Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus RAVI SHANKAR AND ANR.

Decided
24 February 1998
Judges listed
G.B. PATTANAIK, M. SRINIVASAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 1097 · 1998 INSC 113
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 13.l l.1992. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has called upon the appellants to consider the case of the respondents, who admittedly possessed the qualification of Vaidya Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad for the post of Phannacist after relaxing the qualification and ex-perience for the post whenever any future vacancy arises.

pp. 1097–1098, margin G

Mrs. Amrcshwari, the learned senior counsel for the appellants contends that a Vaidya Visharad recognised by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is not one of the recognised qualifications for the post of Pharmacist and the minimum qualification for a post cannot be relaxed and, therefore, the Tribunal was in error in directing to consider the case of the respondents on relaxation of the qualification in question. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the degree of Vaidya Visharad awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is recognised qualification under the Central Government Health Scheme Delhi (Group C) Ayurvedic, Recruitment Rules, 1978. In view of the rival stand taken by the parties, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the degree of Vaidya Visharad awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad can be held to be a recognised qualification under the Recruitmwt Rules. Looking to the Schedule attached to the Rules which prescribed the qualification, it is apparent that it is 'Vaidya Visharad' which is awarded by All India Ayurvedic Congress is recognised and it is only Ayurved Ratna which is awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan which is recognised. Therefore, the degree of Vaidya Visharad awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, which is possessed by the respondents cannot be held to be a recognised qualification under the Recruitment Rules. It may be stated that in the application before the Tribunal, the respondents have categorically asserted that tl1ey possessed the qualification of Vaidya Visharad recognised by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. In that view of tl1e matter, the Tribunal was wholly in error in directing consideration of the case of the respondents in case of future vacancies against a post of Pharmacist. The respondents do not possess the requisite qualification under the Recruitment Rules. They cannot have any right of appointment. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is allowed, but there will be no order as to costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 1098, margin A