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

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus VINOD KUMAR AND ORS.

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

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 593 · 1996 INSC 743

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.

Delay condoned. Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel.

p. 593, margin F

The only short question is whether the deviation from rule of granting promotion of 50% of the quota gi,ing 2 years additional benefit to the Upper Division Clerks is valid in law? Sub-section (7)(a) of Section 5-D of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provides method of recruitment as under :

p. 593, margin G

'7(a) The method of recruitment, salary and allowances, discipline and other conditions of service of the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and other officers and employees of the Central Board shall be such as may be specified by the Central Board in accordance with the Rules and orders applicable to the officers and employees of the Central Government drmving corresponding scales of play. Provided that where the Central Board is of the opinion that it is necessary to make a departure from the said rules or orders in respect of any of the matters aforesaid, it shall obtain the prior

pp. 593–594, margin H

approval of the Central Government." Under the proviso, where the Central Board is of the opinion that it is necessary to make a departure from the said rules or orders in respect of any of the matters enumerated above it is mandatory that it should obtain prior approval of the Central Government. Admittedly, prior approval was not obtained. On the other hand, ex post facto approval was obtained but in the teeth of the language of the proviso ex post facto approval is not an approval in the eye of law. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal had rightly held that the approval was not valid in law and the matter was kept at large and directed the appellant to issue notification afresh for recruitment in accordance with rules. We do not find any illegality in the order.

p. 594, margin C

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

p. 594, margin E