Supreme Court of India
MRS. SEEMA KUMARI SHARMA versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR.
- Decided
- 23 October 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 648 · 1996 INSC 1206
- Also cited as
- (1998) 9 SCC 128
- AIR 1997 SC 1693
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
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 heard learned counsel on both sides.
p. 648, margin F
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Shimla Bench made in O.A. No. 619/95 and the review order. The admitted position is that the Director of Education issued a notice for Junior Basic Teacher's Training. The criteria for selection was 100 marks based on the percentage of marks obtained in matric or equivalent examination. 20 marks for candidates belonging rural areas and 10 marks for candidates belonging to backward panchayat were allated. Similarly, 10 marks were alloted for candidates belonging to IRDP families. Though the appellant claimed to belong to IRDP family, the authorities have not considered her claim and consequently did not award 10 marks as required under the criteria. When the appellant filed the writ petition, the High Court dismissed the same holding that the appellant had not produced the certificate along with the application and, therefore, she is not entitled to the above status. When we directed the appellant to produce the record, she made the certificate a part of the record. Unfortunately, it does not bear the date of issue; but we find that she has been given serial number of the IRDP family. In view of the fact that serial numbers are ascribed to all the candidates in the order, we are of the view that her failure to furnish the certificate along with the application does not disentitle her to claim the status for consideration of award of 10 marks. Pursuant to the interim direction granted by this Court, the appellant has already appeared for the examinations conducted but her result has not been announced.
pp. 648–649, margin F
Therefore, the appeals are allowed; the order of the Tribunal stands set aside. There shall be a direction to declare the result and her case for appointment will be considered in accordance with the rules, if she is selected. No costs. G.N. Appeals allowed.
p. 649, margin C