Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5318-5319  OF 2013 (@ S.L.P.(C) Nos.26341-26342 of 2011)

                                                       Vikas Pratap Singh and Ors.      Appellants                   

  Versus

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.      Respondents                                  

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5320 OF 2013 (@ S.L.P.(C) No. 26349 OF 2011)

Rajendra Singh Kanwar and Ors.        Appellants Versus

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.        Respondents AND

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 433 OF 2011 IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5320 OF 2013 (@ S.L.P.(C) No. 26349 OF 2011)

Rajendra Singh Kanwar and Ors.        Petitioners Versus

Rahul Bhagat and Ors.                Respondents/                                        Contemnors

O R D E R

1

Page 2

Civil Appeal Nos.5318-5319 of 2013 (@ S.L.P. (C)  Nos. 26341-26342 of 2011)

WITH Civil  Appeal  No.5320  of  2013  (@S.L.P.  (C)  No.  26349 of 2011)

H.L. Dattu, J.

1.Leave  granted  in  all  the  Special  Leave  Petitions.

2.These batch of appeals are directed against the  common judgment and order passed by the High  Court  of  Chhattisgarh  in  Writ  Petition  Nos.  3087, 3204 and 4229 of 2009, dated 06.09.2011,  whereby  and  whereunder  the  High  Court  has  dismissed  the  Writ  Petitions  filed  by  the  appellants  herein  and  confirmed  the  revised  merit  list  drawn  after  the  selective  re- evaluation  of  the  answer  scripts  of  all  the  candidates  who  had  appeared  in  the  Main  Examination for the posts of Subedars, Platoon  Commanders  and  Sub-Inspectors  in  the  respondent-State of Chhattisgarh.

2

Page 3

3.The  appellants  before  us  (in  SLP  (C)  Nos.  26341-26342 of 2011 and 26349 of 2011) are the  26 candidates aggrieved by the cancellation of  the first merit list and the redrawal of the  second revised merit list by the Chhattisgarh  Professional  Examination  Board  (for  short  “respondent-Board”), whereby their appointments  to the aforesaid posts have been cancelled.

4.The facts in a nutshell are as under:

On 18.09.2006, an advertisement inviting  applications  for  recruitment  to  380  posts  of  Subedars,  Platoon  Commanders  and  Sub-Inspectors  in the respondent-State was issued by the Police  Headquarters, Chhattisgarh. For the said purpose,  the  Preliminary  Examination  was  conducted  on  24.12.2006 and the successful candidates thereat  were called for the Main Examination held in two  parts  as  Paper  I  and  II  on  04.02.2007  and  05.02.2007,  respectively.  After  conducting  physical examination and personal interviews, the  

3

Page 4

final merit list of candidates was published on  08.04.2008,  whereby  all  the  appellants  herein  were selected. Based on the said merit list, the  appointment letters were issued to the selected  candidates  including  the  appellants  on  various  dates between 21.08.2008 and 15.09.2008. In the  meanwhile,  the  Inspector  General  of  Police  and  the  respondent-Board  received  complaints  in  respect of defects/mistakes in several questions  of the Main Examination Papers. The respondent- Board constituted an Expert Committee to inquire  into the complaints. Upon examination of the two  Papers,  two  sets  of  defects  were  noticed:  (a)  eight questions in Paper II itself were incorrect  and (b) model answers for evaluation of answer  scripts to another eight questions of Paper II  were incorrect. The respondent-Board directed for  deletion of the first set of eight questions in  Paper II and preparation of correct model answers  key for objective questions in Papers I and II  and accordingly carried out re-evaluation of the  

4

Page 5

answer scripts of the candidates. On 27.06.2009 a  new revised merit list was published wherein the  names of twenty six appellants did not figure at  all  and  accordingly,  the  appointment  of  the  appellants  were  cancelled  by  the  respondent- State.

5.At the time of publication of the revised merit  list,  the  appellants  were  already  undergoing  training along with other candidates who were  selected  in  the  first  list.  The  appellants  aggrieved by the cancellation of the aforesaid  appointment in the wake of revised merit list  filed several Writ Petitions before the learned  Single  Judge  inter  alia  challenging  the  validity  of  the  revised  merit  list  on  the  ground that decision of re-evaluation by the  respondent-Board  was  arbitrary  and  irrational  and  therefore  the  said  list  requires  to  be  quashed.

6.The learned Single Judge while entertaining the  

5

Page 6

Writ  Petitions  had  issued  an  interim  order  directing the respondent-State not to take any  coercive  steps  against  the  appellants  and  further  to  allow  them  to  continue  their  training  programme.  The  learned  Single  Judge  has  observed  that  a  substantial  question  of  public importance has arisen in the matter and  therefore, referred the matter to the Division  Bench with a request to consider and decide the  following question of law of public importance:

“Whether  the  VYAPM  (respondent-Board)  after  publication  of  the  select  list  and passing of the appointment orders  also  on  the  basis  of  evaluation  of  questions, could have done the exercise  of  re-evaluating  the  answers  after  editing  and  reframing  answers,  and  prepare  the  second  select  list  for  fresh  recruitment  of  the  candidates,  cancelling the first select list?”

6

Page 7

7.The Division Bench has delved into merits of  the matter at length and analyzed the arguments  advanced  by  both  the  parties.  The  Division  Bench  has  noticed  the  pattern  of  the  Main  Examination  to  include  two  separate  papers:  Paper  I  comprising  of  both  objective  and  subjective type questions- 7 and 4 in number in  Hindi and English languages, respectively and  Paper  II  comprising  of  150  objective-type  questions  of  General  Knowledge.  Further  that  the  Expert  Committee  constituted  by  the  respondent-Board examined both Paper I and II  and found irregularities only in respect of the  eight incorrect objective questions of Paper II  and model answers to another eight questions in  model  answers  key  of  Paper  II,  pursuant  to  which  the  respondent-Board  re-evaluated  Paper  II and only objective questions of Paper I on  basis of fresh model answers key and in  toto  only sixteen questions and answers of Paper II  were interfered with upon such re-evaluation.  

7

Page 8

The eight incorrect questions were deleted and  their marks were distributed on the pro-rata  basis  in  accordance  with  Clause  14  of  the  Examination  Conduct  Rules  (for  short  “the  Rules”) of the respondent-Board and the other  eight  questions,  answers  to  which  were  incorrect in the first model answers key were  re-evaluated on the basis of new model answers  key  and  marks  were  awarded  accordingly.  The  Division Bench has observed that since all the  questions so re-evaluated were objective type  carrying  fixed  marks  for  only  one  correct  answer,  the  possibility  of  difference  in  marking  scheme  or  prejudice  during  re- evaluation  does  not  arise  and  therefore  has  concluded  that  no  irregularity  or  illegality  could be said to have crept in the manner and  method  of  re-evaluation  carried  out  by  the  respondent-Board and that the said decision of  re-evaluation  was  justified,  balanced  and  harmonious and has not caused any injustice to  

8

Page 9

the  candidates  and  therefore  cannot  be  interfered  with  unless  found  arbitrary,  unreasonable or malafide which is not the case  at  hand.  In  consequence  of  the  aforesaid  conclusion, the Division Bench has thought it  fit to uphold the cancellation of appointments  of  the  appellants  qua the  first  list  and  accordingly dismissed the writ petitions.

8.It is the correctness or otherwise of the said  judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  which is before us in these appeals by special  leave.

9.We have heard Shri P.P. Rao and Shri Ravindra  Srivastava  learned  Senior  Counsels  appearing  for the appellants and Shri Mukul Rohtagi and  Shri  P.S.  Patwalia  learned  Senior  Counsels  appearing  for  the  respondents  and  have  also  carefully perused the documents on record.

10. Shri Rao would submit that the decision of the  

9

Page 10

respondent-Board  to  re-evaluate  the  answer  scripts  in  the  absence  of  any  statutory  provisions  for  the  same  and  subsequent  publication of a revised merit list cancelling  the appointment of the appellants is arbitrary  and has caused prejudice to the appellants. He  would  further  submit  that  Clause  14  of  the  Rules providing for procedure to be adopted in  respect of erroneous objective questions is of  a wider ambit and includes exigencies such as  model  answers  to  examination  questions  being  incorrect  and  therefore,  the  respondent-Board  instead  of  directing  re-evaluation  of  answer  scripts ought to have acted in compliance with  the said statutory provision.  

11. Per  contra,  Shri  Rohtagi,  learned  Senior  Counsel would submit that the re-evaluation of  answer  scripts  affected  three  genre  of  objective  questions:  firstly,  the  eight  questions  in  Paper  II  which  were  found  incorrect;  secondly,  the  eight  questions  in  

10

Page 11

Paper  II  answers  to  which  were  found  to  be  incorrect in the model answers key and thirdly,  the  questions  in  Paper  I  to  which  no  model  answers  were  provided  for  prior  to  the  appointment of the Expert Committee. He would  submit that the first set of eight questions  was deleted and marks were awarded on a pro- rata basis in accordance with Clause 14 of the  Rules. The second set of eight questions were  re-evaluated on the basis of corrected model  answers key and the third set of questions in  Paper  I,  all  being  objective  type,  were  re- evaluated  with  the  aid  of  model  answers  key  prepared  by  the  Expert  Committee.  He  would  submit  that  the  decision  of  the  respondent- Board to re-evaluate the answer scripts has not  caused any prejudice to the appellants-herein  but  in  fact  identified  and  rectified  the  irregularities  in  the  earlier  evaluation  of  answer scripts of the candidates and therefore,  such decision cannot be termed as arbitrary,  

11

Page 12

vindictive and whimsical.  

12. In  these  appeals  what  falls  for  our  consideration is whether the decision of the  respondent-Board in directing re-evaluation of  the answer scripts has caused any prejudice to  the appellants appointed  qua the first merit  list, dated 08.04.2008.  

13. At the outset, before delving into the merits  of the submissions made by the learned Senior  Counsels, the relevant statutory provisions and  the  re-evaluation  scheme  requires  to  be  noticed.  

14. It is not in dispute nor it can be disputed  that  for  the  purposes  of  re-evaluation,  the  eight  questions  found  incorrect  were  deleted  and their marks were rightly allotted on a pro- rata basis in accordance with Clause 14 of the  Rules which reads as under:

“Clause 14.  Wrong (Defective) objective  type question, its cancellation and marks  to be allotted in lieu of it.

12

Page 13

After  the  exams,  the  Chhattisgarh  Professional  Examination  Board  (VYAPAM)  gets each question examined by the subject  expert.    If,  upon  examination  by  the  subject experts, the questions are found  defective/  wrong,  it  is  rejected.  Questions may be rejected on the following  reasons: (i) if the structure of the question is  

wrong; (ii)out of the options given as answers,  

if more than one options are correct. (iii) If no option is correct. (iv)If there is difference in Hindi and  

English translation of any question  because of which different meaning is  drawn  from  both  and  one  correct  answer could not be ascertained.

(v) If  any  other  printing  mistake  is  there because of which correct answer  is not ascertainable or more than one  option is correct.   

On such rejection of question upon the  recommendation  of  Subject  Expert  Committee,  on  such  questions  the  marks  would  be  awarded  by  the  Chhattisgarh  Professional  Examination  Board  (VYAPAM)  to the candidates in proportion to their  marks obtained in the particular question  paper.  Whether the rejected question has  been or not been attempted.  The question  papers in which the questions have been  rejected,  their  evaluation  procedure  would be as follows,  if in any question  papers out of 100 questions two questions  are  rejected  and  after  evaluation  candidate  secures  81  marks  out  of  98  questions then in such case calculation  of marks would be done as (81*100)/100-2=  

13

Page 14

82.65.   On  which  basis  merit  would  be  determined. ”

The  other  eight  questions  whose  answers  were  found incorrect in the earlier model answers key  were re-evaluated on the basis of revised model  answers key. In Paper I, only the objective type  questions were re-evaluated with the aid of model  answers  key  prepared  and  provided  to  the  examiners for the first time after the inquiry by  the respondent-Board.  

15. The submission made by Shri Rao in respect of  Clause 14 being an inclusive provision and thus  providing ample room for inclusion of similar  irregularities  that  may  occur  in  conduct  of  competitive examinations fails to convince us.  Clause  14  contemplates  and  enlists  five  specific instances wherein the question in the  examination  paper  itself  is  wrong  and  thus  could  not  possibly  be  evaluated  to  have  any  correct  answer.  It  is  in  such  circumstances  

14

Page 15

that it provides for deletion of such incorrect  questions  and  the  consequent  pro-rata  distribution of the marks allocated to them.  The said Rule is clear and only provides for  the  procedure  in  case  of  discrepancies  in  questions only. It does not leave any room for  inclusion  of  the  exigency  such  as  errors  in  answers/model  answers  and  therefore,  the  respondent-Board has rightly re-evaluated only  eight incorrect questions as per Clause 14.  

16. In respect of the respondent-Board’s propriety  in  taking  the  decision  of  re-evaluation  of  answer scripts, we are of the considered view  that  the  respondent-Board  is  an  independent  body entrusted with the duty of proper conduct  of competitive examinations to reach accurate  results in fair and proper manner with the help  of Experts and is empowered to decide upon re- evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of  any specific provision in that regard, if any  

15

Page 16

irregularity at any stage of evaluation process  is found. (See: Chairman, J & K State Board of  Education  v.  Feyaz  Ahmed  Malik  and  others,  

(2000)  3  SCC  59 and Sahiti  and  Ors.  v.  The  Chancellor,  Dr.  N.T.R.  University  of  Health  

Sciences and Ors.,  (2009) 1 SCC 599). It is  settled  law  that  if  the  irregularities  in  evaluation  could  be  noticed  and  corrected  specifically and undeserving select candidates  be  identified  and  in  their  place  deserving  candidates be included in select list, then no  illegality would be said to have crept in the  process of re-evaluation. The respondent-Board  thus  identified  the  irregularities  which  had  crept in the evaluation procedure and corrected  the  same  by  employing  the  method  of  re- evaluation in respect of the eight questions  answers to which were incorrect and by deletion  of the eight incorrect questions and allotment  of  their  marks  on  pro-rata  basis.  The  said  decision cannot be characterized as arbitrary.  

16

Page 17

Undue prejudice indeed would have been caused  had  there  been  re-evaluation  of  subjective  answers, which is not the case herein.  

17. In  view  of  the  aforesaid,  we  are  of  the  considered  opinion  that  in  the  facts  and  circumstances of the case the decision of re- evaluation by the respondent-Board was a valid  decision which could not be said to have caused  any  prejudice,  whatsoever,  either  to  the  appellants or to the candidates selected in the  revised  merit  list  and  therefore,  we  do  not  find any infirmity in the judgment and order  passed  by  the  High  Court  to  the  aforesaid  extent.  

18. It is brought to our notice that in view of  the interim orders passed by the learned Single  Judge the appellants have now completed their  training and have been in service for more than  three years. Therefore the only question which  survives for our consideration and decision is  

17

Page 18

whether  after  having  undergone  training  and  assumed charge at their place of posting the 26  appellants be ousted from service on the basis  of cancellation of their appointment  qua the  revised merit list.  

19. Shri Rao would submit that the case of these  appellants  requires  sympathetic  consideration  by  this  Court,  since  the  appointment  of  appellants on the basis of a properly conducted  competitive examination cannot be said to have  been  affected  by  any  malpractice  or  other  extraneous  consideration  or  misrepresentation  on their part. The ouster of 26 appellants from  service  after  having  successfully  undergone  training and serving the respondent-State for  more  than  three  years  now  would  cause  undue  hardship  to  them  and  ruin  their  lives  and  careers.  He  would  further  submit  that  an  irretrievable  loss  in  terms  of  life  and  livelihood would be caused to eight appellants  amongst them who have now become over aged and  

18

Page 19

have also lost the opportunity to appear in the  subsequent  examinations.  He  would  place  reliance  upon  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Rajesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and  

Ors., 2013(3) SCALE 393 wherein this Court has  directed  the  respondent-State  to  re-evaluate  the  answer  scripts  on  the  basis  of  correct  model  answers  key  and  sympathetically  considered  the  case  of  such  candidates  who,  after  having  being  appointed  in  terms  of  erroneous  evaluation  and  having  served  the  State for considerable length of time, would  not find place in the fresh merit list drawn  after  re-evaluation  and  directed  the  respondent-State  against  ousting  of  such  candidates and further that they be placed at  the bottom of the fresh merit list.  

20. The pristine maxim of  fraus et jus nunquam  cohabitant (fraud  and  justice  never  dwell  together) has never lost its temper over the  centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit  

19

Page 20

and body of service law jurisprudence. It is  settled law that no legal right in respect of  appointment to a said post vests in a candidate  who  has  obtained  the  employment  by  fraud,  mischief, misrepresentation or malafide. (See:  District  Collector  &  Chairman,  Vizianagaram  

Social  Welfare  Residential  School  Society,  

Vizianagaram and another v. M. Tripura Sundari  

Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655, P. Chengalvaraya Naidu  v.  Jagannath  and  others,  (1994)  1  SCC  1  and Union of India and others v. M. Bhaskaran,  

1995 Suppl.  (4) SCC 100). It is also settled  law that a person appointed erroneously on a  post  must  not  reap  the  benefits  of  wrongful  appointment jeopardizing the interests of the  meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in  cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment  is made without any mistake on the part of the  appointee and upon discovery of such error or  irregularity the appointee is terminated, this  Court  has  taken  a  sympathetic  view  in  the  

20

Page 21

light of various factors including bonafide of  the candidate in such appointment and length of  service of the candidate after such appointment  (See:  Vinodan  T.  and  Ors.  v.  University  of  Calicut  and  Ors.,(2002)  4  SCC  726;  State  of  U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors.  (2006) 1 SCC  667).   

21. In  Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. v. State of  M.P.  and  Ors.,  (2010)  10  SCC  707,  the  High  Court  had  invalidated  the  rule  prescribing  selection procedure which awarded grace marks  of  25  per  cent  and  age  relaxation  to  the  candidates  with  three  years’  long  non-formal  teaching experiences as a consequence of which  several candidates appointed as teachers at the  formal  education  institutions  under  the  said  rule stood ousted. This Court while concurring  with the observations made by the High Court  kept  in  view  that  upon  rectification  of  irregularities  in  appointment  after  a  

21

Page 22

considerable  length  of  time  an  order  for  cancellation  of  appointment  would  severely  affect  economic  security  of  a  number  of  candidates and observed as follows:

“28. …Most of them were earlier teaching  in  Non-formal  education  centers,  from  where  they  had  resigned  to  apply  in  response to the advertisement. They had  left their previous employment in view  of the fact that for their three year  long teaching experiences, the interview  process  in  the  present  selection  was  awarding  them  grace  marks  of  25  per  cent.  It  had  also  given  them  a  relaxation  of 8  years with  respect to  their age. Now, if they lose their jobs  as a result of High Court's order, they  would be effectively unemployed as they  cannot even revert to their earlier jobs  in  the  Non-formal  education  centers,  which  have  been  abolished  since  then.  This would severely affect the economic  security of many families. Most of them  are  between  the  age  group  of  35-45  years,  and  the  prospects  for  them  of  finding another job are rather dim. Some  of  them  were  in  fact  awaiting  their  salary rise at the time of quashing of  their appointment by the High Court.”

Therefore, mindful of the aforesaid circumstances  this Court directed non-ouster of the candidates  

22

Page 23

appointed under the invalidated rule.

22. In Union of India (UOI) and Anr. v. Narendra  Singh,  (2008) 2 SCC 750 this Court considered  the  age  of  the  employee  who  was  erroneously  promoted and the duration of his service on the  promoted post and the factor of retiring from  service on attaining the age of superannuation  and observed as follows:

“31.  The  last  prayer  on  behalf  of  respondent,  however,  needs  to  be  sympathetically  considered.  The  respondent is holding the post of Senior  Accountant  (Functional)  since  last  seventeen years. He is on the verge of  retirement,  so  much  so,  that  only  few  days have remained. He will be reaching  at the age of superannuation by the end  of this month i.e. December 31, 2007. In  our  view,  therefore,  it  would  not  be  appropriate now to revert the respondent  to the post of Accountant for very short  period.  We,  therefore,  direct  the  appellants to continue the respondent as  Senior  Accountant  (Functional)  till  he  reaches  the  age  of  superannuation  i.e.  upto December 31, 2007. At the same time,  we  hold  that  since  the  action  of  the  Authorities  was  in  accordance  with  

23

Page 24

Statutory Rules, an order passed by the  Deputy  Accountant-General  canceling  promotion of the respondent and reverting  him to his substantive post of Accountant  was legal and valid and the respondent  could not have been promoted as Senior  Accountant, he would be deemed to have  retired as Accountant and not as Senior  Accountant  (Functional)  and  his  pensionary and retiral benefits would be  fixed  accordingly  by  treating  him  as  Accountant all through out.  

32. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal  is partly allowed. Though the respondent  is  allowed  to  continue  on  the  post  of  Senior  Accountant  (Functional)  till  he  reaches  the  age  of  retirement  i.e.  December 31, 2007 and salary paid to him  in that capacity will not be recovered,  his retiral benefits will be fixed not as  Senior  Accountant  (Functional)  but  as  Accountant.  In  the  facts  and  circumstances of case, there shall be no  order as to costs.”

23. This Court in  Gujarat State Deputy Executive  Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat and  

Ors., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 although recorded a  finding that appointments given under the `wait  list'  were  not  in  accordance  with  law  but  refused to set aside such appointments in view  of length of service (five years and more).

24

Page 25

24. In Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and Ors. v. Akhil  Kumar and Ors., (2001) 2 SCR 18, even though  the appointments were held to be improper, this  Court did not disturb the appointments on the  ground  that  the  incumbents  had  worked  for  several  years  and  had  gained  experience  and  observed:

"We  have  extended  equitable  considerations  to  such  selected  candidates  who  have  worked  on  the  posts for a long period."

(See: M.S. Mudhol (Dr.) and Anr. v. S.D. Halegkar  and Ors., (1993) II LLJ 1159 SC and Tridip Kumar  Dingal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.,  

(2009) 1 SCC 768) 25. Admittedly,  in  the  instant  case  the  error  

committed by the respondent-Board in the matter  of evaluation of the answer scripts could not  be attributed to the appellants as they have  neither been found to have committed any fraud  or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the  

25

Page 26

first merit list nor has the preparation of the  erroneous  model  answer  key  or  the  specious  result contributed to them. Had the contrary  been the case, it would have justified their  ouster upon re-evaluation and deprived them of  any sympathy from this Court irrespective of  their length of service.  

26. In our considered view, the appellants have  successfully  undergone  training  and  are  efficiently  serving  the  respondent-State  for  more  than  three  years  and  undoubtedly  their  termination  would  not  only  impinge  upon  the  economic security of the appellants and their  dependants  but  also  adversely  affect  their  careers.  This  would  be  highly  unjust  and  grossly  unfair  to  the  appellants  who  are  innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation  of  the  answer  scripts.  However,  their  continuation in service should neither give any  unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause  undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua  

26

Page 27

the revised merit list.  

27.  Accordingly, we direct the respondent-State  to appoint the appellants in the revised merit  list placing them at the bottom of the said  list.  The  candidates  who  have  crossed  the  minimum statutory age for appointment shall be  accommodated with suitable age relaxation.  

28. We clarify that their appointment shall for  all intents and purpose be fresh appointment  which would not entitle the appellants to any  back  wages,  seniority  or  any  other  benefit  based on their earlier appointment.  

29. The order passed by the High Court shall stand  modified to the above extent. Appeals disposed  of.

30. There shall be no order as to costs.

Contempt Petition No. 433 of 2011 in Civil Appeal  No.5320 of 2013 (@ S.L.P. (C) No. 26349 of 2011)

In view of the orders passed in Special  

27

Page 28

Leave Petition (C) Nos. 26341-26342 of 2011 and  Special  Leave  Petition  (C)  No.  26349  of  2011,  nothing  survives  in  this  Contempt  Petition  for  our  consideration  and  decision.   The  Contempt  Petition  is  accordingly  dismissed  as  having  become infructuous.

Ordered accordingly.                                  ................

....J.                [H.L. DATTU]  

                                                                  ......

..............J.       [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]  

NEW DELHI; JULY 09, 2013.

28