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 NAGALAND AND ANR. versus TOULVI KIBAMI AND ANR.

Decided
16 October 2003
Judges listed
V.N. KHARE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 862 · 2003 INSC 556
Also cited as
  • (2003) 8 SCC 671 (9 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

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.

In the State of N agaland, the promotion of Superintending Engineer to the post of Additional Chief Engineer in the Department of Public Health and Engineering is governed by the service rules known as Nagaland Engineering Services Rules, 1977 (Class I & II) (hereinafter referred to as "the rules"). The Respondent No. 2 in C.A. No. 2533/1998 (and appellant in C.A. No. 2536/1998) is a diploma-holder and at the relevant time was working as officiating Superintending Engineer. On 26.3 .1991, the Government ofNagaland promoted respondent No. 2 as Additional.Chief Engineer. This promotion was challenged by respondent No. 1 who is a degree-holder by means ofa petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that respondent no. 2 was not eligible for being promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer as the said post is to be filled up 100 per cent from amongst the degree-holders. This contention of respondent No. 1 was accepted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Consequently, the promotion ofrespondent No. 2 was set aside. Aggrieved, the State of Nagaland preferred a letters patent appeal which was allowed and order and judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside. The Division Bench while allowing the appeal directed the State Government to decide whether the diploma-holders could also be promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer under the relevant Rules on the basis of they having rendered meritorious service. It is not disputed that consequent upon the direction of the High Court, the Government took a decision in the year 1997 whereby the Government appropriately amended the relevant Ruler on the basis of they having rendered meritorious service. It is not disputed that consequent upon the direction of the High Court, the Government took a decision in the year 1997 whereby the Government appropriately amended the relevant rules and brought in the line with the original approved Rules so as to include the reference to eligibility of cases of exceptionally meritorious person who are diploma-holders for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer with retrospective effect i.e. from 12.9.1996. In the view of the matter, respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer. In between time, respondent No. I filed an application before the Division Bench for review of the order and judgment dated 4.9.1995. The Division Bench allowed the review petition and dismissed the appea!. It is against the said judgment and order of the High Court dated 8.1.1998, the appellants are in appeal before us.

pp. 863–864, margin B

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in view of the subsequent events that had taken place consequent upon the judgment of the Division Bench, the review petition filed by respondent No. I was not maintainable. In fact the judgment of Letters Patent Bench was acted upon and it stood exhausted and the review petition was futile. Under such circumstances, the review petition ought not to have been entertained and decided on merits.

p. 864, margin B

For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order and judgment under challenge. The appeals are allowed. However, it will be open to respondent No. I to challenge the promotion of respondent No. 2 afresh by a separate petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if he is so advised. In case such a petition is filed, it shall be entertained and decided on merits. We leave all questions of law open to be decided in that case.

p. 864, margin C

No costs. R.P. Appeals allowed.

p. 864, margin E