Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1287
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11897/2025
RITU GARG & ORS. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
BOARD OF GOVERNORS BOG & ORS. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11898/2025
POONAM JINDAL APPELLANT
VERSUS
HANUMAN DEVIDAS CHALAK & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
D IPANKAR D ATTA , J.
1. These two appeals take exception to the common judgment and order
st 1
dated 31 May, 2024 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of
2 3
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh while disposing of two writ petitions .
While taking such exception, the appellants seek to discredit the portion
of the impugned order which adversely affects their interest.
2. We propose to refer to the impugned order in some detail after
completing the factual narration.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2025.11.06
17:34:19 IST
Reason:
1
impugned order
2
High Court
3
CWP No.15972 of 2023 (O&M) and CWP No.354 of 2024 (O&M)
3. The facts, which are common to both the appeals, are these.
4. The appellants are Assistant Professors employed by the National Institute
4
of Technology, Kurukshetra since 2008 in different disciplines. They
aspired for appointment on the immediate higher post of “Associate
Professor”, a selection post. However, since the appellants did not qualify
the eligibility criteria of having Academic Grade Pay of Rs.8,000/- for at
least three years at the level of Assistant Professor in terms of the
relevant recruitment rules, they were ineligible to even enter the zone of
consideration for selection.
th
5. At this stage, on 06 October, 2017, a letter was issued by the
Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource
5
Development, Government of India . It was sought to be conveyed that
based on the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee, it had inter
alia been decided to grant one-time relaxation to those Assistant
Professors who did not have Academic Grade Pay of Rs.8,000/-. By an
executive instruction, the recruitment rules were sought to be amended
by waiving the requirement of Academic Grade Pay, referred to above.
Thus, in terms of such letter, those Assistant Professors employed in the
6
National Institutes of Technology across the country, who had put in
more than six years of service after acquiring Ph.D. degrees at the level of
4
NIT, Kurukshetra
5
GoI
6
NITs
2
Assistant Professor could be considered for selection and consequent
appointment on the post of Associate Professor.
6. We are informed that there are in all 31 NITs across the country and the
th
executive instruction contained in the said letter dated 06 October, 2017
giving one-time relaxation was given effect for Assistant Professors in all
the other NITs except the NIT, Kurukshetra and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
7
National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar . This is because of
intervening litigation which prevented the one-time relaxation
contemplated thereby from being implemented, as noticed hereafter.
th
7. An advertisement bearing no.3/18 dated 10 January, 2018 was issued
th
by the NIT, Kurukshetra following the said letter dated 06 October,
2017. In pursuance thereof, the appellants offered their candidature.
8. It is the case of the appellants that they were selected and recommended
for appointment on the post of “Associate Professor” by a resolution dated
th
27 November, 2018 and were awaiting appointment as Associate
Professors.
9. Meanwhile, writ proceedings had been initiated before the High Court by a
certain section of Assistant Professors, junior to the appellants as far as
length of service is concerned. They did not succeed before a Single Judge
th
of the High Court. Vide an order dated 17 September, 2018, the NIT,
Kurukshetra was allowed to complete the selection process.
7
NIT, Jalandhar
3
th
10. The order dated 17 September, 2018 was carried in an intra-court
appeal. A Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment and order dated
th
05 December, 2019 (while setting aside the judgment and order of the
th
Single Judge) held that the letter dated 06 October, 2017 was contrary
to the First Statutes of the NIT, Kurukshetra framed under the National
Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 and hence no benefit of the instruction
contained in such letter could enure to the benefit of any Assistant
Professor employed in the NIT, Kurukshetra.
11. The said judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court was
8
challenged in a special leave petition before this Court. A coordinate
th
Bench by its order dated 17 January, 2022 dismissed the special leave
petition.
12. The events that unfolded after dismissal of the special leave petition by
this Court form the trigger for these appellate proceedings and have
substantial relevance for a decision on these appeals.
13. The Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Technical
Section-III (NITs Division), GoI moved a proposal before the Visitor (Her
Excellency, the President of India) for amendment in the statutes of, inter
alia , of the NIT, Kurukshetra as per decision of the Council of the National
Institutes of Technology, Science, Education and Research. A summary
was prepared for the Visitor by the relevant department, with the
8
SLP (C) Diary No.21233/2020
4
recommendation of the Hon’ble Education Minister. Relevant portions of
the summary note read as follows: -
“3.10 The one-time relaxation was only a one-time measure to
address and remove the stagnation of existing faculty at a
particular level without affecting the career prospects of other
facilities joining NITs system. Once the recruitment drive with one-
time relaxation is completed, it has nothing to do with the RRs
th
notified on 24 July, 2017 for future recruitments. As such, it
wasn’t felt appropriate to make these one-time relaxations part of
the Statutes of NITs & IIEST, Shibpur especially considering the
amended provisions under sub-statute (3) of Statute 23 of the
Statutes of NITs and IIEST-Shibpur.
3.11 However, based on the facts, decisions of the Council of
NITSER and directions of the Hon’ble High Court, it has become
necessary to incorporate the clarifications vis-à-vis one-time
relaxations under Schedule ‘E’ of the Statutes of NITs, IIEST-
Shibpur and NIT-Andhra Pradesh retrospectively by way of suitable
th
amendments. The Council of NITSER in its 12 meeting has
already approved to carry out necessary amendments and further
authorized Ministry of Education to carry out necessary
amendments.
3.12 In accordance with provisions under Section 26 (2) of the
Act, the Board of Governors of all the 31 NITs and IIEST, Shibpur
have conveyed the approval of their Board in response to our
th
communication dated 27 October, 2020 for carrying out
necessary amendments in the Statutes. Having received the
consent of the respective Board of Governors as required under
Section 26 (2) of the Act, the draft notifications for carrying out
amendments in the Statutes of NITs, IIEST-Shibpur and NIT-
Andhra Pradesh were referred to the Legislative Department of the
Ministry of Law and Justice for vetting of three draft Notifications.
3.17 Thus, the present proposal is moved to amend the Statutes of
30 NITs (23.04.2009 & 24.07.2017), IIEST-Shibpur (24.03.2017 &
24.07.2017) and NIT-Andhra Pradesh (02.08.2017) to effect
following:-
(i) *
(ii) *
(iii) *
(iv) *
(v) *
(vi) *
(vii) *
(viii) *
(ix) Incorporation of one-time relaxations or measures
conveyed on 06.10.2017 and 17.11.2017 for the then
stagnated and eligible faculty of NITs & IIEST-Shibpur with
provision that these one-time relaxations have no validity for
future recruitments as recruitments of existing stagnated
5
and eligible faculties have already been made (except in
case of NIT-Kurukshetra because of the facts mentioned in
para 3.9 above) in accordance with the one-time relaxations
and these measures stand exhausted after the first round of
recruitments initiated after 06.10.2017 and 17.11.2017,
respectively.”
14. The recommendation of the Hon’ble Education Minister, which followed,
reads as under: -
“4.1 The Notifications containing amendments in the statutes of 30
NITs, IIEST-Shibpur and NIT-Andhra Pradesh, respectively, as
vetted by the Legislative Department of Ministry of Law and
Justice, were placed before the Hon’ble Education Minister for
referring same to the President’s Secretariat for soliciting kind
approval/assent of the Hon’ble President of India in her
capacity as the Visitor of NITs in accordance with provisions
under Section 26(3) and 26(4) of the NITSER Act, 2007.
4.2 Hon’ble Education Minister, also in his capacity as the
Chairperson of the Council of NITSER, has recommended
placing the amendments contained in the Notifications before
the Hon’ble Visitor of NITs & IIEST-Shibpur for approval. The
recommendations of the Hon’ble Education Minister are at
Annexure-XVI.
4.3 The notifications for notifying the amendments in the Statutes
of 30 NITs, IIEST-Shibpur and NIT-Andhra Pradesh are placed
at Annexure-XVII, Annexure-XVIII and Annexure-XIX,
respectively. ”
th
15. By a letter dated 04 May, 2023, the Secretariat of Her Excellency, the
President of India informed the Ministry of Education as follows: -
“2. The Hon’ble President of India, in her capacity as the Visitor of
National Institute of Technology and Indian Institute of
Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur is pleased to
approve the proposal contained in para 4 of the summary
note.”
16. Upon the proposal for amendment being approved by the Visitor of the
th
NITs, inter alia , the notification dated 14 June, 2023 containing the First
6
Statutes of the National Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Statutes,
9 th
2023 was published in the official gazette on 30 June, 2023.
17. Section 1(2) of the 2023 statutes ordained that they shall apply to the
NIT, Kurukshetra and come into force on the date of its publication in the
official gazette. Apart from other amendments in the First Statutes which
were incorporated, special mention needs to be made to Statute 9 since it
falls for our consideration.
18. Statute 9 of the 2023 statutes reads as follows: -
“(9) The one-time relaxation or measures for the then stagnated
and eligible faculty of the National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra shall be as per the relaxations issued with the
th
approval of the council vide communications dated the 6
th
October, 2017 and 17 November, 2017:
Provided that one-time relaxation or measures contained in the
th th
communications dated the 6 October, 2017 and 17
November, 2017 shall have no validity and stand exhausted
after the first round of recruitments initiated after issuance of
those one-time relaxations or measures and shall not have any
validity for subsequent rounds of recruitment of the faculty in
the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. ”
(emphasis ours)
19. While the NIT, Kurukshetra was in the process of considering the
th
appellants in terms of the recommendation dated 27 November, 2018, a
second round of litigation came to be initiated before the High Court with
institution of the writ petitions, from which these appeals arise.
20. The Division Bench by the impugned order, while allowing the writ
petitions, held that:
“26. ... the amendment has been brought into force from the date
it was notified in the gazette as per Section 1(3). Thus, the
9
2023 Statutes
7
qualification for promotion and experience have been substituted
with effect from the date of the gazette notification was issued and
would apply prospectively. Thus, Section 5 Clause (d) and (f)
making amendments in Schedule-E would have to be treated and
considered prospectively.”
Ultimately, the Division Bench held as follows:
“34. Applying the aforesaid law to the facts of the present case, it
is apparent that the selection which were conducted under
advertisement no. 3/2018 cannot be given approval by the new
amendments made in the Statutes. Even the counsel for the
respondent-institutes have stated that the amendments would be
prospective, therefore, now they would be free to issue new
advertisement in accordance with the amendments granting due
relaxation in the Schedule for the purpose of selection for the post
of Associate Professor and Professor.
35. In other words, the authorities would be free to conduct
afresh exercise by inviting applications of all eligible candidates in
terms of the new amendments made vide notification dated
30.06.2023 for the post of Associate Professor and Professor. All
the persons who are eligible for applying, would be considered. The
petitioners and the respondents would be, therefore, entitled to be
considered accordingly as per their work experience and other
educational qualifications.
36. All the stake holders will also be entitled to be considered
afresh for which now the respondent-Institute shall take steps,
proceed and conclude the exercise within a period of four months
from today. The advertisements issued by the respondent-institute
would, accordingly, be modified/corrected and applied. The stay
order passed by the Court dated 31.07.2023 stands vacated.”
th
21. Notice was initially issued to the GoI on 29 November, 2024 and to the
th
respondents 1 to 3 on 16 December, 2024. GoI was specifically directed
to place on record by way of an affidavit the summary note and the
recommendations of the Minister for this Court’s consideration.
22. Pursuant to such order, the GoI filed an additional affidavit placing on
record the requisite note and recommendation.
th
23. Leave was granted on 15 September, 2025 and the appeals set down for
th
hearing on 15 October, 2025.
8
24. Certain applications for intervention came to be filed, which were allowed.
I.A. No.253789/2025 & I.A. D. No.226749/2025 are also allowed by
permitting the applicants to intervene.
25. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants, learned
Additional Solicitor General for the GoI, as well as learned counsel for the
NIT, Kurukshetra, the writ petitioners before the High Court and the
intervenors.
26. In the writ petitions before the High Court, challenge was laid to the
amendments that were incorporated in the First Statutes through the
2023 Statutes concerning Statute 9. It was the contention of the writ
petitioners that “there was no occasion to issue the notification which has
been done only to overturn the judgment of this Court upheld by the
Supreme Court” which amounts to overreaching the process of the Courts
and “the rule which was amended, has been given retrospective effect” to
benefit “those who have been selected ... under the advertisement
no.3/2018” which otherwise they were not entitled to.
27. We must begin our analysis bearing in mind four important propositions of
law.
28. First, is the guidance provided by Hon’ble O. Chinappa Reddy, J. in RBI v.
10
Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. on how a statute is
to be read and understood. The relevant passage reads:
“ 33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They
are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the
10
(1987) 1 SCC 424
9
texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored.
Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the
textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best
interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this
knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then
section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by
word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with
the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its
scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour
and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the
glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look
at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause,
each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit
into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word
of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be
construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its
place. ...”
29. Three key concepts flow from the above passage. Holistic understanding
is the first in terms whereof the statute has to be read as a whole instead
of focusing on isolated parts. Secondly, the emphasis is on contextual
understanding requiring the circumstances and objectives which triggered
the statute’s enactment to be taken into account. Thirdly, the rule of
purposive interpretation is stressed: the statute has to be interpreted in a
manner that advances its intended purpose and objectives.
30. Drawing guidance from the above, we are minded to hold that the most
effective way to interpret the 2023 Statutes is to align its context with the
purpose. To achieve this, it is crucial to understand the objective behind
Statute 9 being introduced and read the 2023 Statutes as a cohesive
whole.
31. The second proposition is that according to the principles of statutory
construction, a statute which is explanatory or clarificatory of the earlier
10
enactment is usually held to be retrospective. One may profitably refer to
11
the decision in S.S. Grewal v. State of Punjab in this context.
32. The third proposition of law that is well-settled is that though the
legislature has no power to sit over the judgment of a Court or usurp
judicial power, but, subject to the competence to make law, it has the
power to remove the basis which led to the Court’s decision. In the
decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil
12
Liberties , one finds the following instructive passage:
“ 68. Where a new Act is enacted removing the very basis on which
the High Court made a preceding Act invalid, it matters not
whether the same is not termed as a validating statute or not. In
the present case, however, in our opinion, such a question does
not arise as the 1975 Act was not declared to be invalid. In
Bakhtawar Trust v. M.D. Narayan [(2003) 5 SCC 298] this Court
held: (SCC p. 312, para 26)
‘26 . … In order to validate an executive action or any
provision of a statute, it is not sufficient for the legislature to
declare that a judicial pronouncement given by a court of
law would not be binding, as the legislature does not possess
that power. A decision of a court of law has a binding effect
unless the very basis upon which it is given is so altered that
the said decision would not have been given in the changed
circumstances.’
The reason is not far to seek. The legislature cannot overrule a
judgment but it can remove the basis on which the judgment has
been rendered.”
33. Finally, the proposition of law laid down in Union of India v. M.
13
Bhaskar is that grant of notional promotion to a post with retrospective
effect cannot mean gaining experience from that day, because to gain
11
1993 Supp (3) SCC 234
12
(2009) 8 SCC 46
13
(1996) 4 SCC 416
11
experience one has to work. Notional promotions are given to take care of
some injustice but a person so promoted cannot gain experience from the
date of notional promotion; it has to be from the date of actual
promotion.
34. The same view has been reiterated in a decision of this Court of recent
14
origin in Ravi Oraon v. The State of Jharkhand .
35. Having noted the propositions of law having a vital effect on the decision
to be rendered on these appeals, we now proceed with our analysis.
36. In our considered opinion, the High Court correctly spurned the challenge
to the validity of Statute 9; however, it erred in holding that owing to
Statute 1(3) of the 2023 Statutes making it (the amended Statutes)
operative from the date of its publication in the official gazette, a fresh
exercise had to be conducted by inviting applications and granting
opportunity to all eligible candidates in terms of the amended law. There
cannot be any quarrel with what Statute 1(3) ordains; but having regard
to the specific language employed in Statute 9, which has been
highlighted above, it cannot be gainsaid that the same had the effect of
clarifying/explaining that the recruitment drive initiated by the NIT,
th
Kurukshetra immediately after issuance of the letter dated 6 October,
2017, which granted a one-time relaxation for its stagnating Assistant
th
Professors, stands validated with effect from 30 June, 2023. Further,
what Statute 9, with effect from the date of publication of the 2023
14
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2192
12
Statutes in the official gazette, permitted was to enable the recruitment
drive initiated pursuant to the advertisement bearing no. 03/2018 to be
taken to its logical conclusion together with clear stipulations that
thereafter, i.e., after such recruitment drive is concluded, the benefit
conferred by Statute 9 would stand exhausted and such relaxation will not
have any validity for any subsequent recruitment drive. The whole
purpose of moving the proposal for amendments by the GoI was to give
th
effect to the idea expressed in the letter dated 6 October, 2017 for the
NIT, Kurukshetra which, for good reasons, had been interdicted by the
High Court in the first round of litigation, whereafter the situation was
sought to be remedied by having the First Statutes amended in a manner
known to law by introducing Statute 9 in the 2023 Statutes. Apart from
the settled propositions of law noticed above, it is equally well-known that
if a judgment of a Court holds a particular action of the executive to be
bad and illegal because such action suffers from certain procedural
defect(s), the legislature/executive, as the case may be, by an
amendment in the law/rules, may cure the defect on which the judicial
order was premised and such curing would not amount to overreaching
the judgment of the Court. As would also be evident from the summary
note referred to above, the amendment incorporated in the First Statutes
by introducing Statute 9 was clarificatory in nature to extend benefits to
the Assistant Professors of the NIT, Kurukshetra retrospectively, at par
with the Assistant Professors of all the other NITs in the country, based on
13
th
the purpose which the instruction contained in the letter dated 6
October, 2017 sought to achieve. Such purpose, we reiterate, was
intended to give a one-time relaxation through amendment of the
relevant statutes in the wake of the previous judgment and order of the
Division Bench of the High Court which had interdicted specifically on the
ground that a statute was sought to be supplanted, and not
supplemented, by an executive instruction: an exercise impermissible in
law. Such a clarification/explanation given by Statute 9, for a limited
purpose, was well-nigh permissible and had to be read as part of the First
Statutes. The impugned order, therefore, nullified the purpose for which
Statute 9 was introduced and proceeded to extend benefits even to those
Assistant Professors who might not have been qualified even to
participate in the process in terms of the advertisement bearing
no.03/2018 and thereby placing unequals and equals at par.
37. Having regard to the above, our interference is called for but to the
limited extent as indicated hereafter.
38. Bearing in mind the provisions contained in Statute 9 of the 2023
Statutes, we direct that such of the appellants as well as the intervenors
who might have qualified in the selection process pursuant to the
recruitment drive initiated vide the advertisement bearing no. 03/2018
and were recommended for appointment on the post of Associate
th
Professor on 27 November, 2018 shall be considered for such
appointment by the Board of Governors of the NIT, Kurukshetra and upon
14
being found suitable, they will be offered notional appointment with effect
th
from any date post 27 November, 2018, as the Board may decide on
facts and in the circumstances. We leave the issue of the date of notional
appointment for a decision by the Board owing to conflicting claims being
raised before us with regard to such date.
39. We make it clear that those appellants/intervenors who are ultimately
appointed in terms of this order as Associate Professor shall, however, not
be entitled to claim any arrear financial benefit as well as teaching
experience from the date of such notional appointment for
appointment/promotion to any higher post or other benefit. This is for the
simple reason that such appointment did not result in actual experience
being gained by them while working on the post of Associate Professor.
40. Notwithstanding what we have observed above, the appellants shall be
treated as Associate Professors from the dates of their notional
appointment for the purpose of continuity in services to receive terminal
benefits.
41. The Board of Governors of NIT, Kurukshetra is directed to take an
appropriate decision in terms of this order within a period of a month from
date.
42. It is made abundantly clear that in terms of Statute 9 of the 2023
Statutes, the one-time relaxation as conceived thereby would stand
exhausted once consideration is made by the Board of Governors in terms
of this order.
15
43. The impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court is modified to
the aforesaid extent.
44. The appeals stand disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
45. Since we have confined our discussion to the grievances voiced by the
Assistant Professors of the NIT, Kurukshetra and there being no appeal
against the impugned order by any faculty member presently serving in
the NIT, Jalandhar, this order shall have no effect insofar as such institute
is concerned.
46. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
………………………………………J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
…………………………………………J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 29, 2025.
16
ITEM NO.119 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).11897/2025
RITU GARG & ORS. Appellants
VERSUS
BOARD OF GOVERNORS BOG & ORS. Respondents
[ AT 12.00 NOON ]
I.A. No.63869/2025-ADDITION / DELETION / MODIFICATION PARTIES
I.A. No.50515/2025-APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
I.A. No.275089/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
I.A. No.56065/2025-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/
ANNEXURES
I.A. No.275091/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/
ANNEXURES
WITH
C.A. No.11898/2025 (IV)
I.A. No.63793/2025-ADDITION / DELETION / MODIFICATION PARTIES
I.A. No.50572/2025-APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
I.A. No.266620/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/
ANNEXURES
I.A. No.266618/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES
Date : 29-10-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aditya Soni, AOR
Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. I. S. Dhaliwal, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Soni, AOR
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR
Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Ms. Ruhi Sultana, Adv.
Ms. Smriti Singh, Adv.
17
Mr. Abhijay Negi, Adv.
Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Dilraj Singh Bhinder, Adv.
Mr. Sujoy Chatterjee, AOR
Mr. S.d.sanjay, A.S.G.
Mr. Annirudh Sharma-ii, Adv.
Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv.
Mr. Yash Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR
Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR
Mr. John Mathew, AOR
Mr. Shantanu Krishna, AOR
Mr. Ankit Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Vaishnavi Srivastava, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
18
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11897/2025
RITU GARG & ORS. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
BOARD OF GOVERNORS BOG & ORS. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11898/2025
POONAM JINDAL APPELLANT
VERSUS
HANUMAN DEVIDAS CHALAK & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
D IPANKAR D ATTA , J.
1. These two appeals take exception to the common judgment and order
st 1
dated 31 May, 2024 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of
2 3
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh while disposing of two writ petitions .
While taking such exception, the appellants seek to discredit the portion
of the impugned order which adversely affects their interest.
2. We propose to refer to the impugned order in some detail after
completing the factual narration.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2025.11.06
17:34:19 IST
Reason:
1
impugned order
2
High Court
3
CWP No.15972 of 2023 (O&M) and CWP No.354 of 2024 (O&M)
3. The facts, which are common to both the appeals, are these.
4. The appellants are Assistant Professors employed by the National Institute
4
of Technology, Kurukshetra since 2008 in different disciplines. They
aspired for appointment on the immediate higher post of “Associate
Professor”, a selection post. However, since the appellants did not qualify
the eligibility criteria of having Academic Grade Pay of Rs.8,000/- for at
least three years at the level of Assistant Professor in terms of the
relevant recruitment rules, they were ineligible to even enter the zone of
consideration for selection.
th
5. At this stage, on 06 October, 2017, a letter was issued by the
Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource
5
Development, Government of India . It was sought to be conveyed that
based on the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee, it had inter
alia been decided to grant one-time relaxation to those Assistant
Professors who did not have Academic Grade Pay of Rs.8,000/-. By an
executive instruction, the recruitment rules were sought to be amended
by waiving the requirement of Academic Grade Pay, referred to above.
Thus, in terms of such letter, those Assistant Professors employed in the
6
National Institutes of Technology across the country, who had put in
more than six years of service after acquiring Ph.D. degrees at the level of
4
NIT, Kurukshetra
5
GoI
6
NITs
2
Assistant Professor could be considered for selection and consequent
appointment on the post of Associate Professor.
6. We are informed that there are in all 31 NITs across the country and the
th
executive instruction contained in the said letter dated 06 October, 2017
giving one-time relaxation was given effect for Assistant Professors in all
the other NITs except the NIT, Kurukshetra and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
7
National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar . This is because of
intervening litigation which prevented the one-time relaxation
contemplated thereby from being implemented, as noticed hereafter.
th
7. An advertisement bearing no.3/18 dated 10 January, 2018 was issued
th
by the NIT, Kurukshetra following the said letter dated 06 October,
2017. In pursuance thereof, the appellants offered their candidature.
8. It is the case of the appellants that they were selected and recommended
for appointment on the post of “Associate Professor” by a resolution dated
th
27 November, 2018 and were awaiting appointment as Associate
Professors.
9. Meanwhile, writ proceedings had been initiated before the High Court by a
certain section of Assistant Professors, junior to the appellants as far as
length of service is concerned. They did not succeed before a Single Judge
th
of the High Court. Vide an order dated 17 September, 2018, the NIT,
Kurukshetra was allowed to complete the selection process.
7
NIT, Jalandhar
3
th
10. The order dated 17 September, 2018 was carried in an intra-court
appeal. A Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment and order dated
th
05 December, 2019 (while setting aside the judgment and order of the
th
Single Judge) held that the letter dated 06 October, 2017 was contrary
to the First Statutes of the NIT, Kurukshetra framed under the National
Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 and hence no benefit of the instruction
contained in such letter could enure to the benefit of any Assistant
Professor employed in the NIT, Kurukshetra.
11. The said judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court was
8
challenged in a special leave petition before this Court. A coordinate
th
Bench by its order dated 17 January, 2022 dismissed the special leave
petition.
12. The events that unfolded after dismissal of the special leave petition by
this Court form the trigger for these appellate proceedings and have
substantial relevance for a decision on these appeals.
13. The Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Technical
Section-III (NITs Division), GoI moved a proposal before the Visitor (Her
Excellency, the President of India) for amendment in the statutes of, inter
alia , of the NIT, Kurukshetra as per decision of the Council of the National
Institutes of Technology, Science, Education and Research. A summary
was prepared for the Visitor by the relevant department, with the
8
SLP (C) Diary No.21233/2020
4
recommendation of the Hon’ble Education Minister. Relevant portions of
the summary note read as follows: -
“3.10 The one-time relaxation was only a one-time measure to
address and remove the stagnation of existing faculty at a
particular level without affecting the career prospects of other
facilities joining NITs system. Once the recruitment drive with one-
time relaxation is completed, it has nothing to do with the RRs
th
notified on 24 July, 2017 for future recruitments. As such, it
wasn’t felt appropriate to make these one-time relaxations part of
the Statutes of NITs & IIEST, Shibpur especially considering the
amended provisions under sub-statute (3) of Statute 23 of the
Statutes of NITs and IIEST-Shibpur.
3.11 However, based on the facts, decisions of the Council of
NITSER and directions of the Hon’ble High Court, it has become
necessary to incorporate the clarifications vis-à-vis one-time
relaxations under Schedule ‘E’ of the Statutes of NITs, IIEST-
Shibpur and NIT-Andhra Pradesh retrospectively by way of suitable
th
amendments. The Council of NITSER in its 12 meeting has
already approved to carry out necessary amendments and further
authorized Ministry of Education to carry out necessary
amendments.
3.12 In accordance with provisions under Section 26 (2) of the
Act, the Board of Governors of all the 31 NITs and IIEST, Shibpur
have conveyed the approval of their Board in response to our
th
communication dated 27 October, 2020 for carrying out
necessary amendments in the Statutes. Having received the
consent of the respective Board of Governors as required under
Section 26 (2) of the Act, the draft notifications for carrying out
amendments in the Statutes of NITs, IIEST-Shibpur and NIT-
Andhra Pradesh were referred to the Legislative Department of the
Ministry of Law and Justice for vetting of three draft Notifications.
3.17 Thus, the present proposal is moved to amend the Statutes of
30 NITs (23.04.2009 & 24.07.2017), IIEST-Shibpur (24.03.2017 &
24.07.2017) and NIT-Andhra Pradesh (02.08.2017) to effect
following:-
(i) *
(ii) *
(iii) *
(iv) *
(v) *
(vi) *
(vii) *
(viii) *
(ix) Incorporation of one-time relaxations or measures
conveyed on 06.10.2017 and 17.11.2017 for the then
stagnated and eligible faculty of NITs & IIEST-Shibpur with
provision that these one-time relaxations have no validity for
future recruitments as recruitments of existing stagnated
5
and eligible faculties have already been made (except in
case of NIT-Kurukshetra because of the facts mentioned in
para 3.9 above) in accordance with the one-time relaxations
and these measures stand exhausted after the first round of
recruitments initiated after 06.10.2017 and 17.11.2017,
respectively.”
14. The recommendation of the Hon’ble Education Minister, which followed,
reads as under: -
“4.1 The Notifications containing amendments in the statutes of 30
NITs, IIEST-Shibpur and NIT-Andhra Pradesh, respectively, as
vetted by the Legislative Department of Ministry of Law and
Justice, were placed before the Hon’ble Education Minister for
referring same to the President’s Secretariat for soliciting kind
approval/assent of the Hon’ble President of India in her
capacity as the Visitor of NITs in accordance with provisions
under Section 26(3) and 26(4) of the NITSER Act, 2007.
4.2 Hon’ble Education Minister, also in his capacity as the
Chairperson of the Council of NITSER, has recommended
placing the amendments contained in the Notifications before
the Hon’ble Visitor of NITs & IIEST-Shibpur for approval. The
recommendations of the Hon’ble Education Minister are at
Annexure-XVI.
4.3 The notifications for notifying the amendments in the Statutes
of 30 NITs, IIEST-Shibpur and NIT-Andhra Pradesh are placed
at Annexure-XVII, Annexure-XVIII and Annexure-XIX,
respectively. ”
th
15. By a letter dated 04 May, 2023, the Secretariat of Her Excellency, the
President of India informed the Ministry of Education as follows: -
“2. The Hon’ble President of India, in her capacity as the Visitor of
National Institute of Technology and Indian Institute of
Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur is pleased to
approve the proposal contained in para 4 of the summary
note.”
16. Upon the proposal for amendment being approved by the Visitor of the
th
NITs, inter alia , the notification dated 14 June, 2023 containing the First
6
Statutes of the National Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Statutes,
9 th
2023 was published in the official gazette on 30 June, 2023.
17. Section 1(2) of the 2023 statutes ordained that they shall apply to the
NIT, Kurukshetra and come into force on the date of its publication in the
official gazette. Apart from other amendments in the First Statutes which
were incorporated, special mention needs to be made to Statute 9 since it
falls for our consideration.
18. Statute 9 of the 2023 statutes reads as follows: -
“(9) The one-time relaxation or measures for the then stagnated
and eligible faculty of the National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra shall be as per the relaxations issued with the
th
approval of the council vide communications dated the 6
th
October, 2017 and 17 November, 2017:
Provided that one-time relaxation or measures contained in the
th th
communications dated the 6 October, 2017 and 17
November, 2017 shall have no validity and stand exhausted
after the first round of recruitments initiated after issuance of
those one-time relaxations or measures and shall not have any
validity for subsequent rounds of recruitment of the faculty in
the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. ”
(emphasis ours)
19. While the NIT, Kurukshetra was in the process of considering the
th
appellants in terms of the recommendation dated 27 November, 2018, a
second round of litigation came to be initiated before the High Court with
institution of the writ petitions, from which these appeals arise.
20. The Division Bench by the impugned order, while allowing the writ
petitions, held that:
“26. ... the amendment has been brought into force from the date
it was notified in the gazette as per Section 1(3). Thus, the
9
2023 Statutes
7
qualification for promotion and experience have been substituted
with effect from the date of the gazette notification was issued and
would apply prospectively. Thus, Section 5 Clause (d) and (f)
making amendments in Schedule-E would have to be treated and
considered prospectively.”
Ultimately, the Division Bench held as follows:
“34. Applying the aforesaid law to the facts of the present case, it
is apparent that the selection which were conducted under
advertisement no. 3/2018 cannot be given approval by the new
amendments made in the Statutes. Even the counsel for the
respondent-institutes have stated that the amendments would be
prospective, therefore, now they would be free to issue new
advertisement in accordance with the amendments granting due
relaxation in the Schedule for the purpose of selection for the post
of Associate Professor and Professor.
35. In other words, the authorities would be free to conduct
afresh exercise by inviting applications of all eligible candidates in
terms of the new amendments made vide notification dated
30.06.2023 for the post of Associate Professor and Professor. All
the persons who are eligible for applying, would be considered. The
petitioners and the respondents would be, therefore, entitled to be
considered accordingly as per their work experience and other
educational qualifications.
36. All the stake holders will also be entitled to be considered
afresh for which now the respondent-Institute shall take steps,
proceed and conclude the exercise within a period of four months
from today. The advertisements issued by the respondent-institute
would, accordingly, be modified/corrected and applied. The stay
order passed by the Court dated 31.07.2023 stands vacated.”
th
21. Notice was initially issued to the GoI on 29 November, 2024 and to the
th
respondents 1 to 3 on 16 December, 2024. GoI was specifically directed
to place on record by way of an affidavit the summary note and the
recommendations of the Minister for this Court’s consideration.
22. Pursuant to such order, the GoI filed an additional affidavit placing on
record the requisite note and recommendation.
th
23. Leave was granted on 15 September, 2025 and the appeals set down for
th
hearing on 15 October, 2025.
8
24. Certain applications for intervention came to be filed, which were allowed.
I.A. No.253789/2025 & I.A. D. No.226749/2025 are also allowed by
permitting the applicants to intervene.
25. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants, learned
Additional Solicitor General for the GoI, as well as learned counsel for the
NIT, Kurukshetra, the writ petitioners before the High Court and the
intervenors.
26. In the writ petitions before the High Court, challenge was laid to the
amendments that were incorporated in the First Statutes through the
2023 Statutes concerning Statute 9. It was the contention of the writ
petitioners that “there was no occasion to issue the notification which has
been done only to overturn the judgment of this Court upheld by the
Supreme Court” which amounts to overreaching the process of the Courts
and “the rule which was amended, has been given retrospective effect” to
benefit “those who have been selected ... under the advertisement
no.3/2018” which otherwise they were not entitled to.
27. We must begin our analysis bearing in mind four important propositions of
law.
28. First, is the guidance provided by Hon’ble O. Chinappa Reddy, J. in RBI v.
10
Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. on how a statute is
to be read and understood. The relevant passage reads:
“ 33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They
are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the
10
(1987) 1 SCC 424
9
texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored.
Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the
textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best
interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this
knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then
section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by
word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with
the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its
scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour
and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the
glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look
at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause,
each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit
into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word
of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be
construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its
place. ...”
29. Three key concepts flow from the above passage. Holistic understanding
is the first in terms whereof the statute has to be read as a whole instead
of focusing on isolated parts. Secondly, the emphasis is on contextual
understanding requiring the circumstances and objectives which triggered
the statute’s enactment to be taken into account. Thirdly, the rule of
purposive interpretation is stressed: the statute has to be interpreted in a
manner that advances its intended purpose and objectives.
30. Drawing guidance from the above, we are minded to hold that the most
effective way to interpret the 2023 Statutes is to align its context with the
purpose. To achieve this, it is crucial to understand the objective behind
Statute 9 being introduced and read the 2023 Statutes as a cohesive
whole.
31. The second proposition is that according to the principles of statutory
construction, a statute which is explanatory or clarificatory of the earlier
10
enactment is usually held to be retrospective. One may profitably refer to
11
the decision in S.S. Grewal v. State of Punjab in this context.
32. The third proposition of law that is well-settled is that though the
legislature has no power to sit over the judgment of a Court or usurp
judicial power, but, subject to the competence to make law, it has the
power to remove the basis which led to the Court’s decision. In the
decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil
12
Liberties , one finds the following instructive passage:
“ 68. Where a new Act is enacted removing the very basis on which
the High Court made a preceding Act invalid, it matters not
whether the same is not termed as a validating statute or not. In
the present case, however, in our opinion, such a question does
not arise as the 1975 Act was not declared to be invalid. In
Bakhtawar Trust v. M.D. Narayan [(2003) 5 SCC 298] this Court
held: (SCC p. 312, para 26)
‘26 . … In order to validate an executive action or any
provision of a statute, it is not sufficient for the legislature to
declare that a judicial pronouncement given by a court of
law would not be binding, as the legislature does not possess
that power. A decision of a court of law has a binding effect
unless the very basis upon which it is given is so altered that
the said decision would not have been given in the changed
circumstances.’
The reason is not far to seek. The legislature cannot overrule a
judgment but it can remove the basis on which the judgment has
been rendered.”
33. Finally, the proposition of law laid down in Union of India v. M.
13
Bhaskar is that grant of notional promotion to a post with retrospective
effect cannot mean gaining experience from that day, because to gain
11
1993 Supp (3) SCC 234
12
(2009) 8 SCC 46
13
(1996) 4 SCC 416
11
experience one has to work. Notional promotions are given to take care of
some injustice but a person so promoted cannot gain experience from the
date of notional promotion; it has to be from the date of actual
promotion.
34. The same view has been reiterated in a decision of this Court of recent
14
origin in Ravi Oraon v. The State of Jharkhand .
35. Having noted the propositions of law having a vital effect on the decision
to be rendered on these appeals, we now proceed with our analysis.
36. In our considered opinion, the High Court correctly spurned the challenge
to the validity of Statute 9; however, it erred in holding that owing to
Statute 1(3) of the 2023 Statutes making it (the amended Statutes)
operative from the date of its publication in the official gazette, a fresh
exercise had to be conducted by inviting applications and granting
opportunity to all eligible candidates in terms of the amended law. There
cannot be any quarrel with what Statute 1(3) ordains; but having regard
to the specific language employed in Statute 9, which has been
highlighted above, it cannot be gainsaid that the same had the effect of
clarifying/explaining that the recruitment drive initiated by the NIT,
th
Kurukshetra immediately after issuance of the letter dated 6 October,
2017, which granted a one-time relaxation for its stagnating Assistant
th
Professors, stands validated with effect from 30 June, 2023. Further,
what Statute 9, with effect from the date of publication of the 2023
14
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2192
12
Statutes in the official gazette, permitted was to enable the recruitment
drive initiated pursuant to the advertisement bearing no. 03/2018 to be
taken to its logical conclusion together with clear stipulations that
thereafter, i.e., after such recruitment drive is concluded, the benefit
conferred by Statute 9 would stand exhausted and such relaxation will not
have any validity for any subsequent recruitment drive. The whole
purpose of moving the proposal for amendments by the GoI was to give
th
effect to the idea expressed in the letter dated 6 October, 2017 for the
NIT, Kurukshetra which, for good reasons, had been interdicted by the
High Court in the first round of litigation, whereafter the situation was
sought to be remedied by having the First Statutes amended in a manner
known to law by introducing Statute 9 in the 2023 Statutes. Apart from
the settled propositions of law noticed above, it is equally well-known that
if a judgment of a Court holds a particular action of the executive to be
bad and illegal because such action suffers from certain procedural
defect(s), the legislature/executive, as the case may be, by an
amendment in the law/rules, may cure the defect on which the judicial
order was premised and such curing would not amount to overreaching
the judgment of the Court. As would also be evident from the summary
note referred to above, the amendment incorporated in the First Statutes
by introducing Statute 9 was clarificatory in nature to extend benefits to
the Assistant Professors of the NIT, Kurukshetra retrospectively, at par
with the Assistant Professors of all the other NITs in the country, based on
13
th
the purpose which the instruction contained in the letter dated 6
October, 2017 sought to achieve. Such purpose, we reiterate, was
intended to give a one-time relaxation through amendment of the
relevant statutes in the wake of the previous judgment and order of the
Division Bench of the High Court which had interdicted specifically on the
ground that a statute was sought to be supplanted, and not
supplemented, by an executive instruction: an exercise impermissible in
law. Such a clarification/explanation given by Statute 9, for a limited
purpose, was well-nigh permissible and had to be read as part of the First
Statutes. The impugned order, therefore, nullified the purpose for which
Statute 9 was introduced and proceeded to extend benefits even to those
Assistant Professors who might not have been qualified even to
participate in the process in terms of the advertisement bearing
no.03/2018 and thereby placing unequals and equals at par.
37. Having regard to the above, our interference is called for but to the
limited extent as indicated hereafter.
38. Bearing in mind the provisions contained in Statute 9 of the 2023
Statutes, we direct that such of the appellants as well as the intervenors
who might have qualified in the selection process pursuant to the
recruitment drive initiated vide the advertisement bearing no. 03/2018
and were recommended for appointment on the post of Associate
th
Professor on 27 November, 2018 shall be considered for such
appointment by the Board of Governors of the NIT, Kurukshetra and upon
14
being found suitable, they will be offered notional appointment with effect
th
from any date post 27 November, 2018, as the Board may decide on
facts and in the circumstances. We leave the issue of the date of notional
appointment for a decision by the Board owing to conflicting claims being
raised before us with regard to such date.
39. We make it clear that those appellants/intervenors who are ultimately
appointed in terms of this order as Associate Professor shall, however, not
be entitled to claim any arrear financial benefit as well as teaching
experience from the date of such notional appointment for
appointment/promotion to any higher post or other benefit. This is for the
simple reason that such appointment did not result in actual experience
being gained by them while working on the post of Associate Professor.
40. Notwithstanding what we have observed above, the appellants shall be
treated as Associate Professors from the dates of their notional
appointment for the purpose of continuity in services to receive terminal
benefits.
41. The Board of Governors of NIT, Kurukshetra is directed to take an
appropriate decision in terms of this order within a period of a month from
date.
42. It is made abundantly clear that in terms of Statute 9 of the 2023
Statutes, the one-time relaxation as conceived thereby would stand
exhausted once consideration is made by the Board of Governors in terms
of this order.
15
43. The impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court is modified to
the aforesaid extent.
44. The appeals stand disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
45. Since we have confined our discussion to the grievances voiced by the
Assistant Professors of the NIT, Kurukshetra and there being no appeal
against the impugned order by any faculty member presently serving in
the NIT, Jalandhar, this order shall have no effect insofar as such institute
is concerned.
46. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
………………………………………J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
…………………………………………J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 29, 2025.
16
ITEM NO.119 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).11897/2025
RITU GARG & ORS. Appellants
VERSUS
BOARD OF GOVERNORS BOG & ORS. Respondents
[ AT 12.00 NOON ]
I.A. No.63869/2025-ADDITION / DELETION / MODIFICATION PARTIES
I.A. No.50515/2025-APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
I.A. No.275089/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
I.A. No.56065/2025-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/
ANNEXURES
I.A. No.275091/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/
ANNEXURES
WITH
C.A. No.11898/2025 (IV)
I.A. No.63793/2025-ADDITION / DELETION / MODIFICATION PARTIES
I.A. No.50572/2025-APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
I.A. No.266620/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/
ANNEXURES
I.A. No.266618/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES
Date : 29-10-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aditya Soni, AOR
Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. I. S. Dhaliwal, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Soni, AOR
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR
Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Ms. Ruhi Sultana, Adv.
Ms. Smriti Singh, Adv.
17
Mr. Abhijay Negi, Adv.
Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Dilraj Singh Bhinder, Adv.
Mr. Sujoy Chatterjee, AOR
Mr. S.d.sanjay, A.S.G.
Mr. Annirudh Sharma-ii, Adv.
Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv.
Mr. Yash Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR
Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR
Mr. John Mathew, AOR
Mr. Shantanu Krishna, AOR
Mr. Ankit Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Vaishnavi Srivastava, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
18