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

JAGDISH PRASAD versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Decided
13 November 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 177 · 1995 INSC 725
Also cited as
  • (1996) 1 SCC 301 (45 citing judgments)
  • (1995) SCC(CRI) 160 (8 citing judgments)
  • (1996) SCC(L&S) 303 (8 citing judgments)
  • JT 1995 (9) SC 131 (4 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
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

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.

p. 178, margin A

The High Court had dismissed the writ petition seeking appointment of the appellant on compassionate grounds. The admitted fact is that he was four years old at the time when his father died in harness in the year 1971. He filed the writ petition after attaining majority in 1994 for a direction to appoint him on compassionate grounds which was negatived.

p. 178, margin A

It is contended for the appellant that when his father died in harness, the appellant was minor; the compassionate circumstances continue to subsist even till date and that, therefore, the Court is required to examin~ whether the appointment should be made on compassionate grounds. We are afraid, we cannot accede to the contention. The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in parness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress cause to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. It other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged de hors the recruitment rules.

p. 178, margin B

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

p. 178, margin E