{"id":192340,"date":"1996-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996"},"modified":"2017-10-09T09:20:48","modified_gmt":"2017-10-09T03:50:48","slug":"radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996","title":{"rendered":"Radhey Shyam Singh &amp; Ors vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 9 December, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Radhey Shyam Singh &amp; Ors vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 9 December, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: F Uddin<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.C. Agrawal, Faizan Uddin<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nRADHEY SHYAM SINGH &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/12\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nS.C. AGRAWAL, FAIZAN UDDIN\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     (With Civil Appeal No. 5112\/1995 and Writ Petitions No.<br \/>\n224\/1995 and 395\/1995)<br \/>\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n     Faizan Uddin, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.   This Civil\t Appeal has  been directed against the order<br \/>\npassed by  the Central\tAdministrative\tTribunal,  Principal<br \/>\nBench, New  Delhi (hereinafter\treferred to as the Tribunal)<br \/>\nin O.A.\t No. 322\/1995  dismissing the appellants application<br \/>\nat the\tadmission state challenging the selection process of<br \/>\nvarious posts  in pursuance of an advertisement by the Staff<br \/>\nSelection Commission  published in Employment New of 10-16th<br \/>\nJuly, 1993  and the  select list  prepared and\tpublished in<br \/>\npursuance thereto, while Civil Appeal No. 5112\/1995 has been<br \/>\npreferred by  the appellants  of the said appeal against the<br \/>\norder dated 7th March, 1995 passed by the aforesaid Tribunal<br \/>\nin O.A.\t No. 438\/1995  dismissing  the\tapplication  at\t the<br \/>\nadmission stage\t challenging the  said selection process and<br \/>\nthe select  list as  aforesaid. In  the writ  petitions also<br \/>\nreferred  to   above  filed   under  Article   32   of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution, the same selection process and select list has<br \/>\nbeen  challenged   by  the  petitioners\t of  the  said\twrit<br \/>\npetitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   On the  recommendations of\t the Administrative  Reforms<br \/>\nCommission the\tGovernment of India (Department of Personnel<br \/>\nand Administration  Reforms) passed a resolution on November<br \/>\n4, 1975\t whereby a  &#8220;Subordinate  Services  Commission&#8221;\t was<br \/>\nconstituted for the purposes of recruitment to Non-Technical<br \/>\nClass III  posts in  the departments  of the  Government  of<br \/>\nIndia and  in the  subordinate\toffices.  In  the  aforesaid<br \/>\nGovernment resolution,\tthe  functions\tof  the\t Subordinate<br \/>\nServices Commission constituted by the Government are stated<br \/>\nin para\t 3 thereof,  the relevant  part of  which  reads  as<br \/>\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;The      Subordinate\tServices<br \/>\n     Commission will make recruitment to<br \/>\n     non-technical Class  III  posts  in<br \/>\n     the departments  of  the  Govt.  of<br \/>\n     India  and\t  in   the   subordinate<br \/>\n     offices  except   those  posts  for<br \/>\n     which recruitment\tis made\t by  the<br \/>\n     Railway Service Commission Staff in<br \/>\n     the offices  of the Comptroller and<br \/>\n     Auditor General and the Accountants<br \/>\n     General\t   and\t      industrial<br \/>\n     establishments. The Commission will<br \/>\n     among    other    things\t conduct<br \/>\n     terminations whenever  required for<br \/>\n     recruitment  to  the  posts  within<br \/>\n     their purview and for ensuring that<br \/>\n     as\t far   as  possible  the  actual<br \/>\n     recruitment  is  made  on\ta  zonal<br \/>\n     basis so  as to  enable  candidates<br \/>\n     from  different   regions\t to   be<br \/>\n     absorbed in  the vacancies\t arising<br \/>\n     within the\t respective regions, the<br \/>\n     examinations would\t be held  as far<br \/>\n     as possible  on  different\t centres<br \/>\n     and successful  candidates\t posted,<br \/>\n     to the  extent  possible  to  their<br \/>\n     home states\/regions.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  (emphasis supplied)<br \/>\n     The said  Subordinate Service  Commission\t(hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as Commission) published an advertisement on 10-<br \/>\n16th July, 1993 in the Employment News inviting applications<br \/>\nfor  the  selection  of\t candidates  to\t the  posts  of\t (I)<br \/>\nPreventive  Officers,  (II)  Examiner,\t(III)  Inspector  of<br \/>\nCentral Excise,\t (IV) Inspector of Income-tax, (V) Assistant<br \/>\nEnforcement Officers  in the  Directorate of Enforcement and<br \/>\n(VI) Gr.  II of\t Delhi Administration  Subordinate Services.<br \/>\nThe number of vacancies was, however, not stated as the firm<br \/>\nnumber\tof   vacancies\thad  not  been\tdetermined  and\t the<br \/>\nreservation  of\t SC\/ST,\t Ex\/servicemen\tand  the  physically<br \/>\nhandicapped persons  was to  be taken  into account  as\t per<br \/>\nposition reported  in each  department for  each category of<br \/>\nposts.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   According to the said advertisement the recruitment was<br \/>\nto be  made zonewise  on the  basis of\tseparate merit\tlist<br \/>\ndrawn for each zone in respect of candidates who appeared at<br \/>\nthe centres  within the\t same zone.  The relevant portion of<br \/>\nthe  said  advertisement  which\t relates  to  the  zone-wise<br \/>\nprocess of  selection of  candidates for  the said  posts as<br \/>\nstated in  paragraph No.  16 of\t the advertisement for ready<br \/>\nreference is reproduced hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;16. Selection  of\t candidates  (a)<br \/>\n     After    the    examination,    the<br \/>\n     Commission will  draw up a separate<br \/>\n     list  in  different  categories  of<br \/>\n     posts in  respect of  each\t of  the<br \/>\n     zones mentioned  in column 2 of the<br \/>\n     Table in  para  13\t above,\t in  the<br \/>\n     order of  merit as disclosed by the<br \/>\n     aggregate marks  (written test  and<br \/>\n     personality test)\tfinally\t awarded<br \/>\n     to\t  each\t  candidate    at    the<br \/>\n     examination, and  in that\torder so<br \/>\n     may candidates  as are found by the<br \/>\n     Commission to  be qualified  in the<br \/>\n     examination  shall\t be  recommended<br \/>\n     for appointment  upto the number of<br \/>\n     unreserved vacancies in each of the<br \/>\n     zones separately.\tHowever, in case<br \/>\n     no\t vacancy   is  available   in  a<br \/>\n     particular zone  that zone would be<br \/>\n     clubbed with  one of the contiguous<br \/>\n     zones  at\tthe  discretion\t of  the<br \/>\n     Commission and  a common  order  or<br \/>\n     merit list\t for both  the zones may<br \/>\n     be\t prepared.  Similarly,\twhere  a<br \/>\n     particular\t office\t caters\t to  the<br \/>\n     requirements of more than one zone,<br \/>\n     candidates\t competing   at\t centres<br \/>\n     located in\t all such  zones will be<br \/>\n     eligible  to   be\tconsidered   for<br \/>\n     appointment in  that office and for<br \/>\n     this purpose,  a  common  order  of<br \/>\n     merit list for all such zones would<br \/>\n     be prepared.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (b)  The\tcandidates   for   Delhi<br \/>\n     Administration Grade II Subordinate<br \/>\n     service will be selected from Delhi<br \/>\n     Zone in  the  manner  mentioned  in<br \/>\n     sub-para (a) above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>4.   In all  there were\t 15 zones  and the  candidates\twere<br \/>\neligible to  appear at\tany zone  out of  those 15 zones. In<br \/>\ncase no\t vacancy was  available in particular zone then that<br \/>\nzone was  to be\t clubbed with one of the contiguous zones at<br \/>\nthe discretion\tof the\tdiscretion of  the Commission  and a<br \/>\ncommon list  for both the zones in the order of merit may be<br \/>\nprepared. It  is alleged  that the  appellants No.  1 and 2,<br \/>\nnamely,\t Radhey\t  Shyam\t Singh\tand  Dharmendra\t Kumar\tmade<br \/>\nrepresentations to the Secretary of the Commission objecting<br \/>\nto the\tprocess\t of  zonewise  selection  on  the  basis  of<br \/>\nseparate merit\tlist drawn  for each  zone and\trequested to<br \/>\nmake an All India Merit List in place of zonewise merit list<br \/>\nbecause the  number of\tvacancies were\tnot declared but the<br \/>\nsaid representations  were not\tdecided and,  therefore, the<br \/>\nappellants appeared  in the  written  selection\t test  under<br \/>\nprotest. The  appellants in these two appeals as well as the<br \/>\npetitioners in\tthe two\t writ petitions\t applied for various<br \/>\nunreserved posts  and appeared\tin the\twritten examination.<br \/>\nThe appellants\tand the petitioners qualified in the written<br \/>\ntest, the result of which was declared on 24-30th September,<br \/>\n1994 as published in the Employment News and were called for<br \/>\nthe interview\/personality  test held  in different  zones in<br \/>\nthe month  of October  1994 onwards. The results of the said<br \/>\nexamination  after   interview\tand  personality  test\twere<br \/>\ndeclared on January 21, 1995 but none of the appellants were<br \/>\ndeclared selected in U.P. zone examinations. So was the case<br \/>\nwith the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   The appellants  as well  as the  petitioners approauned<br \/>\nthe Tribunal as aforesaid challenging the zonewise selection<br \/>\non the\tbasis of  separate merit  list drawn  from each zone<br \/>\ninstead of  drawing All\t India Merit List which according to<br \/>\nthe appellants and petitioners had resulted the selection of<br \/>\npersons with  relatively inferior  merits  in  violation  of<br \/>\nprinciples embodied in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution<br \/>\nof India. The Tribunal relying on the decision of this Court<br \/>\nin Om  Prakash Vs.  Akhilesh Kumar  (1986 (1)  SCR 855 # AIR<br \/>\n1986 SCR  (1043) dismissed the applications at the admission<br \/>\nstage itself  by taking\t the  view  that  they\thad  already<br \/>\nappeared in  the examination  as per advertisement issued by<br \/>\nthe Commission\twhile it was open to them before taking that<br \/>\nselection to  seek judicial  review and since the process of<br \/>\nselection of  1993 was\tchallenged after  the merit list had<br \/>\nbeen declared  in January  21, 1995  they were estopped from<br \/>\nchallenging the selection in which they had participated and<br \/>\nultimately could  not be empanelled in the merit list. Being<br \/>\naggrieved by  the said\torder of the Tribunal and appellants<br \/>\nand the petitioners have approached this Court for redress.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nappellants contended that the zone-wise process of selection<br \/>\nadopted by  the Commission did not provide equal opportunity<br \/>\nto the\tcandidates appearing  in different  zones though the<br \/>\ncompetitive examination\t was  same  in\tall  the  zones.  He<br \/>\nsubmitted that\tsince the  vacancies available\tin each zone<br \/>\nwere  not   indicated,\tthe   appellants  were\t denied\t the<br \/>\nopportunity of appearing at the competitive examination from<br \/>\na centre  of a\tzone where  the number\tof the vacancies was<br \/>\nargue there  being more and better chances of selection. The<br \/>\nappellants were\t thus denied  the opportunity  of  competing<br \/>\nwith the  candidates of other centres. It was submitted that<br \/>\nthe candidates\tappearing in  a zone  having large number of<br \/>\nvacancies were\tdeclared selected  though they\thad  secured<br \/>\nmarks less  than the  candidates in  other zones  where\t the<br \/>\nvacancies were\tless  by  reason  of  which  the  candidates<br \/>\nsecuring even  more marks than the candidates in other zones<br \/>\ncould not be selected. He, therefore, urged that the process<br \/>\nand method  of zone-wise  selection of candidates adopted by<br \/>\nthe Commission\twas violative  of Article  14 and  16 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of\t India as  it had  resulted in\tselection of<br \/>\ncandidates  of\tinferior  quality  in  one  zone  while\t the<br \/>\ncandidates of superior merit in the other zones could not be<br \/>\nselected.  These  arrangements\twere  also  adopted  by\t the<br \/>\nlearned counsel\t appearing in  the  other  appeal  and\twrit<br \/>\npetitions. On  the other  hand\tShri  K.N.  Shukla,  learned<br \/>\nsenior counsel\tappearing for  the respondents supported the<br \/>\nprocess of  selection and the impugned odder of the Tribunal<br \/>\nby contending  that the\t zonewise selection  was adopted  in<br \/>\norder to  enable the candidates from a particular zone to be<br \/>\nabsorbed in  the job in the same zone and the Commission has<br \/>\nbeen recruiting\t the candidates\t to various  posts on  zonal<br \/>\nbasis right  from 1975\tand this  process of  selection\t has<br \/>\nstood the  test of  time and,  therefore, it  could  not  be<br \/>\ndisturbed. He  submitted that  the composition\tof zone\t and<br \/>\nscheme of  holding the\texamination on zonal basis was given<br \/>\nin the\tadvertisement and the candidates were free to choose<br \/>\nthe  zone   from  which\t  they\tdesired\t to  appear  in\t the<br \/>\nrecruitment examination\t and to\t choose the  centre. It\t was<br \/>\nstated that  since the\tappellants and\tthe petitioners\t had<br \/>\nappeared in  the examination,  but could not be selected and<br \/>\nas such they cannot be permitted to challenge the process of<br \/>\nselection now.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   We\t  have\t given\t serious   considerations   to\t the<br \/>\naforementioned rival contentions and have critically perused<br \/>\nthe Government resolution dated November 4, 1975 whereby the<br \/>\nCommission was\tconstituted and the functions assigned to it<br \/>\nas well\t as the\t advertisement issued for the recruitment of<br \/>\nthe candidates\tfor the\t aforementioned posts.\tA reading of<br \/>\nthe functions  assigned to the Commission, the relevant part<br \/>\nof which  is reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment<br \/>\nwill go\t to show  that it  provided that the Commission will<br \/>\namong other  things conduct  examinations whenever  required<br \/>\nfor recruitment\t to the\t posts within  their purview and for<br \/>\nensuring that  as far  as possible the actual recruitment is<br \/>\nmade on\t a zonal  basis so  as\tto  enable  candidates\tfrom<br \/>\ndifferent regions  to be  absorbed in  the vacancies arising<br \/>\nwithin the  respective regions. It thus provides the holding<br \/>\nof examination\tas far\tas possible  and  making  of  actual<br \/>\nrecruitment on zonal basis. The object sought to be achieved<br \/>\nby this\t process or  method of\tselection is  to enable\t the<br \/>\ncandidates from\t different regions  to be  absorbed  in\t the<br \/>\nvacancies  arising   within  the   respective  regions.\t The<br \/>\nquestion therefore  that arises for consideration is whether<br \/>\nsuch a\tselection based\t on zonal basis would be permissible<br \/>\nor it  would be\t violative of  the Constitutional  guarantee<br \/>\nenshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   It is  needless to emphasis that the purpose and object<br \/>\nbehind\tholding\t a  recruitment\t examination  is  to  select<br \/>\nsuitable and  best candidates  out of  the lot\tand such  an<br \/>\nobject can  only be  achieved by making a common select list<br \/>\nof the\tsuccessful candidates belonging to all the zones. On<br \/>\nthe other  hand if  zone-wise selection is made then various<br \/>\ncandidates who\tappeared in  some of  the zones\t and secured<br \/>\nmore marks  than those\twho are\t selected from\tother  zones<br \/>\nwould be  deprived of  their selection\tresulting into great<br \/>\ninjustice and  consequent discrimination.  Thus there can be<br \/>\nsaid to\t exist no  nexus between  the aforesaid\t process  of<br \/>\nzone-wise selection  and the object to be achieved, that is,<br \/>\nthe selection  of the  best candidates.\t That being  so\t the<br \/>\nprocess of  selection as  envisaged in\tparagraph 16  of the<br \/>\nadvertisement in question and reproduced in the earlier part<br \/>\nof  this  judgment  would  lead\t to  discriminatory  results<br \/>\nbecause by  adopting the said process of zone-wise selection<br \/>\nwould result  in the  devaluation of  merit at the selection<br \/>\nexamination by\tselecting a  candidate having  lesser  marks<br \/>\nover the  meritorious candidate\t who has  secured more marks<br \/>\nand consequently  the rule  of equal  chance for equal marks<br \/>\nwould be  violated. Such a process would not only be against<br \/>\nthe principles\tenunciated in  Article\t14  and\t 16  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution but  it would  also result in heart burning and<br \/>\nfrustration amongst  the young\tmen of the country. The rule<br \/>\nof equality  of opportunity  for  every\t individual  in\t the<br \/>\ncountry\t is   an  inalienable  part  of\t our  constitutional<br \/>\nguarantee and  that being  so a\t candidate who\tsecures more<br \/>\nmarks than  another is definitely entitled to get preference<br \/>\nfor the\t job as\t the merit must be the test when selecting a<br \/>\ncandidate  for\t recruitment  for   the\t posts\t which\t are<br \/>\nadvertised. In\tthe present  case admittedly  the process of<br \/>\nselection as  envisaged in paragraph 16 of the advertisement<br \/>\nin question  is violative  of  Article\t14  and\t 16  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution of\t India as  it has been demonstrated from the<br \/>\nmarks st  of the  appellants placed  before us\tat  the\t Bar<br \/>\nduring the  course of  arguments that  they had secured more<br \/>\nmarks than those secured by some of the selected candidates.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   In the  case of  Rajendran Vs.  State of  Madras &amp; Ors.<br \/>\n(1968(2)  SCR\t786)  this   Court  had\t  struck  down\t the<br \/>\ndistrictwise distribution of seats for the medical admission<br \/>\nas  providing\tfor  unitwise  allocation  was\theld  to  be<br \/>\nviolative of  Article 14  and 16  of the Constitution on the<br \/>\nground that  it\t might\tresult\tin  candidates\tof  inferior<br \/>\ncalibre being selected in one district and those of superior<br \/>\ncalibre not being selected in another district. Similarly in<br \/>\nthe case  of Peeriakaruppan  Vs State  of Tamil\t Nadu &amp; Ors.<br \/>\n(1971 (2)  SCR 430)  unit-wise allocation  of seats was also<br \/>\nheld to be void and was struck down as discriminatory. Again<br \/>\nin  the\t  case\tof  Nidamarti  Mahesh  Kumar  Vs.  State  of<br \/>\nMaharashtra &amp;  Ors. (1986  (2) SCC  534) region-wise  scheme<br \/>\nadopted by  the State  Government was  held to\tbe void\t and<br \/>\nstruck down by this Court by holding that it would result in<br \/>\ndenial of  equal  opportunity  and  was\t thus  violative  of<br \/>\nArticle 14 of the Constitution. The ratio of these decisions<br \/>\nof this Court is fully attracted to the facts of the present<br \/>\ncase in\t which the  process of\tselection on the zonal basis<br \/>\nwill also result in denial of equal opportunity and would be<br \/>\nviolative of Article 14 and we hold accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  The argument  advanced by\tthe learned  counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondents that  this process\tof zone-wise selection is in<br \/>\nvogue since  1975 and  has stood the test of time can not be<br \/>\naccepted for  the simple reason that it was never challenged<br \/>\nby anybody  and was  not subjected  to judicial\t scrutiny at<br \/>\nall. If\t on judicial  scrutiny it  cannot stand\t the test of<br \/>\nreasonableness and constitutionality it cannot be allowed to<br \/>\ncontinue and  has to  be struck\t down. But  we make it clear<br \/>\nthat this  judgment will  have prospective  application\t and<br \/>\nwhatever selections  and appointments  have so far been made<br \/>\nin accordance  with the\t impugned process of selection shall<br \/>\nnot be\tdisturbed on  the basis\t of this  judgment.  But  in<br \/>\nfuture no  such selection  shall be made on the zonal basis.<br \/>\nIf the\tGovernment is keen to make zone-wise selection after<br \/>\nallocating some\t posts for each zone it may make such scheme<br \/>\nor rules  or adopt  such process  of selection which may not<br \/>\nclash with  the provisions contained in Article 14 and 16 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution  of India  having regard  to the guidelines<br \/>\nlaid down  by this  Court  from\t time  to  time\t in  various<br \/>\npronouncements. In  the facts  and circumstances of the case<br \/>\nwe make no order as to costs. The appeals and writ petitions<br \/>\nare allowed as indicated above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Radhey Shyam Singh &amp; Ors vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 9 December, 1996 Author: F Uddin Bench: S.C. Agrawal, Faizan Uddin PETITIONER: RADHEY SHYAM SINGH &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/12\/1996 BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, FAIZAN UDDIN ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: (With Civil Appeal [&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-192340","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>Radhey Shyam Singh &amp; Ors vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 9 December, 1996 - 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\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Radhey Shyam Singh &amp; Ors vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 9 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-09T03:50:48+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Radhey Shyam Singh &amp; Ors vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 9 December, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-09T03:50:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2662,\"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\\\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996\",\"name\":\"Radhey Shyam Singh &amp; Ors vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 9 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-09T03:50:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Radhey Shyam Singh &amp; Ors vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 9 December, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Radhey Shyam Singh &amp; Ors vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 9 December, 1996 - 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\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Radhey Shyam Singh &amp; Ors vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 9 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-09T03:50:48+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Radhey Shyam Singh &amp; Ors vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 9 December, 1996","datePublished":"1996-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-09T03:50:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996"},"wordCount":2662,"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\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996","name":"Radhey Shyam Singh &amp; Ors vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 9 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-09T03:50:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhey-shyam-singh-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-december-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Radhey Shyam Singh &amp; Ors vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 9 December, 1996"}]},{"@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\/192340","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=192340"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192340\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192340"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192340"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}