (ii)  he  holds  a  Gazetted  post  in  a  substantive  

capacity, (iii) he has completed at least 8 years of continuous  

service on the first day of January of the year in which his  

case is  being considered,  (iv)  the person must belong to a  

post  which  has  been  declared  equivalent  to  the  post  of  

Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service, (v) the number of  

persons proposed for consideration of the committee shall not  

8  

Page 9

exceed  five  times  the  number  of  vacancies,  and  (vi)  the  

persons to be recommended should not have attained the age  

of 54 years on the first day of January of that year in which  

the names are considered by the committee.

11. As far as the equivalence with the post of Deputy  

Collector is concerned, the Andhra Pradesh Government came  

out  with  a  G.O.Ms  No.  634  of  the  General  Administration  

(Special  Department)  dated  24.8.2007,  which  provided  as  

follows:-

“NOTIFICATION

In supersession of the order issued in   G.O.Ms,  General  Administration  (Special.A)   Department,  Dated:  08.06.2006,  G.O.Ms.  No.  807,   General Administration (Special A) Department, Dated:   23.12.2006,  read  with  G.O.Ms  No.  63  General   Administration  (Special  A)  Department,  Dated:   08.02.2007,  and in  the  exercise  of  powers  conferred  under sub-regulation (iii) of regulation 4(1) of the Indian   Administrative  Service  (Appointment  by  Selection)   Regulations,  1997,  the  Government  hereby  declare   that, all the post carry the scale of pay of Rs. 10,845- 22,995 and above (revised scales of 2005) in all  the   departments  under  the  Govt.  of  Andhra  Pradesh,   barring  the  services  viz.  (i)  State  Police  Service,  (ii)   State  Forest  Services,  and  (iii)  Judicial  Service,  are   equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State   Civil Service for the limited purpose in regulation ibid.   Officers  who  have  completed  8  years  of  continuous   service in the said scale as on 1st  January of the year   for which selection is made and are substantive in the   

9  

Page 10

above scale of pay as stipulated in IAS (Appointment by   Selection)  Regulations  1997,  are  eligible  for   consideration.

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE  GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)

J.HARI NARYAN CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

12. Thus,  as  can  be  seen,  sub-regulation   (iii)  of  

regulation  4  (1),  referred  to  above,   includes  all  the  posts  

which carry the scale of pay of Rs. 10,845-22,995 and above,  

and  (ii)  persons  from  all  the  departments  under  the  

Government of Andhra Pradesh except State Police Service,  

State  Forest  Service  and  Judicial  Service  are  eligible  to  be  

considered.   The  notification  declared  such  posts  to  be  

equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil  

Service, for the limited purpose specified in the Regulations.  

The Principal Secretary to the Government accordingly, wrote  

to  the  different  departmental  heads  to  send  the  full  

particulars of eligible Non Civil Services officers who fulfill the  

criteria.   In  para  4  of  this  letter  he  specifically  stated  as  

follows:-

“4. The Regulations stipulate that the  Non-SCS Officers to be considered for selection should   be of outstanding merit and ability.  This aspect should   

1 0

Page 11

be thoroughly  ensured before sending the proposals.   An  Officer  who  is  facing  disciplinary  enquiries  and  against whom adverse remarks are recorded in the ACR   or whose integrity is not certified, cannot unequivocally   be said to be of outstanding merit and ability.”

13. The  Commissioner  of  Commercial  Tax,  Andhra  

Pradesh by his letter dated 18.6.2010 sought a clarification  

whether  all  the  eligible  officers  in  the  cadre  of  Assistant  

Commissioner and above would be considered as eligible, if  

they were of substantive ability, had completed the minimum  

years of service, and had not crossed the age of 54 years as  

on 1.1.2010. The Commissioner got a reply that the necessary  

instructions may be adhered to scrupulously. He subsequently  

got  another  letter  dated  1.7.2010  from  the  Principal  

Secretary, of the Revenue (CT-I) Department, that the names  

of  officers  from  the  cadre  of  Assistant  Commissioner  of  

Commercial Taxes and above, who are of outstanding merit  

and are eligible, may be forwarded.  It so happened, that the  

names which were sent for consideration were, however, only  

of the Joint Commissioners and Additional Commissioners and  

not  Assistant  Commissioners.   It  is,  therefore,  that  the  

appellant filed the above Original Application and applied for  

1 1

Page 12

interim relief which came to be declined, and the order of the  

CAT was left undisturbed by the High Court. This has led to  

the present Civil appeal.

14. According to Mr. Narshimha, the relevant rules were  

very clear, and the appellant satisfied all those requirements.  

The  appellant  was  a  Gazetted  Officer  in  a  substantive  

capacity,  and  she  had  completed  more  than  8  years  of  

continuous service as an Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax  

which was a post  declared to be equivalent  to  the post  of  

Deputy Collector.  She had not completed the age of 54 years,  

and there was no dispute about her outstanding merit  and  

ability.   The CAT,  however,  rejected  the  prayer  for  interim  

relief, solely on the ground that by the time the matter was  

considered  by  the  CAT,  the  selection  had  already  been  

completed, and therefore, the interim prayer as sought could  

not be granted. In the High Court, it was however contended  

on behalf of the Commissioner for Commercial Tax, that if the  

criterion was to be applied as it is, the number of officers to  

be  considered  from the  Commercial  Tax  Department  itself  

would be more than 300.  It was submitted that there are in  

1 2

Page 13

all 30 departments in the State Government, and therefore,  

the Commissioner and other heads of department were well  

within their power to restrict the zone of consideration up to a  

particular level, from which the names may be forwarded.  It  

was also pointed out on behalf of the Government that, if the  

criterion as insisted by the appellant was applied, some of the  

persons  of  the  rank  of  Assistant  Commissioners  or  Deputy  

Commissioners will get selected, they will become superior to  

Joint and Additional Commissioners, and will write the Annual  

Confidential  Reports  of  such  officers  who  were  presently  

holding  posts  higher  to  them.  The  High  Court  posed  the  

question,  as  to  whether  the  names of  these junior  officers  

should  be  mechanically  forwarded.  In  paragraph  19  of  the  

judgment the High Court held as follows:-

“19. In  the  present  case,  the  Commissioner did not strictly go by rule of seniority   among the eligible officers in the Commercial Taxes   Department.   The course adopted by him is  that   since  a  large  number  of  officers  have  to  be  forwarded going by the criteria of eligibility as per   Regulation 4 (iii) and G.O.Ms No. 634, he restricted   the zone or level of officers for consideration upto   the  level  of  Additional  Commissioners  and  Joint   Commissioners.  Thus  this  is  a  case  where  the   seniority rule has not been followed but the zone of   

1 3

Page 14

consideration has been restricted upto a particular   level…….”

15. Again,  in  paragraph  23,  the  High  Court  observed  

that just because the appellant officers satisfy the criteria and  

are eligible officers, their names could not be forwarded. This  

is because the number of vacancies to be filled was 3, and the  

number of candidates to be recommended will be 5 times that  

number i.e. 15 only.  The High Court therefore, held that the  

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had the power to restrict  

the zone of  consideration in  sending the names above the  

level  of  Additional  Commissioners  and Joint  Commissioners.  

The  Writ  Petition  filed  by  the  appellant  was,  therefore,  

dismissed.

16. It  is material to note, that a counter affidavit has  

been filed on behalf Government of Andhra Pradesh, where in  

para 4 it is stated as follows:-

“4. I say and submit that there may be large  number of officers who will meet above eligibility but   number  has  to  be  restricted  to  five  times  the   vacancies for consideration from all departments put   together.   Commercial  Taxes  Department  is  one  of   departments in the State.   There are more than 30   departments  in  the  State.   There  were  only  (3)   

1 4

Page 15

vacancies.   Hence maximum number  that  could  be   considered  by  the  Committee  was  (15)  for  all   departments put together.  In order to have healthy   competition and to avoid unhealthy competition, out   of  all  eligible  persons having outstanding merit  and   ability,  persons  having  highest  seniority  were   recommended. …”

17. The question for our consideration is whether such  

a restriction of  the candidates to be considered,  who were  

otherwise eligible, was permissible under the rules.  It is not  

disputed that the petitioner was very much eligible for being  

considered,  and  there  were  so  many  similar  eligible  

candidates.  It was being portrayed by the respondents that  

from every department 300 persons were eligible, and there  

are 30 departments and therefore, the number would go to  

some 9,000 and above.  Now, what is to be noted is that all  

that the eligible officers concerned have, is a limited right of  

being  considered,  though  they  do  not  have  a  right  of  

promotion, as held in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India  

1991 (3) SCC 47.  Mr. Narshimha submitted that this limited  

right  should  not  be  denied  to  the  candidates  like  the  

appellant, on the basis of the ground that in such a case a  

large number of names will have to be forwarded.  That apart,  

1 5

Page 16

he submitted that there was no substance in this justification,  

and it was merely a bogie.  This is because what the State  

Government had to do first was to find out as to who fulfilled  

the criteria.  Undoubtedly, a large number of persons will fulfill  

the criteria, being Gazetted Officers with more than 8 years of  

service, and less than 54 years of age on the relevant date.  

They  would  also  have  to  be  in  the  required  pay  scale.  

However, as stated in paragraph 4 of the Principal Secretary’s  

letter,  while  considering  the  outstanding  merit  and  ability,  

those with adverse remarks and those facing departmental  

enquiries  were  to  be  excluded.   Therefore,  there  was  no  

difficulty  in  excluding  such  persons  on  those  grounds.  

Thereafter, what remained to be seen was as to who were the  

persons  with  outstanding  ability  and  merit  amongst  them?  

The  State  Government  maintains  their  annual  appraisal  

reports, and for such selection it lays down some criteria of  

maintaining  the  outstanding  merit  and  ability  over  certain  

period viz. that in previous five years the officer must have 3  

outstanding reports, or that in the previous 3 years the officer  

concerned  must  have  all  throughout  an  outstanding  rating  

1 6

Page 17

etc.  It is for the State Government to lay down by rules as to  

how the outstanding merit and ability is to be assessed, and  

over how much period. After all these tests are applied, the  

number of persons to be recommended will not be very large.  

However,  once  a  candidate  comes  into  the  zone  of  

consideration,  and  satisfies  all  the  requirements,  including  

that of outstanding merit and ability, he cannot be told that  

merely because he is junior in the seniority, his name will not  

be forwarded for  consideration.  The rule requires that from  

amongst  the  outstanding  officers,  15  names  are  to  be  

forwarded to the Central Government, and hence it is possible  

that amongst these 15,  a junior  officer may as well  figure,  

depending upon the assessment of his merit.  He cannot be  

eliminated merely on the ground that he is a junior officer,  

and that if selected he will write the ACRs of his superiors.

18. We have got to accept that, if the rules for selection  

contain a requirement, the same has to be applied uniformly  

and  strictly,  and  none  from  the  eligible  group  can  be  

eliminated from being considered on any criteria, other than  

those which are provided in the rules.  If there is a criteria laid  

1 7

Page 18

down for selection, the Administration has to confine to the  

same, and it cannot impose an additional criterion over and  

above whatever has been laid down.  If that is done, it will no  

longer  remain an exercise of  discretion,  but  will  result  into  

discrimination.  It  will  mean  treating  similarly  situated  

employees  dissimilarly,  and  denying  equal  opportunity  to  

some of  them in  the  matter  of  public  employment  on  the  

basis  of  a  criterion  which  is  not  laid  down,  resulting  into  

violation of Articles 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of  

India. If the rules were to provide that in the event of large  

number of persons coming into the zone of consideration, the  

names of  the  senior  most  alone will  be  forwarded,  then it  

would have been a different situation.  In the absence any  

such restrictive rule, as in the present case, the decision of  

the respondents cannot be justified.

19. In view of the reasons stated above, we accept the  

submissions  canvassed  on  behalf  of  the  appellant.   The  

prayers  in  the  O.A.  filed  by  the  appellant  were  negatively  

worded viz. to declare that the action of the respondents not  

to consider the case of the appellant, and not to forward her  

1 8

Page 19

name, was illegal.   In a way it  was a prayer for  a positive  

declaration viz., that the appellant and persons situated like  

her were entitled to be considered by the committee, if they  

are otherwise eligible. We are of the view that, the appellant  

is entitled to such a positive declaration, which order takes  

care of the prayer as made in the Original Application.

20. In the circumstances we allow this appeal, set-aside  

the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as  

of  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  modify  the  relief  as  

prayed  in  the  O.A.,  and  hold  that  the  decision  of  the  

Respondents not to consider the appellant for the selection,  

amounted to her being treated dissimilarly, though she was  

situated similarly to the recommended officers.  The decision  

was  violative  of  Article  14  and  Article  16(1)  of  the  

Constitution, since it was arrived at on the basis of a criterion  

which was not laid down.  However, the selection for the year  

2011 was over, even before the interim application in the CAT  

was decided.  Setting aside the selection conducted some two  

years back, and asking the respondents to re-do the exercise  

after  considering  the  appellant  and other  similarly  situated  

1 9

Page 20

candidates, would create lot of uncertainty, in as much as the  

appellant and such other similarly situated candidates, might  

or might not finally succeed in the selection process. Hence, it  

will  not  be  proper  now  to  set  aside  the  selection  of  the  

selected  candidates.   Therefore,  though  this  declaration  is  

being granted,  viz.  that  the appellant  and persons situated  

like her were entitled to be considered by the committee, no  

further  relief  in  that  behalf  can  be  granted  to  them.   The  

opinion rendered by us will have to operate prospectively in  

the matter of application of the concerned rules, for the future  

selections.  Hence, this appeal is being allowed in part.  

21. We cannot, however, ignore that the appellant had  

to  resort  to  this  litigation  for  no  fault  of  hers.   The  non  

consideration of her claim was totally unjust.   Hence,  even  

though  for  the  reasons  that  we  have  stated  earlier, the  

appellant can not get the relief in the nature of a direction to  

consider her for the selection which she had sought, she must  

get  the  damages  for  non-consideration  on  unjust  grounds.  

This is because, the Commissioner for Commercial  Tax had  

acted  to  reduce the zone of  consideration,  contrary  to  the  

2 0

Page 21

rules, and inspite of a letter dated 1.7.2010 from the Principal  

Secretary Revenue (CT-I) Department, which had clarified that  

the  Commissioner  may  send  the  proposals  of  the  eligible  

candidates  of  the  cadre  of  Assistant  Commissioners  and  

above, who were of outstanding merit. The award of damages  

is  necessary  also  because,  a  message  must  go  down  that  

those  who  are  responsible  for  administration  of  the  State  

cannot  trample  upon  the  rights  of  others  on  the  grounds  

which are unsustainable in law.    We,  therefore,  direct the  

State of Andhra Pradesh to pay the damages of rupees fifty  

thousand to the appellant.  This will be over and above the  

litigation  cost  of  rupees  twenty  five  thousand,  which  we  

hereby award.

22. The issue involved in the appeal  arising from the  

second SLP (C)  No.  16042/2012 is  same as the one in  the  

earlier  matter.  We have heard Mr.  Jayant Bhushan,  learned  

senior counsel for the petitioner in the second matter, as well  

as, the counsel for the respondents. For the reasons stated in  

the first matter, we grant leave in this matter and pass the  

same order,  as in the first  one.  This appeal  will  also stand  

2 1

Page 22

allowed, accordingly, with damages quantified at rupees fifty  

thousand, and cost of rupees twenty five thousand to be paid  

by the first respondent.  

23. We direct that the amounts towards the damages  

and the cost be paid to both the appellants within six weeks  

from  the  receipt  of  a  copy  of  this  order.   In  both  these  

appeals, it will be open to the State Government to recover  

these amounts from the then Commissioner  of  Commercial  

Tax, and/or whoever were the officers responsible for the non-

consideration of the claim of both the appellants.   

                                …………………………………. .J.  

[ H.L. Gokhale ]  

                 ………………… ………………..J.  [ J. Chelameswar  ]

New Delhi Dated : October 18, 2013

2 2