{"id":195086,"date":"2006-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006"},"modified":"2016-09-08T14:40:35","modified_gmt":"2016-09-08T09:10:35","slug":"union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"Union Public Service Commission vs L.P. Tiwari &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Public Service Commission vs L.P. Tiwari &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr.Ar. Lakshmanan, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5155 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nUNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION\n\nRESPONDENT:\nL.P. TIWARI &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nDr.AR. Lakshmanan &amp; Altamas Kabir\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP (c) No.12249\/2006)<\/p>\n<p>ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShri L.P. Tiwari, respondent No.1 in the first matter and<br \/>\nShri DP. Dwivedi, respondent No.1 in the second matter, were<br \/>\nserving as State Service Forest Officers in the post of Assistant<br \/>\nConservator of Forests in the office of the Divisional Forest<br \/>\nOfficer, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.  Both the said officers<br \/>\nbecame eligible to be promoted to the Indian Forest Service<br \/>\nunder the provisions of the I.F.S. (Appointment by Promotion)<br \/>\nRegulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Regulations&#8217;)<br \/>\nRegulation  3 of the said Regulations provides for the<br \/>\nappointment of a Selection Committee consisting of the<br \/>\nChairman  of the Union Public Service Commission or where<br \/>\nthe Chairman is unable to attend, any other Member of the<br \/>\nUnion Public Service Commission along with the following<br \/>\nmembers as far as the  State of Madhya Pradesh is<br \/>\nconcerned:-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tChief Secretary to the Govt. of M.P;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tSecretary to the Govt. of M.P. dealing with Forests;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)\tPrincipal Chief Conservator of Forests,Govt. of M.P.;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv)\tChief Conservator of Forests, Govt.of  M.P. and;\n<\/p>\n<p>(v)\tA nominee of the Govt. of India not below the rank<br \/>\nof Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>All meetings of the Selection Committee  are presided<br \/>\nover by the Chairman\/Member of the Union Public Service<br \/>\nCommission.\n<\/p>\n<p>In keeping with the Regulations, the Selection Committee<br \/>\nclassifies eligible State Forest Service Officers coming within<br \/>\nthe zone of consideration as &#8220;outstanding&#8221;, &#8220;very good&#8221;, &#8220;good&#8221;<br \/>\nor &#8220;unfit&#8221; on an overall assessment of their service records.<br \/>\nThereafter, as per Regulation 5 (4), the Selection Committee<br \/>\nprepares a list by including  the required number of names<br \/>\nfirst from amongst officers classified  as &#8220;outstanding&#8221; and<br \/>\nthen from amongst  those classified as &#8220;very good&#8221;, and<br \/>\nthereafter from amongst those classified as  &#8220;good&#8221;.  The<br \/>\nnames within each category are set in the order of their<br \/>\nrespective inter se seniority in the said  Forest Service.<br \/>\nThe Annual Confidential Reports of the eligible officers<br \/>\nform the basis on which such officers are categorized in the<br \/>\nmanner indicated above.  However, while making an overall<br \/>\nassessment, the Selection Committee  also takes into account<br \/>\norders and remarks regarding appreciation for meritorious<br \/>\nwork done by the concerned officer.  Similarly, orders<br \/>\nawarding  penalties  or any adverse remarks  communicated to<br \/>\nthe officer and which have not been expunged are also  taken<br \/>\ninto consideration while grading the officers.<br \/>\nIn the instant case, a meeting of the Selection Committee<br \/>\nwas held on 12th and 13th December, 2002 to prepare the<br \/>\nyearwise  Select List for the years 2001 and 2002 for<br \/>\npromotion  to the I.F.S. cadre of  Madhya Pradesh in<br \/>\naccordance with the aforesaid Regulations.  The size of the<br \/>\nSelect List for the year 2001 was 11 and 9 for the year 2002.<br \/>\nAs the zone of consideration in each year  is taken as three<br \/>\ntimes the number of vacancies available, 33 names were<br \/>\nconsidered  for the 11 vacancies for the year 2001 and 27<br \/>\nnames were  considered  for  filling up the 9 vacancies for the<br \/>\nyear 2002.   On  an overall assessment of his service records,<br \/>\nthe Selection Committee assessed Shri L.P. Tiwari as being<br \/>\n&#8220;very good&#8221;.  On such assessment, his name was included at<br \/>\nserial no.10 in the Select List of 2001 for promotion to the<br \/>\nIndian Forest Service.  The respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were<br \/>\nassessed as &#8220;outstanding&#8221; by the Selection Committee and<br \/>\nwere included at serial nos. 3 to 7 in the Select List.<br \/>\nAggrieved by his placing at serial no.10 in the Select List,<br \/>\nShri L.P. Tiwari filed O.A.No.118\/2004 before the Central<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as<br \/>\n&#8216;the Tribunal&#8217;) claiming that he ought to have been assessed as<br \/>\n&#8220;outstanding&#8221; and should have been assigned seniority in the<br \/>\nIndian Forest Service Cadre over respondent Nos. 4 to 8.<br \/>\nAlthough, Shri D.P. Dwivedi&#8217;s name was also considered<br \/>\nand placed at serial no.8 in the Select List for the year 2001<br \/>\nand he was also  graded as  &#8220;very good&#8221; by the Selection<br \/>\nCommittee, his  name did not find place  in Select List  for the<br \/>\nyear 2001 on account of the  statutory limit on the size of the<br \/>\nSelect List.  He was also not considered for promotion to the<br \/>\nSelect List of 2002 as he had crossed the age of 54 years on 1st<br \/>\nJanuary, 2002 which was the date  fixed for reckoning the<br \/>\neligibility of officers for inclusion in the  Select List of 2002.<br \/>\nShri Dwivedi also filed  Original Application No.16\/2003 before<br \/>\nthe Tribunal challenging the selection\/appointment of the<br \/>\nState Forest Officers  to the I.F.S. cadre for the year 2002.<br \/>\nThe two aforesaid applications as also the application<br \/>\nfiled by one M. Ramachandran (O.A.No.69\/2003) were  taken<br \/>\nup for hearing together since the grievances were more or less<br \/>\ncommon, although the prayer  in Shri L.P. Tiwari&#8217;s application<br \/>\nwas different from the others.  While the others prayed for a de<br \/>\nnovo    selection by a  Review  Departmental Promotion<br \/>\nCommittee, Shri L.P. Tiwari prayed for a  declaration that he<br \/>\nought  to have been assessed as &#8220;outstanding&#8221; in the  year<br \/>\n2001 and that he should be assigned seniority in the I.F.S.<br \/>\nCadre over the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and others.  The<br \/>\nlearned Tribunal adopted a rather unusual procedure in<br \/>\ndealing with the applications after going through the Annual<br \/>\nConfidential Reports of the applicants in detail.   On a<br \/>\ncomparison of the merits and demerits of the parties as<br \/>\nreflected in their Annual Confidential Reports, the Tribunal<br \/>\ncame to a finding that patent material irregularities  had been<br \/>\ncommitted by the Selection Committee for the year 2001 for<br \/>\nwhich the entire selection process for the year 2001 was liable<br \/>\nto be reviewed.  The respondents were accordingly directed to<br \/>\nconvene a meeting of the Selection Committee to review the<br \/>\nproceedings of the Selection Committee for the year 2001 in<br \/>\nthe light  of the observations made in the  Tribunal&#8217;s order and<br \/>\nthereafter  to grant all consequential benefits within a period<br \/>\nof three months from the date of communication of the order.<br \/>\nThe Union Public Service Commission  filed two separate<br \/>\nWrit Petitions  in regard to the applications filed by Shri L.P.<br \/>\nTiwari  and Shri D.P. Dwivedi being W.P.No.3718\/05 (S) and<br \/>\nW.P. No.3719\/05 (S).  Both the Writ Petitions were taken up<br \/>\nfor hearing on 9th March, 2006 and ultimately by its judgment<br \/>\ndated 14th March, 2006, the High Court upheld the findings of<br \/>\nthe Tribunal and dismissed both the Writ Applications.  The<br \/>\nHigh Court directed the respondents to hold a Review<br \/>\nDepartmental Promotion Committee in accordance with the<br \/>\nRules within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a<br \/>\ncertified copy of the order and submission of the same to the<br \/>\ncompetent authority by Shri L.P. Tiwari and Shri D.P. Dwivedi.<br \/>\nThis appeal has been preferred by the Union Public Service<br \/>\nCommission against the aforesaid judgment and order of the<br \/>\nHigh Court affirming the order and directions given by the<br \/>\nTribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that both<br \/>\nthe Tribunal as also the High Court had misdirected<br \/>\nthemselves in directing a Review Departmental Promotion<br \/>\nCommittee to be held since the entire procedure leading to the<br \/>\npreparation of the Select List both for the years 2001 and<br \/>\n2002 was strictly in accordance with the Regulations and<br \/>\nthere had been no deviation therefrom.  It was urged that  the<br \/>\nSelection Committee had acted  strictly in accordance with the<br \/>\nparameters laid down by the Regulations.  In fact, Mr. Rao,<br \/>\nlearned senior counsel, took us through each step of the<br \/>\nprocedure which is adopted by the Selection Committee while<br \/>\ngrading the eligible  candidates  in the different  categories.<br \/>\nHaving regard to the provisions in the Regulations that the<br \/>\nAnnual Confidential Reports of the past five years would be<br \/>\ntaken into consideration for preparing the Select List, the<br \/>\nTribunal appears to have committed an error in relying on<br \/>\nAnnual Confidential Reports of even previous years and<br \/>\nthereby widening the scope of selection.   Such an erroneous<br \/>\napproach has led the Tribunal to wrongly conclude that the<br \/>\nSelection Committee had erred in grading  the eligible officers.<br \/>\nIt is now more or less well-settled that the evaluation<br \/>\nmade by an expert committee should not be easily interfered<br \/>\nwith by the Courts which do not have the necessary<br \/>\nexpertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such<br \/>\npurpose.  Such view was reiterated  as late as in 2005  in the<br \/>\ncase of  <a href=\"\/doc\/1582344\/\">U.P.S.C.  vs. K. Rajaiah &amp; Ors.,<\/a> reported in (2005) 10<br \/>\nSCC 15, wherein the aforesaid  Rules for the  purpose of<br \/>\npromotion to the I.P.S. Cadre was under consideration.  Apart<br \/>\nfrom the above, at no stage of the proceedings, either before<br \/>\nthe Tribunal or the High Court or even before this Court,  has<br \/>\nany allegation of mala fides  been raised against the Selection<br \/>\nCommittee and the only grievance is that the Selection<br \/>\nCommittee erred while making assessment  of the comparative<br \/>\nmerits of the respective candidates.   While concluding his<br \/>\nsubmissions, Mr. Rao had pointed out that   the direction<br \/>\ngiven by the High Court to the appellant to hold a Review<br \/>\nDepartmental Promotion Committee was also erroneous since<br \/>\nthe Regulations provided for  selection to be made not by  a<br \/>\nDepartmental  Promotion Committee but by  a Selection<br \/>\nCommittee constituted  as  per the Regulations.<br \/>\nAlthough, on behalf of the respondents it has been urged<br \/>\nthat there was no bar which precluded the Tribunal from<br \/>\nlooking into the original ACRs of the respective candidates,<br \/>\nwhat we are required to consider is whether it was at all<br \/>\nprudent on the part of the Tribunal to have adopted such a<br \/>\nprocedure which would amount to questioning the subjective<br \/>\nsatisfaction of the Selection Committee in preparing the Select<br \/>\nList.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the submissions made and the materials on record,<br \/>\nwe are satisfied that the methodology which has been evolved<br \/>\nand included in the Regulations for grading the eligible officers<br \/>\nhave been religiously followed by the Selection Committee<br \/>\nwhich  did not call for  any interference by the Tribunal.  The<br \/>\nHigh Court has merely followed the decision of the Tribunal<br \/>\nwithout independently applying its mind to the facts involved.<br \/>\nWe accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the<br \/>\njudgment of the High Court impugned in this appeal as also<br \/>\nthat of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>There will, however, be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Union Public Service Commission vs L.P. Tiwari &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2006 Author: A Kabir Bench: Dr.Ar. Lakshmanan, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5155 of 2006 PETITIONER: UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION RESPONDENT: L.P. TIWARI &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/11\/2006 BENCH: Dr.AR. Lakshmanan &amp; Altamas Kabir JUDGMENT: J U [&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-195086","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>Union Public Service Commission vs L.P. Tiwari &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2006 - 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\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Public Service Commission vs L.P. Tiwari &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-08T09:10:35+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\\\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Public Service Commission vs L.P. Tiwari &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-08T09:10:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1729,\"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\\\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006\",\"name\":\"Union Public Service Commission vs L.P. Tiwari &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-08T09:10:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Public Service Commission vs L.P. Tiwari &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Public Service Commission vs L.P. Tiwari &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2006 - 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\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Public Service Commission vs L.P. Tiwari &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-08T09:10:35+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\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Public Service Commission vs L.P. Tiwari &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-08T09:10:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006"},"wordCount":1729,"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\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006","name":"Union Public Service Commission vs L.P. Tiwari &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-08T09:10:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-public-service-commission-vs-l-p-tiwari-ors-on-22-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Public Service Commission vs L.P. Tiwari &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2006"}]},{"@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\/195086","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=195086"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195086\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195086"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195086"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195086"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}