REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.19188 OF 2007  

Md. Raisul Islam & Ors. .. Petitioners

Vs.

Gokul Mohan Hazarika & Ors. .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. On the request of the Government of Assam to  

select candidates by way of direct recruitment for  

filling up 30 posts in each category of ACS Class-I  

and  ACS  Class-II,  the  Assam  Public  Service

Commission, hereinafter referred to as ‘the ASPC’,  

published an advertisement on 22nd May, 1984, for  

the aforesaid purpose in terms of Rule 4 of the  

Assam  Civil  Services  (Class-I)  Rules,  1960.  

Subsequently, the Government of Assam informed the  

APSC on 24th November, 1984, that a decision had  

been taken to relax the upper age limit by two  

years.  Accordingly,  a  revised  advertisement  was  

published  by  APSC  on  28th November,  1984,  

incorporating the decision to relax the upper age  

limit  by  two  years.  Pursuant  to  the  said  

advertisement, a written test was conducted by the  

APSC,  as  required  under  the  aforesaid  Rules,  

hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  1960  Rules’,  

between 5th June, 1984, to 1st August, 1985, and the  

results  of  the  said  written  examination  were  

declared on 22nd February, 1986.  Vive voce test was  

thereafter conducted by the APSC from 25th April,  

1986,  to  30th May,  1986,  in  respect  of  those  

2

candidates  who  had  qualified  in  the  written  

examination.  Thereafter, the APSC sent its list of  

recommended  candidates  to  the  Government  on  27th  

June, 1986, for appointment to ACS Class-I and ACS  

Class-II category officers.    

2. On 21st July, 1986, vide Notification of even  

date, the Government of Assam amended the proviso  

to Rule 4(1) and Rule 4(1)(b) of the 1960 Rules  

whereby the number of persons to be promoted from  

ACS  Class-II  to  ACS  Class  I  was  left  to  be  

determined by the Governor and the earlier quota of  

50 per cent for promotion was discontinued.

3. At this stage, reference may be made to Rule 4  

of  the  1960  Rules,  as  it  stood  prior  to  the  

amendment of 21st July, 1986, namely,  

“Rule  4(1).  Recruitment  to  the  service  after  the  commencement  of  these  Rules,  shall be by the following methods, namely:  

3

(a) by  competitive  examination  conducted  by Commission;  

(b) by promotion of confirmed members of  the ACS (Class-II) who have passed the  prescribed  departmental  examination  and  successfully  completed  the  prescribed  training  under  Sub- Rule(3)of  Rule  14  of  ACS  (Class-II)  Rules, 1962; and  

(c) by  selection,  in  special  cases  from  among persons, other than members of  the  Assam  Civil  Service  (Class-II)  service in connection with the affairs  of the Government;  

Provided  that  the  number  of  persons  recruited under Clause (b) shall be 50 per  cent of the total number of vacancies to  be  filled  in  a  year  and  the  persons  recruited  under  Clause  (c)  shall  not  in  any year exceed two; provided further that  the  persons  recruited  under  Clause  (c)  shall not at any time exceed 5 per cent of  the total strength of the cadre”.  

4. As will be apparent from the above, under the  

unamended  Rules,  the  number  of  persons  to  be  

recruited by way of promotion would be 50 per cent  

of the total number of vacancies to be filled in a  

year and the number of persons to be selected under  

4

clause (c) in said cases was not to exceed 5 per  

cent of the total strength of the cadre at any  

time.    

5. While the aforesaid process of filling up the  

vacancies  was  being  undertaken,  the  State  

Government as indicated hereinabove, amended some  

of the provisions of the 1960 Rules by the Assam  

Civil  Service  (Class-I)  (Amendment)  Rules,  1986,  

hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  1986  Amendment  

Rules’, which were directed to come into force at  

once  and  were,  therefore,  given  prospective  

operation. The amendment with which we are directly  

concerned in this case is Rule 2 of the Amendment  

Rules, which reads as follows :-

“2. In the Principal Rules, in Rule 4 –  

(a) for clause (b) of sub-rule (1), the  following  shall  be  substituted,  namely:-

“(b)by promotion from amongst the ACS  (Class-II)  officers  who  have  

5

completed  5  years  of  continuous  service in ACS (Class-II) on the  first day of January of the year  in which recruitment is made”

(b) for the proviso to sub-rule (1), the  following  shall  be  substituted,  namely:-

“provided that the number of persons  recruited  under  Clause  (b)  in  any  calendar year shall be such as may be  determined by the Governor.  Provided  further  that  the  persons  recruited  under Clause (c) shall not in any year  exceed two and shall not, at any time  exceed  5  per  cent  of  the  total  strength of the cadre.”

6. The amended provisions of Rule 4, do away with  

the quota of 50 per cent reservation for promotees  

and the number of persons to be recruited in such  

manner  in  any  calendar  year  would  after  the  

amendment be such as might be determined by the  

Governor.  In other words, the fixed quota of fifty  

per cent for appointment by way of promotion was  

replaced by a discretion given to the Governor to  

6

indicate the number of persons to be recruited by  

way of promotion.    

7. Pursuant  to  the  aforesaid  selection  process,  

129  ACS  Class-II  Officers,  including  the  

petitioners, were regularly promoted as ACS Class-I  

Officers on 11th September, 1986.  Thereafter, on  

22nd October,  1986,  45  ACS  Class-I  Officers,  

including the Respondents, were appointed by way of  

direct  recruitment  on  the  basis  of  the  

recommendation made by the APSC.  On 16th December,  

1989, as a matter of policy, the State Government  

merged the ACS Class-II Officers with ACS Class-I  

Officers  in  order  to  eliminate  the  ACS  Class-II  

category.   Pursuant thereto, on 1st January, 1993,  

a draft gradation list of ACS Class-I Officers was  

published  by  the  State  Government  inviting  

objections  thereto.  In  the  said  list,  all  129  

Officers  promoted  on  11th September,  1986,  were  

shown as senior to the 45 ACS Class-I Officers, who  

7

had been appointed by way of direct recruitment on  

various dates in the month of October, 1986.   

8. Aggrieved by the above, the Respondent Nos.1 to  

8  herein  filed  a  Writ  Petition  challenging  the  

draft seniority list dated 1st January, 1993, and  

the amendments effected to Rule 4 of the 1960 Rules  

on 21st July, 1986.   It may not be out of place to  

take  note  at  this  stage  of  the  fact  that  the  

appointments of the petitioners and other similarly  

situated promotees made vide notification dated 11th  

September, 1986, were not challenged in the Writ  

Petition, nor was the notice of the Writ Petition  

served on them, although, they were made parties to  

the proceedings. During the pendency of the Writ  

Petition, the State Government published the final  

seniority list of ACS Class-I Officers in which all  

the 129 promotees were shown to be senior to the 45  

direct recruits.  It is the petitioners’ case that  

8

the said seniority list was never challenged and  

had attained finality long ago.   

9.  On 26th June, 2003, the learned Single Judge  

of  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  Writ  Petition  

holding that although the process of selection had  

been initiated long before the amendment of 1986,  

the  Government  had  decided  not  to  make  any  

appointments till the Rules were amended.   The  

Respondent Nos.1 to 8 thereupon filed a Writ Appeal  

before the Division Bench of the High Court which  

was allowed on 26th August, 2006, upon the finding  

that the seniority of direct recruits and promotees  

would be governed by the unamended Rules as the  

selection process was initiated prior to the 1986  

amendments. The State Government was, accordingly,  

directed to fix the seniority of the promotees and  

direct recruits by applying the quota rule and to  

fix the seniority of all 45 direct recruits of 1986  

just below the 45 promotees, who had been promoted  

9

to ACS Class-I service.  It is the petitioners’  

case  that  they  had  no  knowledge  about  the  Writ  

Appeal as they were not served with notice thereof.  

Review Petitions Nos.92 and 93 of 2006 were filed  

on  9th November,  2006,  by  12  of  the  

promotees/petitioners  herein  on  the  ground  that  

they had not been served with notice of the Writ  

Appeal.  Thereupon,  the  Division  Bench  on  13th  

September,  2006,  issued  notice  on  the  Review  

Petitions and stayed the operation of the judgment  

and order passed on 26th August, 2006. Subsequently,  

on 25th September, 2006, the Division Bench modified  

its  earlier  order  dated  13th September,  2006  and  

directed that posting of officers, if any, pursuant  

to the interim order, would be only with the leave  

of the Court.

10. On  13th November,  2006,  the  State  Government  

filed its counter affidavit in the matter and on  

being satisfied that notice of the Writ Appeal had  

10

not  been  served  on  the  Review  Petitioners,  the  

Division  Bench  permitted  them  to  file  their  

affidavit in the Writ Appeal and the same was re-

heard  along  with  the  Review  Petitions  on  merit.  

It is on a re-hearing of the Writ Appeal and the  

Review Petitions that the order impugned in Special  

Leave Petition (Civil) No.19188 of 2007 came to be  

passed on 23rd May, 2007.     

11.   In its counter affidavit filed in the Writ  

Appeal,  the  State  Government  opposed  the  Writ  

Appeal contending that seniority, upon merger of  

the ACS Class-I and ACS Class-II Officers, had been  

rightly fixed by the State.   After considering the  

submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  parties,  the  

Division  Bench,  while  allowing  the  Writ  Appeal,  

directed the authorities to ascertain the vacancies  

available  in  the  year  1986  for  recruitment  from  

each source in terms of the quota fixed by Rule 4  

of the 1960 Rules and to recast their seniority by  

11

rotating the vacancies following the quota and rota  

rules. The said order of the Division Bench being  

impugned in this Petition, this Court issued notice  

to the parties on 12th November, 2007, and directed  

status-quo to be maintained.   

12.   Appearing in support of the Special Leave  

Petition,  Mr.  Vijay  Hansaria,  learned  Senior  

counsel, firstly referred to Rule 19 of the 1960  

Rules  dealing  with  seniority,  which  reads  as  

follows :

“Seniority: (1) The seniority of members  of  the  service  shall  be  determined  according  to  the  order  of  merit  in  the  lists prepared under sub-rule (5) of Rule  5 or approved under Rule 8, if the members  join their appointments within 15 days of  the receipt of the order of appointment.

Provided  that  in  case  a  member  is  prevented  from  joining  within  the  said  period of 15 days by circumstances of a  public  nature  or  for  reasons  beyond  his  control, the Governor may extend it for a  further period of 15 days.  If the period  is not so extended and the member of the  service joins within the period extended  

12

under  sub-rule  (2)  of  Rule  15,  his  seniority  shall  be  determined  in  accordance with the date of joining.

Provided further that the members of the  service recruited in a year under clause  (b) and (c) of Rule 4 shall be senior to  members recruited in the same year and in  the same batch under clause (a) of Rule  4.”

13.  What  is  important  for  our  purpose  is  the  

second proviso which indicates that the number of  

promotees in a year under Clauses (b) and (c) of  

Rule  4  would  be  senior  to  members  recruited  by  

direct recruitment in the same year and in the same  

batch under Clause (a) of Rule 4.  The language of  

the  second  proviso  to  Rule  19  is  clear  and  

unambiguous that in a year candidates promoted to  

the higher post under Rule 4 would be senior to  

candidates recruited in the same year and in the  

same batch under Clause (a) of Rule 4 of the 1960  

Rules.

13

14.  Mr. Hansaria then drew our attention to Rule  

26, which provides that “the seniority of members  

of the service promoted to the senior grade time  

scale, shall be in the order in which their names  

are arranged by the Selection Board under Sub-Rule  

(2) of Rule 25 for the purpose of promotion to that  

grade.”  Learned counsel also referred to Rule 27,  

wherein  the  Governor  of  the  State  was  also  

empowered to dispense with or relax any Rule on  

being satisfied that the operation of any of the  

Rules caused undue hardship in any particular case.  

Mr. Hansaria submitted that after the Amendment Act  

was enacted on 21st July, 1986, whereby Rule 4 was  

also amended, the Governor was given the power to  

determine the number of ACS Class-II officers to be  

promoted as a result whereof, the quota system in  

relation to recruitment of ACS Class-I Officers was  

discontinued.  According to Mr. Hansaria, the quota  

14

system  had  broken  down,  necessitating  the  

amendment.

15. Mr. Hansaria contended that the direct recruits  

had been appointed long after the appointment by  

promotion of the Petitioners under the Rules and  

could not, therefore, be given seniority over the  

promotees.  Mr.  Hansaria  submitted  that  in  this  

petition what was of utmost importance was not the  

question of recruitment, but how seniority was to  

be  determined  inter  se with  those  who  had  been  

promoted earlier.  The question posed is: Would the  

rules relating to seniority which were applicable  

at the time of recruitment also determine seniority  

even if the Rules were subsequently altered?   

16.  Mr. Hansaria submitted that since the quota  

and rota rule had not been followed over the years,  

the  same  was  discontinued  by  virtue  of  the  

amendments to the 1960 Rules which became effective  

15

from 21st July, 1986.  Although, the said amendments  

were challenged by the respondents, such challenge  

was later given up.  Despite the above, the High  

Court  quite  erroneously  relied  on  the  unamended  

Rules  in  arriving  at  a  final  decision  in  the  

appeal.  Mr. Hansaria urged that when the Rules  

relating to quota had been discontinued by the 1986  

Amendment, the High Court erred in not following  

the Amended Rules which came into effect on 21st  

July,  1986,  after  the  recruitment  of  both  the  

petitioners as well as the respondents herein.  Mr.  

Hansaria contended that even if the quota Rule is  

held to be applicable, the same had broken down on  

account  of  not  having  been  followed  for  a  long  

period  of  time,  seniority  had  to  be  fixed  by  

applying the amended Rules.  

17. Mr. Hansaria then urged that it was a well-

settled principle that direct recruits cannot claim  

appointment from the date on which the vacancy in  

16

the quota for direct recruitment occurred before  

their  selection,  which  principle  had  been  

incorporated in the proviso to Rule 4(b) of the  

1960 Rules, as amended.

18. In this regard, Mr. Hansaria referred to the  

decision of this Court in  Suraj Parkash Gupta &  

Ors. vs.  State of J & K and Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC  

561],  wherein  the  very  same  question  fell  for  

consideration  and  this  Court  observed  that  in  

service jurisprudence, a direct recruit can claim  

seniority  only  from  the  date  of  his  regular  

appointment and not from the date when he was not  

even born in the service.  Reference was also made  

to  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  State  of  

Uttaranchal & Anr. vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma [(2007)  

1 SCC 683], where the earlier decision in  Suraj  

Parkash Gupta’s case (supra) was reiterated and it  

was  re-emphasized  that  a  person  appointed  on  

promotion cannot get seniority of any earlier year  

17

but shall get the seniority of the year in which  

his/her  appointment  is  made.   Several  decisions  

were also cited by Mr. Hansaria on the same lines,  

to which reference will be made, if necessary.

19. Mr. Hansaria contended that the High Court had  

committed an error in relying upon the unamended  

provisions of Rule 4 of the 1960 Rules, instead of  

relying upon the amended Rules which were relevant  

to  the  case  of  the  respondents  since  the  quota  

Rules had broken down when the process of recording  

seniority had been commenced.

20. Mr.  Parthiv  Goswami,  learned  Advocate,  

representing the Respondent Nos.1 to 8 pointed out  

that Rule 4(1) provided the method of recruitment  

to the service and the proviso to the said Rule  

provided that 50% of the total vacancies in a given  

year was to be filled up by promotion of confirmed  

members  of  the  Assam  Civil  Service  (Class-II).  

18

Furthermore, Rule 19(1) provided that the promotees  

would  be  senior  to  direct  recruits  in  case  of  

appointment in the same year and in the same batch.  

Mr. Goswami contended that the State Government on  

21st July, 1986, amended Rule 4 and the Governor was  

authorized thereunder to determine the number of  

promotees  to  be  accommodated,  but  as  rightly  

pointed  out  by  the  Division  Bench,  the  amended  

Rules would not apply to the direct recruits whose  

selection process had commenced under the unamended  

Rules.  

21. Mr. Goswami submitted that promotees appointed  

in excess of the quota reserved for them could only  

be described as ad hoc and seniority could not be  

given to such promotees on the basis of such ad hoc  

promotions.   In  support  of  his  submissions  Mr.  

Goswami referred to the decision of this Court in  

Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit)  

vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 346], wherein the  

19

said proposition was approved and it was further  

held  that  promotees  who  were  appointed  in  1991  

could not claim seniority over direct recruits who  

were substantively appointed at a prior point of  

time in 1990.   

22.   Reference was also made to the decision of  

this Court in N.T. Devin Katti vs. Karnataka Public  

Service Commission [(1990) 3 SCC 157],  wherein it  

was  held  that  appointment  made  in  terms  of  an  

advertisement  published  prior  to  amendments  

effected to the Rule or Order would normally not be  

affected by the amendment. In other words, where  

the selection process is initiated by issuing an  

advertisement  inviting  applications,  selection  

normally should be regulated by the Rule or Order  

then prevailing.  Several other decisions were also  

referred  to  where  the  same  principles  have  been  

explained.  Mr. Goswami submitted that the process  

of  selection  in  the  instant  case  had  commenced  

20

before the amendments came into force and since it  

was held that only prospective operation could be  

given  to  the  amended  Rules,  the  process  of  

selection started under the unamended Rules would  

have  to  be  continued  and  completed  thereunder.  

Mr. Goswami submitted that the submissions made on  

behalf of the petitioners that the selection would  

be  in  accordance  with  the  amended  Rules  was  

contrary  to  the  law  as  established  and  was,  

therefore, liable to be rejected.  

23. We  have  carefully  considered  the  submissions  

made on behalf of the respective parties and the  

decisions cited by them.  The point at issue in  

this SLP is confined to the question as to whether  

the  1960  Rules  as  amended  would  govern  the  

seniority of the persons recruited in the process  

of selection commenced earlier to the amendment. It  

is not disputed that an advertisement was published  

on 22nd May, 1984, for filling up 30 posts in each  

21

category of ACS Class-I and ACS Class-II Officers  

in terms of unamended Rule 4 of the 1960 Rules and  

that a written test was conducted by the APSC under  

the said Rules between 5th June, 1984 and 1st August,  

1985 and the result of the said written examination  

was declared on 22nd February, 1986. Viva-voce test  

was conducted by the APSC from 25th April, 1986, to  

30th May, 1986, in respect of those candidates who  

had qualified in the written examination. A list of  

recommended candidates was thereafter submitted by  

the APSC to the Government on 22nd June, 1986.  It  

is also not disputed that soon thereafter on 21st  

July,  1986,  the  proviso  to  Rule  4(1)  and  Rule  

4(1)(b) of the 1960 Rules were amended whereby the  

quota  system  was  sought  to  be  discarded  and  

discretion was given to the Governor to determine  

the number of appointments to be made by way of  

promotion in a given case.  

22

24. It is evident from the chronological list of  

events that the process of selection for filling up  

the 30 posts in each category of ACS Class-I and  

ACS  Class-II  Officers  commenced  with  the  

publication  of  the  advertisement  inviting  

applications which was published on 22nd May, 1984.  

Pursuant  thereto,  written  examinations  were  also  

held and the result of the written examinations was  

declared  on  22nd February,  1986,  and  after  

completion  of  the  viva-voce  test,  a  list  of  

recommended candidates was submitted by the APSC to  

the Government on 22nd June, 1986.  The amendment to  

Rule 4 came subsequently on 21st July, 1986.  The  

submission  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  Respondent  

Nos.1 to 8 herein is that once the process had  

commenced under the unamended Rules, appointments  

would  have  also  to  be  completed  under  the  said  

Rules, even though the Rules were amended in the  

meantime.  The Division Bench of the High Court,  

23

while  re-hearing  the  Writ  Appeal  and  the  Review  

Petitions, reiterated the views expressed earlier  

on 26th August, 2006, holding that the seniority of  

direct recruits and promotees would be governed by  

the unamended Rules as the selection process was  

initiated  prior  to  the  1986  amendments.  

Consequently, the Division Bench also held that the  

seniority between the promotees and direct recruits  

was to be determined on the basis of the quota  

fixed for recruitment from each source under Rule 4  

of the 1960 Rules on the basis of the vacancies  

available in the calendar year, by applying quota  

and rota selectees to the extent of the vacancies  

in their quota as envisaged in the proviso to Rule  

4(1) of the Rules as they stood prior to the 1986  

amendments.  The  Division  Bench,  accordingly,  

amended its earlier judgment dated 24th August, 2006  

and set aside the provisional seniority list of ACS  

Class-I  Officers  with  the  aforesaid  modification  

24

and  directed  the  authorities  to  recast  the  

seniority in accordance with the said directions.  

While  arriving  at  the  aforesaid  decision,  the  

Division  Bench  had  occasion  to  refer  to  the  

decision of this Court in Dr. K. Ramulu & Anr. vs.  

Dr. S. Suryaprakash Rao & Ors. [(1997) 3 SCC 59],  

wherein the question which fell for consideration  

was whether the Government was entitled to take a  

decision not to fill up existing vacancies on the  

relevant date unless the process of amendment was  

completed.  This  Court,  after  taking  into  

consideration  Rule  4  of  the  A.P.  Subordinate  

Service Rules, held that the object of the said  

Rule  was  that  all  eligible  candidates  should  be  

considered  in  accordance  with  the  Rules.   This  

Court held that the Government was entitled to take  

a conscious decision not to fill up any of the  

vacancies  before  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  

Rules was effected.

25

25.  While  at  first  glance  the  decision  in  K.  

Ramulu’s case (supra) may appear to be at par with  

the  facts  of  the  instant  case,  there  is  yet  a  

distinction which cannot be ignored.  While in the  

present case a process of selection had been set in  

motion  under  the  existing  Rules  and  a  list  of  

selected candidates had also been recommended by  

the  APSC,  in  K.  Ramulu’s  case  (supra)  the  

Government had merely taken a decision not to fill  

up the vacancies until the amended Rules came into  

force.  In K. Ramulu’s case (supra) no process had  

been initiated for the purpose of filling up any of  

the  vacancies.   In  such  circumstances,  where  no  

candidate had either been invited or interviewed or  

selected for appointment, as has been done in the  

instant  case,  this  Court  rightly  held  that  the  

Government was competent to take a decision not to  

fill up the vacancies.  

26

26. There can be no dispute that as a matter of  

policy the Government may take a conscious decision  

not to fill up vacancies for justifiable reasons,  

but at the same time, having started a process of  

selection under the unamended Rules, it cannot take  

the stand that it still was entitled not to make  

appointments of persons from amongst the candidates  

selected in terms of the process initiated under  

the old Rules.  In fact, in the instant case, the  

recommendation made by the APSC was submitted to  

the  Government  on  22nd June,  1986,  before  the  

amended Rules came into operation on 21st July, 1986  

whereby the quota system was discarded. In such a  

situation, in our view, the decision in K. Ramulu’s  

case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of this  

case.  

27. We are unable to agree with Mr. Hansaria that  

the High Court had committed an error in relying on  

the unamended Rules since the law has been well  

27

settled that the process of selection commenced on  

the  basis  of  the  Rules  then  in  existence  would  

continue  under  the  said  Rules,  even  though  the  

Rules  may  have  been  amended  in  the  meantime.  

Accordingly,  the  seniority  of  members  of  the  

service would, no doubt, be governed under Rule 19,  

but the selection process has to be completed under  

Rule 4 in order to attract the provisions of Rule  

19.  The vacancies for which the advertisement had  

been published in 1984 were directed to be filled  

up by the High Court on the basis of the unamended  

Rule 4 which provided for quota between promotees  

and direct recruits and, accordingly, placed 45 of  

the direct recruits immediately below the first 45  

promotees  out  of  the  list  of  129  promotees  in  

keeping with the said quota system for the year  

1986.

28. We agree with the view taken by the High Court  

which has been reiterated by Mr. Goswami in keeping  

28

with  the  well-established  principle  that  once  a  

process of selection is started on the basis of the  

existing Rules of recruitment, the said Rules will  

continue  to  govern  the  selection  process,  

notwithstanding any amendment which may have been  

effected to the said Rules in the meantime.   

29. The  decision  of  the  High  Court  does  not,  

therefore, warrant any interference and the Special  

Leave  Petition  is,  accordingly,  dismissed,  but,  

without any order as to costs.

________________J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

________________J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi, Dated: July 06, 2010.             

29

ITEM No.1-A        Court No.2         SECTION  II-A (for judgment)                  

S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    SLP(C) NO. 19188/2007   

MD. RAISUL ISLAM & ORS.                     PETITIONER (s)

                             VERSUS

GOKUL MOHAN HAZARIKA & ORS.                   Respondent (s)

Date : 06/07/2010  This  Petition was called on for  judgment today.        For Appellant (s)   Mr. Shankar Divate,Adv.

 For Respondent(s)   Mr. Rajiv Mehta,Adv.         For M/s Corporate Law Group,Advs.                  

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Altamas  Kabir  

pronounced  the   Judgment   of  the  Bench  

comprising His Lordship, and Hon'ble Mr.  

Justice Cyriac Joseph.

The  Special  Leave  Petition   is  

dismissed in terms of the signed judgment  

placed on the file.

            (Ganga Thakur)            (Juginder Kaur)             P.S. to Registrar              Court Master

 (Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file.)

30

31