Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
( Delivered by Hon'ble Shashi Kant, J)
1. All these three Special Appeals relating to promotional recruitment on the post of Sub- Inspectors, involve common issues to be decided. Therefore on the request of the learned counsel for the parties all the appeals are being heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Brief facts related to these appeals are that:-
2.1 Petitioners-appellants Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh, Constable 1082 Civil Police, Satendra Kumar, Constable 1048 Civil Police, Sanjeev Kumar, Constable 343, Civil Police, Omveer Singh Nagar, Constable 204 Civil Police Dayachand and Head Constable 106 Civil Police Mahesh Kumar of Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011 were working as constables/ Head constable in Civil Police, Uttar Pradesh.
2.2 The petitioner-appellant in Special Appeal No.829 of 2012 Rajveer Singh Yadav was appointed as Constable in Civil Police on 01.09.1988. In the year 2004, he was granted promotion as Head Constable.
2.3 In the year 2011, a circular letter was issued by U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') notifying selection under 50% quota for filling up posts of Sub Inspector by promotion amongst Constables and Head Constables.
2.4 Being eligible, the petitioners-appellants applied and appeared in the written examination held for above selection.
2.5 On 20.5.2011, result of the aforesaid written examination was published, in which, petitioners-sappellants, were declared as fail in Paper No.1 pertaining to Hindi Essay.
2.6 Aggrieved whereof, Petitioner- appellants Omveer Singh and others filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.41319 of 2011, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26.7.2011 subject to challenge in Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011.
2.7 Petitioner-appellant Rajveer Singh Yadav filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011 (Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was allowed vide judgment impugned dated 17.2.2012, with direction to evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner-appellant afresh.
2.8 Special Appeal No.839 of 2012 has been filed by petitioner-appellant, Rajveer Singh Yadav against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011 (Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others).
2.9 Another Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38676 of 2011, Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was also allowed vide judgment and order dated 17.2.2012 along with aforesaid Civil Misc Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011 with direction referred above.
2.10 Petitioner Suresh Chandra has not challenged the judgment impugned by filing of appeal, rather he has filed intervening application which will be dealt hereinafter at appropriate place.
2.11. Respondents-appellants State of U.P. and others have also filed Special Appeal No.1220 of 2012 against the order impugned dated 17.02.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants in Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011 (Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others has contended that the procedure adopted for checking of answer copies and declaration of result is contrary to the Recruitment Rules and totally unjustified inasmuch as :-
3.1 The facts brought on record clearly demonstrate that an innovative method of evaluation of answer sheets pertaining to Hindi Essay paper has been adopted by the respondents by subjecting the answer-sheets to evaluation on two occasions i.e. by two examiners one by one.
3.2. A large number of candidates who have passed on the basis of the marks awarded in the first evaluation, have been shown failed in the aforesaid paper after taking the average marks of the same after second evaluation for which there is no justification at all.
3.3 It were never informed to the candidates appearing in the written examination that their answer sheets would be subjected to evaluation twice and thereafter, the result would be declared on the basis of average of the marks obtained by them in the two evaluations.
3.4 Even otherwise, the petitioners-appellants have performed extremely well and there exist no occasion for the petitioners/ appellants to be declared as having failed in Hindi Essay paper.
3.5 As against 5389 vacancies of Sub Inspectors, which were required to be filled-up only 3891 candidates have been shown as having qualified in the written examination and there was no qualified candidte available for remaining 1498 posts.
3.6 In the facts and circumstances, in respect of marks obtained by petitioner-appellants on the answer copies in the first evaluation, the second evaluation and on the basis of their average marks obtained by them ought to have been summoned by the Court including the records but learned Single Judge did not apply his judicial mind and wrongly declined to do so by passing the impugned judgment and order.
3.7 In any view of the matter, there is no justificatin for dismissal of some writ petitions on identical issues while entertaining and allowing some other writ petitions involving the same controversy.
4. On behalf of petitioner-appellant, Rajveer Singh Yadav in Special Appeal No.839 of 2012, he contended that :-
4.1 It transpires from the perusal of answer-sheet of the petitioner-appellant that it has been subjected to evaluation on two separate occasions and average marks computed on the basis of the marks awarded in the said two evaluations has been awarded to the petitioner-appellant as marks secured by him and accordingly he was declared fail in the said paper.
4.2 After first evaluation, the petitioner-appellant was awarded 53 marks on the basis of which the petitioner-appellant was entitled to have been declared as having passed in the said paper.
4.3 The entire selection is goverened by Statutory Rules which contain no provision for a second evaluation nor they contain the provision for average of the marks secured in two evaluations to be worked out and to be treated as the marks ultimately awarded to a candidate. The action of the respondents in subjecting the answer sheet of Hindi Essay Paper of petitioner-appellant to a second evaluation was wholly unjustified.
4.4. The action of the respondents to have treated the petitioner-appellant as having failed on the basis of average marks awarded to him as result of two evaluations, was wholly unjustified.
4.5. In fact, the petitioner-appellant is a duly qualified candidate, entitled to be declared successful for promotion as Sub- Inspector.
5.1 The judgment impugned passed in Writ 'A' No.41319 of 2011 ( Constable Civil Police Om Veer Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. And others ) is perfectly justified as the same has been passed relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others, reported in 2004 SCC 883.
5.2 As far as the judgment impugned passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others is concerned, it is wrong and illegal because the said writ petition was filed challenging the result of the written examination declared by the respondent authority pertaining to Hindi Essay paper held on 13.3.2012 with regard to the petitioner-appellant.
5.3 Contrary to the above referred case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) and in the facts and circumstances of the case and material available before the Court, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to allow the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011 along with another Writ Petition No.38576 of 2011, Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others with direction to fresh evaluation of the answer sheets of abovepetitioners-appellants.
5.4 As such the impugned judgment allowing the writ petitions, is wrong and illegal and is liable to be quashed on the basis of grounds of challenge in Special Appeal No.1220 of 2012.
6. To appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties properly, it will be proper to take into consideration, the relevant portion of the judgment impugned passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, which reads as under:
"When the matter has been taken up answer sheets of both the petitioners have been produced before this Court and Controller of Examination based at U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, is also present in person to explain as to under what circumstances such a contingency has occurred. Both the answer sheet in question clearly reflects that they have not at all been examined by the examiner concerned as no marks etc reflecting evaluation exercise having been undertaken is reflected however on the cover page of the said answer sheet computerized document is there wherein details have been given of first evaluation and then details has been given of second evaluation alongwith signature of examiner and most surprisingly as far as petitioner of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38576 of 2011, Suresh Chandra in first evaluation he has been shown to have received 53 marks and in second evaluation he has been shown to have received 45 marks, similarly, Rajveer Singh Yadav, petitioner of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38563 of 2011, in first evaluation he has been shown to have received 53 marks and in second evaluation, he has been shown to have received 46 marks.
Answer sheet of both the petitioners so produced before this Court is pertaining to Hindi Essay and most surprising feature of both the answer sheets are that though marks have been awarded in lieu of purported evaluation showing marks being awarded to petitioners in first evaluation being 53 marks and in second evaluation same has been reduced to 45 marks and 46 marks respectively. Answer sheet in question has not at all been checked as not even a single mark is there which would reflect that at any point of time same have been objectively checked by the examiner concerned and examiner has proceeded to award marks looking into the performance as put in by the petitioners.
Confronted with this situation Examination Controller, who is present in person contended that specific instructions have been issued to the examiner not to make any mark on the answer sheet while checking the answer sheets and examiner was only required to fill up front page and in view of this it has been stated that transparency has been maintained in evaluation.
Evaluation process which has been so adopted is not at all been approved of as answer sheets in question bears no mark whatsoever which would reflect that mind has been applied by the examiner while evaluating the said answer sheet as each and every answer sheet has been left blank without any sign of any evaluation exercise having been carried out except that on the cover page of answer sheet marks has been awarded and that too on two occasions. Evaluation is an act or process to ascertain the quality of performance put in by the candidate who has undertaken the examination. Such type of evaluation of examining body cannot be approved of as under the Right to Information Act, 2005 any incumbent can get answer sheet in question to satisfy himself/herself as to whether it has been properly evaluated or not.
Here in the present case answer sheets have been left blank and it has not at all been shown and demonstrated before this Court as to in what way and manner said answer sheets in question have been evaluated and on cover page on first evaluation 53 marks have been awarded to both the petitioners and on second evaluation same have been reduced to 46 and 45 marks respectively. Except for awarding marks, no other record of evaluation has been maintained. The examiner has purportedly evaluated the answer sheet on first occasion and on second occasion marks have been reduced. Once answer sheet would have been examined, then this Court could also examine the action of examiner in reducing the marks and specially when in the Rules there is no provision for re-evaluation. Evaluation exercise in effect are reasons given by examiner for awarding such marks. Exercise undertaken is not at all subscribed by rules. In the facts of the case as purported evaluation of answer sheet is not at all being approved of and it does not indicate any application of mind vis-a-vis marks given, in view of this Examination Controller based at U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow is directed to get aforesaid answer sheets evaluated and thereafter on the basis of marks obtained by both the petitioner result be declared within next two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order passed by this Court. Answer sheets in question which have been produced before this Court are being returned back in sealed cover to the learned Standing counsel to be given to Examination Controller based at U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, for evaluating the same as per direction given by this Court.
With the above direction and observation both the writ petition are allowed."
7. The relevant portion of judgment impugned passed in Writ 'A' No.41319 of 2011, Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, which reads as under:
"The submission of the petitioners is based on the presumption and has no foundation.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others, reported in 2004 SCC 883 has held that in the absence of any provision thereof in the relevant Rules of Public Service Commission which conducted the examination held, examinees have no right to claim or demand revaluation.
I have perused the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to show any provision under the Rules of the Public Service Commission, who conducted the examination.
In the absence of Rules and in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed."
8. The fact of evaluation of answer sheet of Hindi Essay Paper two times is also admitted by the respondents, as is evident from Para No.15 of the counter affidavit filed by Shri Habibul Hasan, Deputy S.P., U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011, Rajveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. And others which reads as under:-
"15- cksMZ }kjk fgUnh fucU/k dh mRrj iqfLrdk dh izfdz;k fu"i{k] ikjn'khZ j[kus ,oa bldk oLrqijd ewY;kadu lqfuf'pr djus gsrq ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dh fucU/k dh mRrj iqfLrdkvksa dk nks ijh{kdksa ls i`Fkd&i`Fkd ewY;kadu djk;k x;k rFkk nksuksa ijh{kdksa }kjk fd, x, ewY;kadu ds vkSlr ds vk/kkj ij ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks vad iznku fd, x,A fgUnh fucU/k dh mRrj iqfLrdk ds ewY;kadu ds fy, fuEufyf[kr O;oLFkk dh x;h %& d& fgUnh fucU/k dh mRrj iqfLrdk ds vkoj.k i= ds rhu Hkkx fd, x] ftUgsa vyx fd;k tk ldrk gSA [k& fgUnh fucU/k dh mRrj iqfLrdk ds vkoj.k i= ds izFke Hkkx esa vU;FkhZ dk vuqdzekad] mldk uke] mRrj iqfLrdk la[;k] ijh{kk dksM] dsUnz dksM] ijh{kkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj] d{k fujh{kd ds gLrk{kj o ijh{kkFkhZ ds fy, vuqns'k vafdr FksaA mRrj iqfLrdk ds izkIr gksus ij blds izFke Hkkx dks LdSu djds ml ij dEI;wVj }kjk dksM uEcj vafdr fd;k x;k] blds i'pkr~ bl Hkkx dks mRrj iqfLrdk ls vyx dj fy;k x;kA x& fgUnh fucU/k iqfLrdk ds izFke ewY;kadu gsrq blds vkoj.k i= ij izFke ewY;kad ds Hkkx ij iwoZ esa fn, x, dksM ls fHkUu dksM uEcj dEI;wVj }kjk vafdr fd;k x;k vkSj bls izFke ijh{kd dks ewY;kadu gsrq Hkst fn;k x;kA izFke ewY;kad ds i'pkr~ bl Hkkx dks LdSu djds mRrj iqfLrdk ls vyx dj fy;k x;kA ?k& rRi'pkr mRrj iqfLrdk ds iquewZY;kadu lEcU/kh Hkkx dks Ldsu djds bl ij ,d fHkUu dksM uEcj }kjk vafdr fd;k x;k vkSj mRrj iqfLrdk dsk iquewZY;kadu gsrq f}rh; ijh{kd dks Hkstk x;kA f}rh; ijh{kd ds }kjk fd, x, iquewZY;kadu lEcU/kh Hkkx dks LdSu fd;k x;kA M& og~; ,tsUlh }kjk dII;wVj esa mRrj iqfLrdk ds rhuksa Hkkxksa dh LdS.M best ds vk/kkj ij vH;kFkhZ ds izFke ,os f}rh; ewY;kadu esa izkIr vadks dk vkSlr fudkydj mlds }kjk izkIr vadks dk fooj.k rS;kj fd;k x;kA jSadj mi fujh{kd ukxfjd iqfyl ds in ij inksUufr gsrq p;u dh izfdz;k ds fyf[kr ijh{kk] 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk] lsok vfHkys[k ,oa lewg ifjlaokn ds pkj pj.kksa esa ls dsoy ,d pj.k iw.kZ gqvk gSA vr% fyf[kr ijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij vgZ ik, x, vH;fFkZ;ksa ds izkIr vadks dk fooj.k bl Lrj ij iznf'kZr ugh fd;k x;k gSA^^"""
9. In para no.16 of aforsaid counter affidavit, number of vacancies available has been clarified which reads as follows:-
"16& ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj&36 esa ;kph }kjk ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd 5389 fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) dsoy 3891 vH;FkhZ lQy fd, tkus vkSj 1498 fjfDr;ka miyC/k gksus ds n`f"Vxr fjfDr;ksa dh dksbZ deh ugh gSA ;g vfHkys[kksa ij vk/kkfjr gksus ds dkj.k fdlh mRrj dh vko';drk ugh gSA**
10. In the judgment and order dated 17.02.2012 impugned in Special Appeal No.839 of 2012, the learned Single Judge has observed and recorded finding to the effect that Petitioner-Appellant Rajveer Singh and petitioner non-appellant/intervenor Suresh Chandra have secured 53 marks in first evaluation while in the second evaluation Rajveer Singh Yadav has got 46 marks and Suresh Chandra have got 45 marks.
11. Relevant part of judgment and order impugned reads as under:
"... Answer sheet in question has not at all been checked as not even a single mark is there which would reflect that at any point of time same have been objectively checked by the examiner concerned and examiner has proceeded to award marks looking into the performance as put in by the petitioners.
Confronted with this Examination Controller who is present in person contended that specific instructions have been issued to the examiner and examiner was only required to fill up front page and in view of this it has been stated that transparency has been maintained in evaluation.
Evaluation process which has been so adopted is not at all been approved of as answer sheets in question bears no mark whatsoever which would reflect that mind has been applied by the examiner while evaluating the said answer sheets as each and every answer sheet has been left blank without any sign of any evaluation exercise having been carried out except that on the cover page of answer sheet marks has been awarded and that too on two occasions. Evaluation is an act or process to ascertain the quality of performance put in by the candidate who has undertaken the examination. Such type of evaluation of examining body cannot be approved of as under the Right to Information Act, 2005 any incumbent can get answer sheet in question to satisfy himself/herself as to whether it has been properly evaluation or not.
Here in the present case answer sheets have been left blank and and it has not at all been shown and demonstrated before this Court as to in what way and manner said answer sheets in question have been evaluated and on cover paper on first evaluation 53 marks have been awarded to both the petitioners and on second evaluaton same have been reduced to 46 and 45 marks respectively. Except for awarding marks, no other record of evaluation has been maintained. The examiner has purportedly evaluated the answer sheet on first occasion and on second occasion marks have been reduced. Once answer sheet would have been examined, then this Court could also examine the action of examiner in reducing the marks and specially when in the Rules there is no provision for re-evaluation. Evaluation exercise in effect are reasons given by examiner for awarding such marks. Exercise undertaken is not at all subscribed by rules."
12. In the facts of the case as purported evaluation of answer sheet is not at all being approved of and it does not indicate any application of mind vis-a-vis marks given and on the basis of above, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition Nos. 38563 of 2011 and 38676 of 2011 with direction to afresh evaluation of the answer-sheets of petitioner-appellant Rajveer Singh Yadav and petitioner- non appellant Suresh Chandra.
13. Though learned standing counsel has tried his best to counter the observation and findings recorded by learned Single Judge as referred in detail in predecesing paragraph, despite repeated querries by the Court about second evaluation of answer sheets, learned Standing Counsel could not show for specific provision which was authorising the Board for second evaluation of answer sheet and award marks to appellants on the basis of average marks of two evaluated these answer sheets of Hindi Essay Paper except to submissions made on the basis of above referred paragraph No.15 of the counter affidavit filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011 by Shri Habibul Hasan, Deputy S.P., U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow.
14. In these circumstances, we find no occassion to take a different view as observed in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge except of modification in direction regarding reevaluation of answer sheets afresh.
15. It is clear from the averments of paragraph nos. 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit of Shri Habibul Hasan, Deputy S.P., that answer-sheets of Hindi Essay Paper of the candidates have been subjected to evaluation twice and the candidates were finally awarded marks in Hindi paper on the basis of average of the marks of the two evaluations. The writ court has allowed the Writ Petition Nos.38563 of 2011, Rajveer Singh Yadav and Writ Petition No.38576 of 2011, Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. with direction to evaluate of answer sheets of Hindi Essay Paper of above petitioners afresh.
16. In view of observations and finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in respect of various discrepancies in evaluation of the answer sheet of Hindi Essay Paper and impermissibility of evaluation process of answer-sheet by the Board, and due to non-satisfactory answer for second the evaluation of answer-sheets and any specific provision or authority for permission of second evaluation of answer sheets. We are of considered view that manner of the second evaluation of answer sheets of Hindi Essay Paper adopted by the respondents is arbitrary, violatiave of concerned recrruitment rules, unauthorised and illegal.
17. For all the reasons stated above, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned passed in Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011 challenged in Special Appeal No.839 of 2012, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others as far those are concerned with the irregularities committed by the respondent in Hindi evaluation of answer-sheets of Hindi Essay Paper and especially second evaluation of those but we find no justification to allow the writ petition with direction to afresh evaluation of answer sheet of petitioner-appellant of above writ petition, we observe that direction for afresh evaluation of the answer sheet of petitioners-appellants of above writ petitions de-horse any rules, provision, norms or guidlines defeat the purpose of examination. Rather it would create a bad precedent and give rise to a new controvercy and confusion.
18. There is admittedly no dispute before us that examinationers, who have evaluated the answer sheets of Hindi Essay Paper in first evaluation were fully competent and independent they have performed their task without fear or favour to any one. Therefore, no second evaluation of answer sheets was required. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that direction contained in judgment impugned passed in Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. And others and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38576 of 2011, Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others requires modification to the extent that the candidates, who have obtained passing marks in first evaluation only be declared successful on the basis of the first evaluation of the answer sheets itself.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that Special Appeal No.839 of 2012, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others deserves to be allowed.
20. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant Rajveer Singh Yadav is to be allowed, there is no occasion for us to dismis the Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011 filed by petitioner-appellants Omveer Singh and others only on the ground that Writ Court has declined to summon their answer sheets vide judgment and order impugned in the Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011, as all the petitioners-appellants are to be tested on the same footing, as petitioner-appellant Rajveer Singh Yadav in the Special Appeal No.839 of 2012, therefore, Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011 also deserves to be allowed.
21. As all the petitioners-appellants are getting benefit of declaration of result of their Hindi Essay Papers on the basis of Ist evaluation, therefore, it wil not be proper to deny the same benefits to the petitioner-non-appellant/ intervenor Suresh Chandra in view of the above, he is also found to be entitled for getting same. Reliefs as has/may be granted to other petitioners/appellants as such intervening application No. 349695 of 2012 also deserves to be allowed.
22. In view of our findings recorded in preceding paras, we find no merit in the Special Appeal No.1220 of 2012 and it is liable to be dismissed.
23. For all the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following orders:-
i. Special Appeal No.839 of 2012 is allowed. Respondents are directed to declare the petitioner-appellant Rajveer Singh Yadav, successful in Hindi Essay Paper on the basis of having secured more than 50%, i.e., 53 marks in the first evaluation of his answer sheet.
ii. Intervening Application No.349695 of 2012 filed in Special Appeal No.1220 of 2012- State of U.P. Vs. Rajveer Singh Yadav, is allowed. Respondents are directed to declare petitioner-non appellant/intervenor Suresh Chandra successful in Hindi Essay Paper on the basis of having secured more than 50%, i.e., 53 marks in the first evaluation of his answer sheet.
iii. Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011 is also allowed. Respondents are directed to declare the result of petitioners-appellants Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh, Constable 1082 Civil Police, Satendra Kumar, Constable 1048 Civil Police, Sanjeev Kumar, Constable 343, Civil Police, Omveer Singh Nagar, Constable 204 Civil Police Dayachand and Head Constable 106 Civil Police Mahesh Kumar on the basis of marks obtained by respective appellants in the first evaluation of their answer sheets.
iv. Accordingly, all the petitioner-appellants who obtained 50% or more marks in the Hindi Essay Paper in the first evaluation of answer-sheet shall be treated as successful in Hindi Essay Paper. The respondents will as a consequqnce declare result of all above petitioners- appellants and petitioner- non appellant/intervenor Suresh Chandra, within two months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.
v. Special Appeal No.1220 of 2012 filed by the State- appellant is dismissed with costs.
Order Date :- 18.01.2016 SFH