Delhi High Court
Ashok Singh Bhadauria And Ors. vs The Union Of India And Ors. on 17 December, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 1694
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 17th December, 2020.
+ W.P.(C) 920/2020
ASHOK SINGH BHADAURIA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv. with Mr. D.K.
Thakur, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Mr.
Rituparn Uniyal, Mr. Sankalp Goswami
and Mr. Azhar Alam, Advs.
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Adv. for Railways.
Mr. Rajan Sabharwal with Mr. Raghav
Sabharwal, Advs.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 3683/2020 & CM No.13232/2020 (for interim relief)
RANVEER SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv. With Mr.
Abhishek Kumar and Mr. Azhar Alam,
Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Adv. for Railways. Mr.
Rajan Sabharwal and Mr. Raghav
Sabharwal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 1 of 15
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. On 18th November, 2020, after substantially hearing the counsel for the
petitioners, the following order was passed:-
"1. The two petitions, impugning reversion of the petitioners
from the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) to the post of Head
Constable, in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), are ripe for
final hearing.
2. The senior counsel for the petitioners has contended, (i) that
the petitioners, between 1980s and 1990s joined the Railway
Protection Special Force (RPSF) as Constables; (ii) that the
petitioners, between the years 2001-2002 were promoted as
Head Constables; (iii) that the petitioners, between the years
2006 to 2008 were transferred from RPSF to RPF North Central
Zone and as per the then Standing Order, were put at the bottom
of the seniority list of Head Constables; and, (iv) that the
petitioners, in the year 2016 were promoted as ASI.
3. The senior counsel for the petitioners states that in the year
2020, after the petitioners had served at the post of ASI for four
years, they were reverted to the post of Head Constables. It is
contended that the said action has been taken purportedly
pursuant to the order of a Division Bench of this Court in a
petition filed by certain Head Constables of the North Zone
challenging the seniority list and which petition was allowed. It
is informed that the different Zones of the Railways have different
and not common seniority lists and pursuant to the challenge to
the seniority list in one Zone, the seniority lists in other Zones
which have not been challenged, cannot be changed, after have
attained finality. It is contended that the petitioners, on being
transferred to the RPF were placed at the bottom of the seniority
list of Head Constables, and the seniority list could not have
been changed after 12 years, in 2020. It is further contended that
without any challenge to the seniority list being made, in any
case it could not have been altered.
W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 2 of 15
4. Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate for the respondents has
interrupted at this stage and has contended that we had in our
order dated 5th August, 2020, on being informed that 24 matters
entailing similar issues were spread over different High Courts,
suggested moving the Supreme Court for consolidation of the
matters before one High Court and in pursuance thereto, though
an application has been filed in the Supreme Court but has not
been listed till today. Adjournment is sought, to await the orders
of the Supreme Court in the application stated to have been so
moved.
5. The senior counsel for the petitioners opposes the adjournment
contending that while some High Courts have granted interim
stay of reversion, the petitioners herein stand reverted. It is even
otherwise stated that the case of the petitioners is distinct
inasmuch as in North Central Zone to which they belong, there
was no challenge to the seniority list and the outcome of a writ
petition in respect of another Zone cannot have application to a
seniority list which has gone unchallenged and attained finality.
6. We have enquired from Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate for
the respondents, whether there is a common seniority list or
separate seniority lists for each Zone.
7. Though earlier he stated that there are separate seniority lists
for each Zone but now states that he does not know. On enquiry,
whether there was any challenge to the seniority list in the North
Central Zone, again the answer is that he does not have
instructions.
8. Though we have asked Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate, also
appearing for the respondents but he also states that further
preparation is required.
9. This way the hearing cannot go on. It is deemed apposite that
the senior most personnel of the respondents Indian
Railways/RPF, who knows all the facts pertaining to these
petitions and who is able to answer all our questions,
participates in the next hearing, whether physically or virtually.
10. The senior counsel for the petitioners clarifies that the
challenge in the other petition pertaining to North Zone was not
W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 3 of 15
to the seniority list of Head Constables but Constables and that
the seniority list of Head Constables in North Central Zone was
brought out in 2010 and 2012.
11. List on 17th December, 2020."
2. Today, on enquiry, Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate for the respondents
informs that the Supreme Court, in the transfer petition has ordered that no
final orders in the petitions pending before the other High Courts, save this
Court, be passed. Thus the hearing in the petitions can continue.
3. Mr. Jagjit Singh, counsel for the respondents has today, responding to
our queries contained in the order dated 18th November, 2020 reproduced
above, has informed that (i) each zone of Railway Protection Force (RPF) has
a separate seniority list, till the post/rank below Inspector; however from the
post/rank of Inspector onwards, there is a All India seniority list; (ii) the
movement of personnel from RPF to Railway Protection Special Force (RSPF)
and vice versa was permitted under Standing Order No.70 dated 27th
September, 2004 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways
(Railway Board), on the request of the personnel; (iii) though the petitioners in
W.P.(C) 920/2020 have pleaded that their movement from RPSF to RPF was
not on own request but he is today carrying documents with him to show that
the movement/transfer of the petitioners in W.P.(C) 920/2020 also, from RPSF
to RPF, was on own request; (iv) para 17 of Standing Order No.70 inter alia
provides that RPSF personnel shall be eligible for transfer to RPF, after
completion of 20 years in RPSF and the guidelines to be followed in cases of
inter zonal transfer; (v) the transfer of the petitioners in both the petitions, from
RPSF to RPF, was also an inter zonal transfer; (vi) one of the guidelines laid
down in para 17 aforesaid of S.O. No.70 was/is that, personnel seeking such
W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 4 of 15
transfer "should be ready to go on bottom seniority in the same rank"; (vii)
however, the DIG/Administration, Railway Board, vide communication dated
09th August, 2006, amended para 17 of S.O. No.70 aforesaid to read that the
personnel seeking transfer from RPSF to RPF "should be ready to go on
bottom seniority of his batch mates in the same rank"; (viii) it was in
pursuance to the amendment aforesaid of para 17 of S.O. No.70, that the
petitioners in both the petitions, when sought transfer and were granted
transfer, not only from RPSF to RPF but also inter zonal, that their seniority
was fixed at the bottom of their batch mates in the rank of Head Constable in
RPF, instead of the petitioners being put at the bottom of the Head Constables
in RPF, of whichsoever batch; (ix) in pursuance to the fixation of the seniority
as aforesaid of the petitioners, in the year 2015, when the question of
promotions in RPF, from the rank of Head Constable to the rank of Assistant
Sub Inspector (ASI) arose, the petitioners were considered for promotion; (x)
122 Constables in Northern Zone of RPF filed W.P.(C) 11293/2016 titled
Gurpartap Singh vs. Union of India aggrieved from the seniority list of
Constables of RPF circulated vide letter dated 31st August, 2016, seeking
quashing thereof and seeking direction for re-fixation of seniority by placing
them above the private respondents therein, in the revised seniority list; the
private respondents therein had been transferred from another division of
RPSF to the Northern Division of RPF and on such transfer, in accordance
with amended para 17 of S.O No.70 had been placed in the seniority list of
Constables in RPF, immediately below the Constables in RPF of their batch
but above the 122 Constables who had filed the petition and who were from a
lower batch; (xi) the Division Bench of this court, vide judgment dated 31st
January, 2019 held:
W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 5 of 15
(a) that Rule 99 of the RPF Rules, 1987, deals with determination of
seniority on inter zonal transfer;
(b) Rule 99.2 provides that "seniority of an enrolled member of the
force transferred on his own request or on mutual exchange from one
zonal railway to another or the Railway Protection Special Force, and
vise versa shall be fixed below that of all the existing confirmed and
officiating enrolled members of the force in the relevant rank of that
Railway or RPSF irrespective of the date of confirmation or length of
the officiating service of the transferred members of the force";
(c) therefore, where a member of another force or even RPSF is
transferred to the RPF on his own request, his seniority will be fixed
below all members working on that date, irrespective of the date of
initial appointment/confirmation or length of service;
(d) where there is a statutory Rule in place, there cannot be any
administrative instruction to the contrary;
(e) though para 17 of S.O. No. 70 was in consonance with Rule 99.2 of
RPF Rules but the amendment vide letter dated 9th August, 2006 of
para 17 of S.O No.70 was inconsistent with Rule 99.2 of the RPF
Rules which will prevail;
(xii) consequently, the seniority list impugned in Gurpartap Singh was
quashed and the respondents Railways directed to fix the seniority in
accordance with Rule 99.2 of the RPF Rules as explained in the judgment;
(xiii) it was in pursuance to the aforesaid judgment that the seniority list of the
year 2015 and in pursuance to which the petitioners were promoted from the
rank of Head Constable to the rank of ASI, was reworked and as per the
W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 6 of 15
reworked seniority list of 2019, the petitioners did not have the seniority for
promotion from the rank of Head Constable to the rank of ASI; and, (xiv) the
respondents Railways have thus, only complied with the judgment of this court
in Gurpartap Singh and which judgment has attained finality.
4. Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate also appearing for the respondents has
added that once the amendment vide letter dated 9th August, 2006 of para 17 of
the S.O No.70 goes, the effect thereto has to be given and the result of which
effect is the action impugned in these petitions.
5. Per contra, the senior counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention to
the factual controversy in Gurpartap Singh. It is shown, (i) that the challenge
therein was by Constables in the Northern Zone of RPF and to the seniority list
dated 31st August, 2016, of constables in the Northern Zone of RPF and to
which seniority list they had immediately objected; (ii) that Rule 102 of the
RPF Rules, 1987 provides for representation against seniority to be made
within a period of one year from the date of publication of the seniority list;
(iii) while the petitioners in Gurpartap Singh had immediately, within the said
time of one year, represented against the seniority list, none of the Head
Constables in North Central Zone of RPF, to which the petitioners belong,
objected to the seniority list of Head Constables of North Central Zone of RPF
of the year 2015; (iv) what was quashed in Gurpartap Singh was seniority list
of 2016, of Constables in Northern Zone of RPF; (v) Rule 45.1A of the RPF
Rules provides for the qualifications, method of recruitment, inter alia for the
post of ASI, as that contained in Schedule 6 to the Rules; (vi) Rule 69.1 of the
RPF Rules provides that promotion up to the rank of Commandant shall be on
the basis of "merit having due regard to seniority"; (vii) thus, the promotion of
W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 7 of 15
the petitioners in both the petitions, from the rank of HCs to the rank of ASI,
was not merely on seniority but on merit having due regard to seniority; (viii)
attention is invited to Rule 71.1, 71.3 as well as Schedule 6 to the RPF Rules,
to contend that test of merit for promotion to the rank of ASI, from HC
comprised of written and practical examinations; the petitioners duly
participated in the competitive process, for being selected; (ix) attention is also
drawn to the fact that the eligibility criterion for the promotion to the rank of
ASI, was obtaining 60% in the written examination; (x) in terms of Rule 57 of
RPF Rules, the petitioners were on probation for 2 years in the rank of ASI,
from the year 2016 to the year 2018 and continued to serve as ASI for another
two years, till the year 2020, when they were reverted; (xi) that the seniority
list of the year 2015 of Head Constables in North Central Zone of RPF, in
pursuance to which the petitioners were promoted, was in fact reiteration of the
seniority list of the year 2011-12; (xii) that none in the North Central Zone, to
which the petitioners belong, challenged the seniority list of HCs of the year
2011-12 or of the year 2015 in North Central Zone of RPF and in pursuance
whereto the petitioners were allowed to participate in the competition/merit
test for promotion to ASI; (xiii) thus the seniority of the petitioners as it stood
in the year 2011-12, had remained unchallenged for 10 years, when the
petitioners were reverted in the year 2020; and, (xiv) even today, there is no
challenge by anyone to the seniority list in pursuance to which the petitioners
were promoted.
6. The senior counsel for the petitioners refers to (a) Shiba Shankar
Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa 2010 (12) SCC 471 to contend that belated
challenges to seniority cannot be and should not been entertained; and, (b)
W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 8 of 15
H.S. Vankani vs. State of Gujarat 2010 (4) SCC 301 to contend that, seniority
was held to be a civil right which should not be unsettled.
7. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P.(C)
920/2020 indicates that the respondents corrected the seniority list of Head
Constables in North Central Zone of RPF, of the year 2015, in the year 2019-
20, in pursuance to the order in Gurpartap Singh (supra). Mr. Jagjit Singh,
counsel for the Railways, in rejoinder has drawn attention to letter dated 18th
April, 2019 of the Railway Board, directing all zones to apply the judgment in
Gurpartap Singh. It is argued that the seniority list was corrected and
consequently, the petitioners were reverted in pursuance to the directive
contained in the said letter dated 18th April, 2019 of the Railway Board. He
has further drawn our attention to prayer paragraph in W.P.(C) 920/2020 to
contend that the challenge therein is only to the corrected seniority list dated
09th January, 2020 drawn up by the Railways but which seniority list is in
terms of the judgment in Gurpartap Singh. It is further argued that the
petitioners in W.P.(C) 920/2020 have not challenged the order of their
reversion. Though the counsel for the respondents has also drawn attention to
Annexure P-3 in W.P.(C) 3683/2020, to contend that there was no merit test in
the promotion of the petitioners to the rank/post of ASI, but we are afraid, the
said document does not bear out the said contention. Lastly, Mr. Jagjit Singh,
counsel for the respondents has argued that there was no seniority list of the
year 2011-12 and the petitioners also have nowhere pleaded or placed on
record the seniority list, if any, of the year 2011-12 and there is no basis for
arguing that the seniority of the petitioners as reflected in the seniority list of
the year 2015 was a reiteration of the seniority list on 2011-12. Mr. Jagjit
Singh has also argued that even if there was no challenge to the seniority list of
W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 9 of 15
Head Constables of RPF in the North Central Zone to which the petitioners
belong, still, since there was an administrative error in issuance of the letter
dated 9th August, 2006 amending para 17 of S.O No.70, the respondents were
entitled to on their own correct the said error. Mr. Jagjit Singh has also argued
that the petitioners have also filed objections against the corrected seniority list
dated 9th January, 2020 and which objections are still pending and the petitions
are thus pre mature. It is also contended that if the petitioners are ordered to
continue as Assistant Sub Inspectors, they, at the rank of Inspector, would have
achieved the said rank earlier to that achieved by others in other zones.
8. We have considered the rival contentions.
9. It is evident from the counter affidavits and the argument of the counsels
for the respondents, that the actions of the respondents impugned in these
petitions are justified by the respondents, only on the basis of Gurpartap
Singh (supra). The respondents appear to have construed the said judgment as
mandating the respondents to rectify all past acts, done on the premise of
amendment of para 17 of S.O. No. 70 vide letter dated 9th August, 2006, and
which amendment, in Gurpartap Singh was held to be contrary to statutory
Rule 99.2 of the RPF Rules. It is the correctness of this stand of the
respondents, which is to be adjudicated.
10. A perusal of the judgment in Gurpartap Singh does not reveal that the
said petition was filed, seeking the relief of striking down of amendment of
para 17 of S.O. No.70 vide letter dated 9th August, 2006 and seeking quashing
of the seniority list of the year 2016 of Constables in the RPF as a consequence
thereof. From a reading of the judgment, it transpires that the petition was
filed impugning the seniority list only and the amendment of para 17 of S.O.
No.70 came to be considered owing to the same having been cited by the
W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 10 of 15
respondents in defence of or to justify the correctness of the seniority list and
on which consideration, it was held to be bad. However the relief granted by
the Court was only of striking down the seniority list under challenge before it
and no relief quashing the letter dated 9th August 2006 which amended para 17
aforesaid, was granted. Not only so, in that writ petition only the Constables
of RPF likely to be affected by the challenge therein were impleaded as
respondents and there is nothing to show that any other person, lest the
petitioners herein, had any notice of the legality and validity of the letter dated
9th August, 2006 being under challenge in that petition. All these factors show,
the judgment in Gurpartap Singh to be, a judgment in personam and not a
judgment in rem. Thus the respondents, on the basis thereof, could not have
reworked the seniority list of Head Constables in RPF, which had not been
challenged by anyone and which had attained finality and had also been acted
upon. Only if a challenge to the seniority list of the year 2015 of Head
Constables in RPF had been made, would the ratio of Gurpartap Singh have
been for consideration and in which case the petitioners, likely to be affected
therefrom, would have been heard thereon and would have had an opportunity
to address on the correctness of Gurpartap Singh. Not only was no challenge
to the seniority list of the year 2015 of Head Constables of RPF made by
anyone aggrieved therefrom but even the respondents did not give any notice
to the petitioners, of their intent to rework the said seniority list and of
reversion of the petitioners from the post of ASI to the post of Head Constable.
We do not agree with the contention of the counsels for the respondents, that
the respondents, notwithstanding there being no challenge to the seniority list,
were entitled to, on their own, on detecting a mistake/error therein, rectify the
same, affecting the seniority of some, without giving them any notice thereof.
W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 11 of 15
The spirit of Rule 102 of the RPF Rules providing for a period of one year only
from the date of publication of the seniority list, for representing there against,
equally applies to the respondents also. The judgments in Shiba Shankar
Mohapatra and H.S. Vankani cited by the senior counsel for the petitioners,
laying down that a seniority which has settled, with the passage of time and
which is a important civil right, should not be unsettled after long, are apposite
in this regard.
11. It is also significant that this Court, in Gurpartap Singh did not issue
any general direction to the respondents, to undo all that had been done
pursuant to amendment of para 17 of S.O. No.70 vide letter dated 9th August,
2006. The respondents thus are not right in construing Gurpartap Singh as
directing them to do what has been impugned in these petitions. Though we
have recently in Chaman Giri vs Union of India MANU/DE/2231/2020 held
that the Court cannot grant a relief contrary to what has been directed in
another judgment but the present case does not fall in that genre. There is
nothing in Gurpartap Singh (supra) which prevents us from granting the relief
to the petitioners.
12. In fact we have enquired from the counsels, that even if the letter dated
9th August, 2006, in accordance wherewith the seniority of the petitioners was
fixed and in pursuance whereof they were promoted as ASIs, were held to have
been struck down, what would the effect thereof be, on the actions done in the
past in accordance therewith.
13. Though neither counsel has submitted on this aspect but we find
Supreme Court in Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. vs Union of India
(2010) 5 SCC 388 to have held that, (a) when judicial discretion has been
exercised to establish a new norm, the question emerges, whether it would be
W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 12 of 15
applied retrospectively to the past transactions or prospectively to the
transactions in future only; (b) it is for the Court to decide, on a balance of all
relevant considerations, whether a decision which unsettles the previous
position of law, should be applied retrospectively or not; (c) the court would
look into the justifiable reliance on the previous position by the administration,
ability to effectuate the new rule adopted in the overruling case without doing
injustice, whether its operation is likely to burden the administration of justice
substantially or would retard the purpose; (d) all these factors are to be taken
into account while determining whether a judgment is prospective or
otherwise; (e) the Court would adopt either the retroactive or non-retroactive
effect of a decision, after evaluating the merits and demerits of a particular
case by looking to the prior history of the Rule in question, its purpose and
effect and whether retroactive operation will accelerate or retard the object of
the judgment; (f) the purpose of the old Rule, the mischief sought to be
prevented by the judgment and the public interest are equally germane and
should be taken into account in deciding whether the judgment has prospective
or retrospective operation; and, (g) the Courts do make the law to prevent
administrative chaos and to meet ends of justice. Similarly, in O.P. Garg vs.
State of U.P. 1991 Suppl. (2) SCC 51, it was held that the proviso, in that case
to Rule 8 (ii) of the Uttar Pradesh High Judicial Service (Amendment) Rules,
1975, though retrospective, could not have taken away the vested rights of the
officers who had already become members of the service. Again, in B.K.
Khanna vs. State of U.P. 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 571, the Court held that what
was validly done under a Rule which was subsequently struck down, cannot be
undone.
W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 13 of 15
14. We also find a Nine Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, in S.R
Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1, while considering the nature and
effect of action taken by the President pursuant to the proclamation under
Article 356 of the Constitution of India, which is not approved by either or
both Houses of Parliament, to have held, that though the actions taken would
be illegal but the Court should suitably mould the relief. Reference was made
to Mia Mohd. Nawaz Sharif vs. President of Pakistan PLD (1993) SC 473,
where the orders passed, acts done and measures taken in the interregnum
between the date of order of dissolution of National Assembly and dismissal of
Federal Cabinet and the date when the said order was declared without
authority and the National Assembly and the Federal Cabinet restored, were
ordered to be given effect to and deemed to have been validly and legally done.
15. Applying the aforesaid principles and tests, we are of the view that all
seniorities fixed in accordance with para 17 of S.O No.70 as amended vide
letter dated 9th August, 2006 and which had attained finality and remained
unchallenged and in accordance with which seniority lists promotions etc. had
been granted, if disturbed as a consequence of Gurpartap Singh, would result
in administrative chaos and is not in public interest. We are also of the view
that just like the amendment vide letter dated 9th August, 2006 of para 17 of
S.O. No.70 has been held to be bad, being contrary to Rule 99.2 of the RPF
Rules, so can Rule 102 supra not be ignored. The two have to be applied
harmoniously, not making either otiose or redundant and doing so, the
seniority lists though fixed in accordance with amended para 17 supra which
has been held to be bad, cannot be disturbed without any challenge thereto
being made in accordance with Rule 102.
W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 14 of 15
16. No merit is also found in the contention of the respondents, of the
petitioners having not challenged the order of their reversion. Once the Court
finds that a wrong has been done to the petitioners, it is the duty of the Court to
correct the said wrong and all consequences thereof. Also, once we have
decided as hereinabove, the question of relegating the decision on the
objections filed by the petitioners to the seniority list dated 9th January, 2020 to
the respondents, does not arise.
17. The petitions thus succeed and are allowed. The seniority list dated 9th
January, 2020, in so far as affects the petitioners, is set aside and quashed and
the seniority of the petitioners as in the seniority list of 2015 is restored and the
order/action of reversion of the petitioners from the post/rank of Assistant Sub
Inspector to the rank of Head Constable is also set aside and the respondents
are directed to forthwith restore the petitioners to the rank of Assistant Sub
Inspector, with all benefits, with effect from the date the petitioners were
reverted till the date the petitioners, in compliance with this order, are restored
the rank of ASI, with arrears, if any, being paid within four weeks and
thereafter with interest @ 8% per annum and the petitioners, for all purposes,
be deemed to have been Assistant Sub Inspectors, from the date of promotion
in the year 2017 onwards.
18. The petitions are disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J. DECEMBER 17, 2020 SU W.P.(C) 920/2020 & W.P.(C) 3683/2020 Page 15 of 15