{"id":121978,"date":"2003-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003"},"modified":"2017-08-17T07:53:51","modified_gmt":"2017-08-17T02:23:51","slug":"ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003","title":{"rendered":"Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission &#8230; on 14 July, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission &#8230; on 14 July, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4571 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nASHWANI KUMAR SINGH\n\nRESPONDENT:\nU.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/07\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2003 Supp(1) SCR 528<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave<br \/>\ngranted.\n<\/p>\n<p>These two appeals involve identical issues and, therefore, are taken up<br \/>\ntogether.\n<\/p>\n<p>Factual position which is necessary to be noted for disposal of the appeals<br \/>\nin a nutshell is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellants appeared at the Combined State Services Examination of 1987.<br \/>\nThey indicated the preference for appointment as Treasury Officer\/ Accounts<br \/>\nOfficer and also for Assistant Accounts Officer as requi-ed to be indicated<br \/>\nin the application form. The examination was conducted by the Uttar Pradesh<br \/>\nPublic Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Com mission&#8217;) on<br \/>\nthe basis of requisition made by the State of U.P. Requisition for 40<br \/>\nvacancies was sent by the State to the Commission in July 1987. Out of said<br \/>\n40 vacancies, 21 were meant for General category, while 7, 1, 2, 6. 2 and 1<br \/>\nvacancies were meant for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Dependents of<br \/>\nFreedom Fighters, Backward Classes, Retrenched Emergency \/ Short Service<br \/>\nCommission Military Officers, and Handicapped persons respectively The<br \/>\nAccounts service has two designated posts i.e. Accounts Officer\/Treasury<br \/>\nOfficer and Assistant Accounts Officer. Results were declared on 29 12<br \/>\n1989. In the merit list, appellant &#8211; Ashwani Kumar Singh was placed at SI<br \/>\nNo. 52 while appellant &#8211; Brij Nath Srivastava was placed much below.\n<\/p>\n<p>On the basis of recommendations received from the Commission a list of 37<br \/>\ncandidates was made available initially. Three other candidates were<br \/>\nincluded on the basis of the order passed by the Allahabad High Court. All<br \/>\nthe three candidates relate to the Retrenched Military Officers category.<br \/>\nAs three selected candidates, one each from the general category, dependent<br \/>\nof freedom fighters and scheduled tribe and already been appointed on the<br \/>\nbasis of examination held in 1986; names of three more candidates were<br \/>\nincluded in the respective categories.\n<\/p>\n<p>In 1990, appellant &#8211; Ashwani Kumar Singh made a representation stating that<br \/>\non account of some selected candidates not joining, vacancies exist and<br \/>\nsince the merit list was effective for one year, persons in the waiting<br \/>\nlist should be appointed. Appellant &#8211; Ashwani Kumar Singh in view of his<br \/>\nplacement in the select list had already been appointed as Assistant<br \/>\nAccounts Officer. However, appellant &#8211; Brij Nath Srivastava was not<br \/>\nappointed as his position was far below in the select list.\n<\/p>\n<p>Writ petitions were filed in 1992 by the appellants before (he Allahabad<br \/>\nHigh Court. The writ petitions were filed on the foundation that the<br \/>\nvacancies which arose on account of selected candidates not joining, should<br \/>\nhave been filled up and that having not been done, the appointments made<br \/>\nsubsequently were illegal. The claims were resisted by the State Government<br \/>\nand the Commission. They took the stand that there was no waiting list as<br \/>\nsuch and the vacancies were carried forward to the subsequent period as<br \/>\nrequired in law and persons had already been appointed on the basis of<br \/>\nsubsequent examination. A belated attempt by the appellants to get<br \/>\nappointment is not countenanced in law. The High Court accepted the plea of<br \/>\nthe respondents and rejected the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. A. Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants<br \/>\nsubmitted that the course adopted by the State Government and the<br \/>\nCommission is clearly contrary to the law laid down by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/374060\/\">Jai<br \/>\nNarain Ram v. State of U.P. and Ors.,<\/a> [1996] I SCC 332. It was also<br \/>\nsubmitted that in several unreported judgments of the High Court,<br \/>\ndirections were given to fill up the posts on the basis of the waiting list<br \/>\nand the stand taken by the State Government and the Commission is contrary<br \/>\nto the factual position and in contravention of the High Court&#8217;s view.\n<\/p>\n<p>In response, learned counsel for the Commission an 1 the State Government<br \/>\nsubmitted that Jai Narain&#8217;s case (supra) has no application to the facts of<br \/>\nthe case since there was no vacancy and the posts which fell vacant on<br \/>\naccount of selected candidates not joining have subsequently been filled<br \/>\nup. Initially, those persons were not impleaded as parties. Subsequently,<br \/>\nin view of the observations made by this Court on 11.12.2001 they were<br \/>\ndirected to be impleaded as parties. Their non appearance does not<br \/>\nstrengthen the appellants&#8217; case.\n<\/p>\n<p>It shall be necessary to first consider whether Jai Narain&#8217;s case (supra)<br \/>\nhas application to the facts of the case. A bare reading of the judgment<br \/>\nshows that it was rendered in a different factual and legal background, and<br \/>\nrelated to non &#8211; appointment of persons belonging to reserved category.<br \/>\nThis is evident from even a cursory reading of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the<br \/>\nJudgment. It has not laid down as a rule of universal application that<br \/>\nwhenever vacancy exists persons who are in the merit list perforce have to<br \/>\nbe appointed. Much would depend upon the statutory provisions governing the<br \/>\nfield. The Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the direction<br \/>\ngiven in Jai Narain &#8216;s case (supra) was not strictly on that basis. The<br \/>\nplea has no substance as reading of the judgment goes to show otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how<br \/>\nthe factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on<br \/>\nwhich reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as<br \/>\nEuclid&#8217;s theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must<br \/>\nbe read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of Courts are no to<br \/>\nbe construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of<br \/>\nstatute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy<br \/>\ndiscussions, but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define.<br \/>\nJudges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret<br \/>\nwords of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In<br \/>\nLondon Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton, (1951) AC 737 at p. 761, Lord Mac<br \/>\nDermot observed:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima<br \/>\nvertra of Willes, J, as though they were part of an \/- ct of parliament and<br \/>\napplying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto This is not to<br \/>\ndetract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by<br \/>\nthat most distinguished Judge.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In Home Officer V. Dorset Yacht Co., [1970] 2 All ER 294 Lord Reid said,<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Lord Atkin&#8217;s speech&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;is not to be treated as if it was a statute<br \/>\ndefinition.\n<\/p>\n<p>It will require qualification in new circumstances.&#8221; Megarry, J in Shepherd<br \/>\nHomes Ltd. v. Sandham, (No. 2) (1971) 1 WER 1062 observed: &#8220;One must not,<br \/>\nof course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell, L.J. as if it were<br \/>\nan Act of Parliament.&#8221; In Herrington v. British Railways Board, (1972) 2 Wl<br \/>\nR 537 Lord Morris said :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as<br \/>\nthough they are words in legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered<br \/>\nthat judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular<br \/>\ncase.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a<br \/>\nworld of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by<br \/>\nblindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.\n<\/p>\n<p>The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents<br \/>\nhave become locus classicus:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case<br \/>\nand another is not enough because even a single significant detail may<br \/>\nalter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the<br \/>\ntemptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of<br \/>\none case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side<br \/>\nof the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at<br \/>\nall decisive.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>xxx                   xxx         xxx            xxx<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Precedent would be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice,<br \/>\nbut you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches, else you<br \/>\nwill find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the<br \/>\npath to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It is on record that a policy decision was taken to appoint candidates who<br \/>\nhad opted for Treasury Officer\/Accounts Officer if their names were<br \/>\nincluded in the first 40 of the merit list. Admittedly, appellant &#8211; Ashwani<br \/>\nKumar was not so included and the position is worse in the case of other<br \/>\nappellant &#8211; Brij Nath Srivastava. It is submitted that there is no logic<br \/>\nfor such fixation. Here again the plea is without substance. If the<br \/>\nemployer fixes a cut off position, same is not to be lightly tinkered with<br \/>\nunless it is total y irrational or tainted with malafides. Employer in its<br \/>\nwisdom may consider a particular range of selection to be appropriate. It<br \/>\nhas not been shown as to how the fixation is irrational, much less<br \/>\nmalafide. Additionlly, it is noticed that the unfilled posts were carried<br \/>\nforward to the next year and have been filled up on the basis of selection<br \/>\nmade by the Commission. Accepting the prayer of the appellants would mean<br \/>\nthat the position which has assumec a sort of finality for more than a<br \/>\ndecade would be unsettled. Persons who have been appointed on the basis of<br \/>\nthe subsequent examination has to give way to appellant &#8211; Ashwani Kumar<br \/>\nSingh. Though they had been impleaded but did not appear, it does not mean<br \/>\nthat something which is not permissiole in law has to be done. It would not<br \/>\nbe fair to disturb the prevailing position. It was pointed out by learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant &#8211; Ashwani Kumar Singh that he has already been<br \/>\npromoted as Accounts Officer, and the only question left is of his<br \/>\nseniority over those who were subsequently appointed. This plea is without<br \/>\nany substance. Since he has been promoted later on, in the absence of any<br \/>\nstatutory prescription, person who has been appointed to the higher post<br \/>\nearlier would be logically senior to him. The High Court was, therefore,<br \/>\njustified in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant &#8211; Ashwani<br \/>\nKumar Singh. So far as the other appellant &#8211; Brij Nath Srivastava is a<br \/>\nconcerned, his claim is based on almost identical premises as that of<br \/>\nAshwani Kumar Singh. His name was far below in the select list. Therefore,<br \/>\nhe does not have a better case than that of appellant &#8211; Ashwani Kumar Singh<br \/>\nwhose stand has been negatived. Though he claims to be candidate belonging<br \/>\nto the backward class, the posts have been filled up and his name finds<br \/>\nplace much below the zone of selected candidates. Both the appeals deserve<br \/>\ndismissal, which we direct. However, parties shall bear their respective<br \/>\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission &#8230; on 14 July, 2003 Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4571 of 2003 PETITIONER: ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH RESPONDENT: U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/07\/2003 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2003 Supp(1) SCR [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121978","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission ... on 14 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission ... on 14 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-17T02:23:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission &#8230; on 14 July, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-17T02:23:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1788,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003\",\"name\":\"Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission ... on 14 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-17T02:23:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission &#8230; on 14 July, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission ... on 14 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission ... on 14 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-17T02:23:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission &#8230; on 14 July, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-17T02:23:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003"},"wordCount":1788,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003","name":"Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission ... on 14 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-17T02:23:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-singh-vs-u-p-public-service-commission-on-14-july-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission &#8230; on 14 July, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121978","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=121978"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121978\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121978"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121978"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121978"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}