Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satpal Singh vs M/O Urban Development on 19 August, 2017
1 OA No.30/2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.30/2013
Order reserved on :17.08.2017
Order pronounced on :19.08.2017
Hon'ble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Satpal Singh
S/o Shri Jai Ram
House No.FCA-21, Shiv Harizan Colony,
Tigaon Road,
Ballabhgar, Faridabad
Presently posted at
Government of India Press, Faridabad. .....Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Mohan Kumar)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Printing,
Ministry of Urban Development,
'B' Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Manager,
Government of India Press,
Faridabad, Haryana. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan)
ORDER
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A) This Original Application has been filed by the applicant claiming the following relief:-
2 OA No.30/2013
"(1) Call for the record of the case and after due consideration quash/set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2010 and also the order of respondent No.2 dated 30.10.2012 which in essence forms basis of the termination order dated 28.12.2012 and the applicant be made entitled of all the consequential benefits".
2. Facts in brief are that the applicant was registered with Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training and underwent said training at Government of India, Photo-litho Press at Faridabad Haryana, with effect from 20.07.1995 to 19.07.1997. After qualifying the trade test conducted by National Council for Vocational Training in November, 1997, he was awarded National Apprenticeship Certificate and became fully eligible to be appointed to the post of Assistant Binder. He was working as Assistant Binder under respondent No.3, i.e., Government of India Press, Faridabad, Haryana. He has filed this OA aggrieved by the impugned Office Order dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure A-1) and Office Memorandum dated 27.12.2012 (Annexure A-1 Colly) whereby his services were terminated.
3. The respondents, vide notification No.NE-1/Recruit/2007 published in the Employment News dated 3-9 November, 2007 advertised 45 vacancies (non-selection post) of Assistant Binder at Government of India Press, Faridabad. Out of the said vacancies, 23 were meant for unreserved quota, 1 for SC, 4 for ST and rest 17 vacancies were for OBC. The following eligibility conditions were prescribed:-
3 OA No.30/2013
(i) Matriculation (10th) pass from recognized School/Board pass;
(ii) Certificate of successful completion of apprentice ship under the Apprentice Ship Act, 1961 (52 of 1961); or
(iii) Certificate of successful completion of Vocational Course, at + 2 level in Printing Technology.
4. The applicant, who belongs to SC category and was found fulfilling all the eligibility conditions has applied and in pursuance thereof, he was declared selected along with other 37 candidates on the basis of merit. Respondents selected 13 candidates out of the 23 posts advertised for unreserved category and for OBC 14 candidates were selected out of the 17 posts advertised. Out of the 14 OBC candidates, only one candidate was selected against the unreserved vacancy. Similarly for SC candidates, 6 candidates were selected against one vacancy advertised. Out of said 6 successful candidates, 5 candidates including the applicant was selected against unreserved vacancy. For ST candidates, 4 candidates were selected out of the 4 vacancies advertised and for PH candidates it was just one candidate for the advertised 3 vacancies. Thus, applicant was issued an appointment letter on 29.02.2008 and he accordingly joined his duty on the post of Assistant Binder and has been working in the same capacity. Thereafter, he was kept on probation for a period of 2 years, which 4 OA No.30/2013 expired in the month of February 2010. His performance was graded as fit for promotion on the basis of the APAR/ACR given both by the reviewing and the reporting officers.
5. Things were going on smoothly, but all of a sudden selection process was challenged in an OA filed before this Tribunal in OA 2318/2008 titled as Puneet and Another Vs. U.O.I. & Others. The said case was disposed of in limine in favour of the respondents on 20.11.2008. In the said case, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Birozgar Sangh and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 1. Aggrieved by the said decision, Puneet and Another, petitioners filed WP(C) No.26/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was finally disposed of by an order dated 20.07.2010 in favour of the petitioner. The relevant paras of the said order read as under:-
"1. Petitioners Puneet and Nafe Singh underwent apprenticeship training at the Government of India Press Faridabad and successfully completed the apprenticeship for a period of two years. Nafe Singh underwent apprenticeship from 7.10.1997 to 6.10.1999. Puneet underwent apprenticeship from 7.10.1998 to 6.10.2000.
2. They applied for being appointed as Assistant Binders when respondent No.3 issued an advertisement in the month of November 2007 to fill up 23 unreserved seats, 1 seat in SC category, 4 seats in ST category and 17 seats in OBC category. It may be noted that whereas Nafe Singh applied under the OBC category, Puneet applied under the SC category.
XXX XXX XXX
26. To summarize on the legal position, pertaining to direct recruitment posts of a technical nature, declared as "Non Selection" posts, persons who have apprenticeship certificates have to be put in a seniority list as per the direction No.4 issued by the Supreme Court in U.P.Road State Transport Corporation's case and after subjecting the eligible candidates 5 OA No.30/2013 to a trade test and an interview, all those who are declared suitable for being appointed, irrespective of their merit which actually need not be tested at all and the test being restricted to determine suitability, be offered appointment in order of seniority.
27. Vide CM No.9237/2010 our attention was drawn to the fact that sensing a scam in the recruitment process, a vigilance enquiry has been ordered. We were called upon to call for the report of the vigilance enquiry, which has yet to be borne for the reason the vigilance enquiry is still on.
28. We need not wait for any report in view of the legal position, as per our understanding above, which requires us to dispose of the instant petition setting aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2008 and disposing of the instant writ petition as also OA No.2318/2008 by passing the directions to the 3rd respondent to redraw a list of empanelled candidates, not on the basis of their merit position, but on the basis of their seniority reckoned from the dates they successfully obtained the apprenticeship certificates, subject to their suitability. We clarify that if on the basis of the trade test and the interview which was conducted, suitability can be culled out de hors the merit, same should be done and if not the candidates be re-subjected to a trade test with the focus of the test being to determine suitability and not the relative merit.
29. We clarify that since appointments in the unreserved category and the ST category are not in question for the reason one petitioner applied for the sole post in the SC category and the other applied for a post in the OBC category, needful would be done only in respect of the SC and OBC candidates and not the candidates in the unreserved category and ST category.
30. Needful be done within a period of 4 months from today. Till the directions issued are complied with, existing empanelled candidates in the category of SC and OBS shall continue to work."
6. Further, Contempt Case (CC) bearing No.224 of 2011 was filed alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order. The same was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 17.09.2012, and the relevant paragraphs therein are as under:
"A reading of the judgment alongwith operative directions culled out above would show that the court declared the post in issue i.e, the post of Assistant Binders as a non selection post. The court further directed respondents to redraw a list of empanelled candidates not on the basis of merit but on the basis of seniority reckoned from the date the petitioners had successfully obtained an apprenticeship certificate, subject to their suitability. Lastly, the court made it clear that the said exercise would be confined to SC and OBC categories only, and not, qua candidates who fell in the unreserved and ST categories.
Accordingly, the respondents pursuant to the said judgment drew up a fresh seniority list. As indicated above the petitioner No.2 has been included in the re-drawn panel. This aspect is disclosed in the 6 OA No.30/2013 respondents' affidavit dated 9.12.2011. The position with respect to the same has been reaffirmed by Ms. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents.
The issue, therefore is outstanding only with regard to petitioner No.1 as he along with 5 other applicants has been left out from the re - drawn panel. This aspect is also referred to in the aforementioned affidavit of the respondents dated 9.12.2011.
In so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, the following remark has given in the re-drawn panel:
".... 5. Puneet S/o Sh.Ramesh Chand (SC): Non availability of SC vacancy, not covered for UR category as he got 56 marks against the UR standard of 60 marks out of 100 marks....."
Based on this remark Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 submits that the respondents have once again in violation of the judgment of this Court applied the merit criteria as against seniority and suitability criteria, which is adverted to in the judgment of this Court dated 20.07.2010.
As against this Ms. Chauhan has submitted that while petitioner No.1 is suitable, in terms of the judgment of this Court, his seniority is lower than the other two applicants in the SC category. She submits that the seniority of the other two candidates i.e. Shri Sultan Singh and Shri Narender Kumar is of that vintage 1995 and 1996 respectively. She states that the petitioner's seniority is of the year 2000, and therefore, his name is not included in the re-drawn panel. In rejoinder learned counsel for the petitioner says that the respondents ought to have considered the petitioner in the unreserved category based on the criterion of seniority and suitability.
According to me, this was clearly not the scope of the judgment, and therefore, arguments in this regard cannot be entertained. This position is also clear on perusal of the observations of the Division Bench in paragraph 29 of the judgment wherein it is made clear that they were considering appointments only in the SC and OBC category and not in the unreserved category.
In my view, no case for contempt is made out. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Needless to say that, in so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, the judgment of this Court dated 20.7.2010, would be implemented."
7. Some of the other candidates, who were also not selected, filed OAs bearing No.983/2008, 1927/2008 and 612/2009, all of which were disposed on 08.10.2010 by way of separate orders/judgments, after noting the operative portion of the Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.26/2009 (supra), as under:
7 OA No.30/2013
"3. In view of the above, the OA is disposed with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants and take action in terms of the above directions of the Hon'ble High Court, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from today. No costs."
8. Thereafter, the respondents vide Office Order dated 31.10.2012, by citing the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.26/2009 (supra) dated 20.07.2010 and CCP No.224/2011 dated 17.09.2012 stated that in pursuance of the said orders of the Hon'ble High Court, they have redrawn the panel. They submitted the same to the Hon'ble High Court for approval and the applicant along with certain others have not been included in the said panel and accordingly the services of the applicant stand terminated on completion of one month's notice on 29.11.2012. When the applicant and other similarly placed persons filed OAs questioning the said orders, the respondents by virtue of the Show Cause Notices (SCN) dated 27.11.2012 withdrew the said termination order dated 31.10.2012 and accordingly, the applicant has withdrawn the aforesaid OA. Even after submission of reply to the aforesaid SCN by the applicant, the respondents issued the impugned termination order dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure A-1) to the applicant.
9. Immediately thereafter, the respondents, in pursuance of the re- drawal of the panel, terminated the services of some Assistant Binders, who belong to unreserved category. They filed OA 8 OA No.30/2013 No.15/2013. This Tribunal allowed the OA, and in its order dated 02.12.2012 in paras 22 and 23, held as under:-
"22. Therefore, reference of any fresh or redrawn seniority list/panel in the order dated 17.09.2012 in Contempt Case No.224/2011, cannot empower the respondents to disturb the position of the applicants, who belong to unreserved category, in any manner.
23. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, both the OAs are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs".
10. The applicant, who belongs to SC category and in view of the aforesaid situation, the respondents are fully competent to redraw the panel/seniority list with regard to those candidates who belonged to SC and OBC candidates and who were appointed as Assistant Binders in pursuance of advertisement issued in November, 2007, including the applicant. Applicant has never given any undertaking that he should have been considered against unreserved vacancy. Moreover, the respondents have terminated the services of the applicant in a most mechanical and perverse manner with effect from 28.12.2012 for the only reason that he was overage on 23.11.2007 when the recruitment took place. The applicant has thus prayed that his OA may be allowed.
11. The OA was heard on 03.01.2013. While issuing notices to the respondents in the OA, this Tribunal vide order dated 03.01.2013, directed the respondents to maintain status quo as on the said date till the next date of hearing. The said order has been extended from time to time. By virtue of the said interim order, applicant has been continuing in service.
9 OA No.30/2013
12. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others ( Civil Appeal No.74/2010 decided on 08.01.2010) to support his claim.
13. The respondents have filed their reply in which they have reiterated all the facts mentioned by the applicant in the OA which may not be repeated for the sake of convenience. In para 4.2. it is admitted that the applicant passed in the apprenticeship training during the year 1997. He was not eligible for appointment against the vacancies of general category because he was overage as on the last date of calling applications. No age relaxation is admissible to the candidates of reserved categories for appointment against the general quota vacancies. In reply to para 4.3., they have submitted that no age relaxation is admissible to the applicant for appointment against the general quota vacancies, while the remaining facts are matter of record. They have also submitted that applicant is a temporary employee because no confirmation order has yet been passed. In reply to para 4.14 they have submitted that he is eligible for consideration in the category of UR because he was overage on the crucial date 23.11.2007. No age relaxation is admissible to the candidates of reserved categories when appointment is to be made against general category vacancies. They have further submitted that for 2 reserved vacancies, 2 senior candidates having the apprenticeship seniority of the year 1995 and 10 OA No.30/2013 1996 were included in re-drawn panel. Hence, they have submitted that the OA is without merit and the same be dismissed.
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record and judgments.
15. The same very issue was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikas Pratap Singh and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC 494 wherein it was held as under:-
"3. The facts in a nutshell are as under: On 18.09.2006, an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to 380 posts of Subedars, Platoon Commanders and Sub- Inspectors in the respondent-State was issued by the Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh. For the said purpose, the Preliminary Examination was conducted on 24.12.2006 and the successful candidates thereat were called for the Main Examination held in two parts as Paper I and II on 04.02.2007 and 05.02.2007, respectively. After conducting physical examination and personal interviews, the final merit list of candidates was published on 08.04.2008, whereby all the appellants herein were selected. Based on the said merit list, the appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates including the appellants on various dates between 21.08.2008 and 15.09.2008.
4. In the meanwhile, the Inspector General of Police and the respondent- Board received complaints in respect of defects/mistakes in several questions of the Main Examination Papers. The respondent-Board constituted an Expert Committee to inquire into the complaints. Upon examination of the two Papers, two sets of defects were noticed: (a) eight questions in Paper II itself were incorrect and (b) model answers for evaluation of answer scripts to another eight questions of Paper II were incorrect. The respondent-Board directed for deletion of the first set of eight questions in Paper II and preparation of correct model answers key for objective questions in Papers I and II and accordingly carried out re- evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidates. On 27.06.2009 a new revised merit list was published wherein the names of twenty six appellants did not figure at all and accordingly, the appointment of the appellants were cancelled by the respondent-State.
XXX XXX XXXX
20. It is brought to our notice that in view of the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge the appellants have now completed their training and have been in service for more than three years. Therefore the only question which survives for our consideration and decision is whether after having undergone training and assumed charge at their place of posting the 26 appellants be ousted from service on the basis of cancellation of their appointment qua the revised merit list.
Xx x x xx x xx 11 OA No.30/2013
22. The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or malafide. (See: District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and another v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655, P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and others, (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Union of India and others v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100). It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bonafide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment (See: Vinodan T. and Ors. v. University of Calicut and Ors.,(2002) 4 SCC 726; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 667).
23. In Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 707, the High Court had invalidated the rule prescribing selection procedure which awarded grace marks of 25 per cent and age relaxation to the candidates with three years' long non-formal teaching experiences as a consequence of which several candidates appointed as teachers at the formal education institutions under the said rule stood ousted. This Court while concurring with the observations made by the High Court kept in view that upon rectification of irregularities in appointment after a considerable length of time an order for cancellation of appointment would severely affect economic security of a number of candidates and observed as follows:
"28. ...Most of them were earlier teaching in Non-formal education centers, from where they had resigned to apply in response to the advertisement. They had left their previous employment in view of the fact that for their three year long teaching experiences, the interview process in the present selection was awarding them grace marks of 25 per cent. It had also given them a relaxation of 8 years with respect to their age. Now, if they lose their jobs as a result of High Court's order, they would be effectively unemployed as they cannot even revert to their earlier jobs in the Non-formal education centers, which have been abolished since then. This would severely affect the economic security of many families. Most of them are between the age group of 35-45 years, and the prospects for them of finding another job are rather dim. Some of them were in fact awaiting their salary rise at the time of quashing of their appointment by the High Court." Therefore, mindful of the aforesaid circumstances this Court directed non-ouster of the candidates appointed under the invalidated rule.
24. In Union of India (UOI) and Anr. v. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750 this Court considered the age of the employee who was erroneously promoted and the duration of his service on the promoted post and the factor of retiring from service on attaining the age of superannuation and observed as follows:
"31. The last prayer on behalf of respondent, however, needs to be sympathetically considered. The respondent is holding the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) since last seventeen years. He is on 12 OA No.30/2013 the verge of retirement, so much so, that only few days have remained. He will be reaching at the age of superannuation by the end of this month i.e. December 31, 2007. In our view, therefore, it would not be appropriate now to revert the respondent to the post of Accountant for very short period. We, therefore, direct the appellants to continue the respondent as Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of superannuation i.e. upto December 31, 2007. At the same time, we hold that since the action of the Authorities was in accordance with Statutory Rules, an order passed by the Deputy Accountant-General canceling promotion of the respondent and reverting him to his substantive post of Accountant was legal and valid and the respondent could not have been promoted as Senior Accountant, he would be deemed to have retired as Accountant and not as Senior Accountant (Functional) and his pensionary and retiral benefits would be fixed accordingly by treating him as Accountant all through out.
32. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Though the respondent is allowed to continue on the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of retirement i.e. December 31, 2007 and salary paid to him in that capacity will not be recovered, his retiral benefits will be fixed not as Senior Accountant (Functional) but as Accountant. In the facts and circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs."
25. This Court in Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 although recorded a finding that appointments given under the `wait list' were not in accordance with law but refused to set aside such appointments in view of length of service (five years and more).
26. In Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and Ors. v. Akhil Kumar and Ors., (2001) 2 SCR 18, even though the appointments were held to be improper, this Court did not disturb the appointments on the ground that the incumbents had worked for several years and had gained experience and observed:
"We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked on the posts for a long period."
(See: M.S. Mudhol (Dr.) and Anr. v. S.D. Halegkar and Ors., (1993) II LLJ 1159 SC and Tridip Kumar Dingal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 768).
27. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the respondent-Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon re-evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service.
28. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondentState for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and 13 OA No.30/2013 grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.
29. Accordingly, we direct the respondent-State to appoint the appellants in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation."
16. This Tribunal has also disposed of identical matters relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) in OA No.17/2013 in the case of Shri Satish Chand Vs. U.O.I. & Others decided on 20.01.2017, wherein it was held as under:-
"15. The persons who belong to Unreserved/General Category and ST, though identically placed like the applicant, i.e. placed below in the seniority list of Apprenticeship and not placed in the redrawn panel could able to continue in service, as no General Category or ST category candidate filed Writ Petitions and only SC and OBC candidates filed the Writ Petition, referred above.
16. In view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the action of the respondents cannot be said as illegal, as the applicant belong to OBC category. But the fact remains that for no fault of him, the applicant will be put to untold misery, if his services are terminated at this stage. Applicant is now aged about 35 years, and will be put to great hardship, if he is terminated from service after putting a service of more than 8 years, for no fault of him".
XXX XXX XXX
19. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is disposed of by directing the respondents to continue the services of the applicant by adjusting him in any of the existing or future vacancies of Assistnat Binder. However, the seniority of the applicant shall be fixed, for all intents and purposes, after all the Assistant Binders recruited through the advertisement published in November, 2007 and as shown in the revised redrawn panel. No costs.14 OA No.30/2013
Similarly, OA No.15/2013 and connected cases in the case of Laxman and Others Vs. U.O.I. and Others was decided on 02.12.2016 and following directions were issued:-
"22. Therefore, reference of any fresh or redrawn seniority list/panel in the order dated 17.09.2012 in Contempt Case No.224/2011, cannot empower the respondents to disturb the position of the applicants, who belong to unreserved category, in any manner.
23. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, both the OAs are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs".
In both the aforesaid OAs, this Tribunal allowed the OAs and quashed/set aside the impugned orders with all consequential benefits.
17. Thus, applicant was issued appointment letter on 29.02.2008 and has been working in the same capacity of Assistant Binder till he was removed because of a decision in the matter of Puneet and Another (supra). Thereafter, his services were terminated with effect from 28.12.2012 and he is still continuing in service on the basis of the interim order passed by this Tribunal on 03.01.2013. So effectively, applicant has been working since 2008 and, therefore, the protection given by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C ) No.26/2009 and of this Tribunal in similar matters must be extended to him also. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.12.2012 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are further directed to continue the services of the applicant by adjusting him 15 OA No.30/2013 in any of the existing or future vacancies of Assistant Binder. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. No costs.
( Nita Chowdhury ) ( V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) Rakesh