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

J. ASHOH KUMAR versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

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

Citations

Official
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 1035 · 1996 INSC 573
Also cited as
  • (1996) 3 SCC 225 (8 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 1 other Supreme Court judgment 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.

Mr. L.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends "that under G.O. Ms. No. 1136, dated September 13, 1986 rule 4 of the AP. Excise Service Rules was amended given weightage of 5% of the marks for selection to an NCC candidate and that the petitioner had appeared for the post of Assistant Excise Superintendent, Group I Service, by direct recruitment. He should have been given weightage of 5% marks and the Tribunal was unjustified in dismissing his petition. We find force in his contention. Any candidate appeared for the selection even for direct recruitment would be eligible to be considered for the weightage provided to candidate having NCC qualification. But since the selection has already been over and candidates were selected and appointed, we cannot give the benefit to the petitioner.

p. 1035, margin E

The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. G.N. Petition dismissed.

p. 1035, margin G