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

RANA PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Decided
20 February 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 318 · 1997 INSC 171

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 by special leave arises from the judgment dated 17th November, 1983 of the Judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 2869 of 1983 etc. W.P. No. 2880 of 1983 having been filed by the appellant herein.

p. 318, margin F

The Lucknow Be.nch of the High Court by order dated November 17, 1983 dismissed all the writ petitions including writ petition filed by the appellant. Subsequently, pending appeals, the Government had decided by proceedings dated December 1, 1984 to sanction the creation of 1300 supernumerary posts of civil police in the pay scale of Rs. 515-860 and that "only those officiating Sub-Inspectors will be absorbed on these posts who have officiated on the posts of Sub-Inspector for three years or more till 30th September, 1984". This Court on 19th April, 1985 while disposing of the C.A. No. 8820 of 1983 and batch had directed the Government to consider the cases of all those persons who had completed three years or more in the light of the above direction for absorption in those supernumerary posts and promoted under para 191 of the Police Office Manual. In respect of other Sub-Inspectors covered under the said para 191 who had not completed three years of service, the reversion stood upheld.

pp. 318–319, margin G

The appellant herein claims that he has promoted temporarily in February 1976 as a Sub-Inspector and was appointed on that premise and that he had been continuing in that post till he was reverted on May 7, 1983. It would appear that pending appeal, the appellant, obviously must have retired from service. However, if the case of the appellant had been considered in the light of the direction issued by this Court, no further action would have been needed. If the· Government did not consider his case since the ·appeal was pending, it is now for the Government to consider his case in accordance with rules for temporary promotion and confirmation in one of the 1300 supermumerary posts created by the Government by the aforesaid order dated 19th April, 1985 passed by this Court, and to pass appropriate in that behalf.

p. 319, margin C

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. R.P. Appeal disposed of.

p. 319, margin E