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

STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. ETC. versus NIRANJAN NA YAK AND ANR. ETC.

Decided
21 April 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Leave Granted & Allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 897 · 1997 INSC 423

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.

Leave granted. We have learned counsel on both sides.

p. 897, margin E

These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Orissa High Court, made on April 19, 1995 in O.J.C. No. 1196of1994 and batch.

p. 897, margin F

The Government has prescribed April 1, 1981 as the cut off date for acquisition of the qualific;ation and those who have acquired the qualifications prior to that date are entitled to the additional amounts as prescribed under the Rules. The High Court has allowed writ petitions without reference to the relevant Rules. It is settled law that the cut off date has to be valid and bears reasonable relationship to the object sought to be achieved.

p. 897, margin F

It is stated that the teachers are relying upon Rule 9 of 1974 Rules. We are informed that several writ petitions are pending in the High Court on the basis of Rule 9. In that view of this matter, it may be desirable that all these matters be decided by the High Court.

p. 898, margin A

Taking an over all view of all the facts, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The High Court is at liberty to consider the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the respondents states that orders were implemented subject to the result of the appeals. Implementation of the order docs not stand on the way of the High Court is have the matters examined. No costs. G.N. Appeals allowed.

p. 898, margin A