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

DHANNA RAM versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided
18 April 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 564 · 1996 INSC 547
Also cited as
  • (1997) 11 SCC 201 (6 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.

Not shown
2 other citation strings 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.

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 564, margin G

This appeal by special leave arises from the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh made in 0.A. No. 308 of 1994 on March 21,1995. Though the Tribunal has dismissed the 0.A. on the ground of delay, we have examined the matter on merits. It is now clear from the record placed by the respondents that as a result of selection, list was prepared on April 4, 1990 for appointment as Goods Clerks and Coaching Clerks from among the class IV employees in the order of merit from the quota reserved for class IV employees. Out of them they also made reservation to the members of the Scheduled Castes. The appellant belongs to the Scheduled Castes. Candidates at item Nos. 17 and 32 of the list also belong to the Scheduled Castes and were superior in the order of merit; they were selected on the general standard to the roster point as against those who were selected in the reserved quota with relaxed staudards. The appellant stands at No. 2 while one Sarvan Kumar stands at No. 1 of the list of reserved quota. It is true that in the communication sent to the appellant it was mentioned that he was selected on general standards. It would appear that subsequently, they realised the mistake and corrected the same and put him in the order of merit as a candidate for the reserved quota. Since there was no vacancy exi,ting for reserved quota, he could not be appointed. Under those circumstances, we cannot give any direction for making his appointment. Since the list has already expired by efflux of time, the directions sought for appointment in the future vacancies cannot be given. But this order does not preclude him from consideration for future promotion in any of the vacancies that would arise subsequent to the earlier selection.

pp. 564–565, margin G

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. G .N. Appeal dismissed.

p. 565, margin E