{"id":227231,"date":"1992-11-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-11-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992"},"modified":"2018-02-17T11:10:23","modified_gmt":"2018-02-17T05:40:23","slug":"union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992","title":{"rendered":"Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992<\/div>\n
Bench: [J.S. Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal Venkatachala, Jj.]<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDILBAGH SINGH AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/11\/1992\n\nBENCH:\n[J.S. VERMA, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]\n\n\n\n\nACT:\nCivil Services;\nChandigarh  Transport  Undertaking-Conductors-Selection\t for\nappointment-Constitution  of   Selection  Board-Select\tlist\nprepared-Criticism of  favouritism and\tnepotism in awarding\nmarks\tat    Interview-Confirmed    on\t   examination\t  by\nAdministration though  corruption charges  not\testablished-\nhowever\t selection   unfair  and  injudicious-Administration\nordering cancellation  of select  list and  constituting new\nSelection Board-Validity  of-Non affording of opportunity to\nMembers of  Selection Board  and selected  candidates-Effect\nof.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nFor filling  up the posts of 32 vacancies of conductors\nin  the\t  Transport  Undertaking  under\t it,  the  appellant\nrequested  the\tEmployment  Exchange  to  sponsor  names  of\neligible candidates  and constituted  a Selection  board  to\nprepare a  Select list.\t The Selection Board interviewed 446\ncandidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and prepared\na Select  List of  32  candidates  on  the  basis  of  marks\nawardable for  educational qualifications and performance at\nthe interview.\tThere was criticism that the select list was\nan amalgum  of favouritism,  nepotism  and  even  corruption\nresorted to by members of the Selection board. The appellant\ngot the\t select list examined which revealed that the select\nlist was  not prepared by the members of the Selection board\nfairly and judiciously, in that, the members had taken undue\nadvantage of  awarding marks  in  the  interview  to  favour\ncandidates of their choice although there was no evidence of\ncorruption. Hence  the appellant decided to constitute a new\nSelection Board to prepare fresh select list on the basis of\nonly 15\t per cent marks awardable to candidates or pull down\nmerited candidates. Accordingly, the appellant cancelled the\nselect list  of candidates constituted a new Selection Board\nto prepare  a fresh  select  list  from\t out  of  candidates\nincluding those\t who had  been interviewed  by\tthe  earlier\nSelection Board and the criteria to be followed was that 85%\nmarks would  be awardable for educational qualifications and\n15% marks for performance in interview.\nWhen the newly constituted Selection Board was about to\ninterview the  candidates, the respondents whose names found\nplace in  the cancelled\t select list  approached the Central\nAdministrative Tribunal\t seeking the  setting aside  of\t the\norder cancelling  the select  list and\tconstituting  a\t new\nBoard. The  Tribunal, on  the  ground  of  non-affording  of\nopportunity to\tthe members  of the  Selection Board  before\ncancelling the\tselect list,  set aside\t the order issued by\nthe appellant  and directed  the appellant to appoint in the\navailable vacancies the candidates from the cancelled select\nlist in\t preference  to\t candidates  from  the\tselect\tlist\nprepared by the newly constituted Selection Board.\nBeingaggrieved by  the Tribunal's  order the  appellant\npreferred the present appeal by special leave.\nOn behalf  of  the  appellant  it  was\tcontended  that\naffording of  an opportunity to the members of the Selection\nBoard before  cancelling the  select list  being  neither  a\nrequirement  of\t  law  nor  a  requirement  of\tany  of\t the\nprinciples of  natural justice,\t it could not have been made\nthe sole  ground for  setting aside  the order issued by the\nappellant.\nOn behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the\nselect list  of candidates prepared by the earlier Selection\nBoard\thas been cancelled by the appellant though there was\nno proof  of corruption\t charges against  the members of the\nSelection Board; and that an opportunity of hearing ought to\nhave been  given to the candidates in the select list before\nit was cancelled.\nAllowing the appeal, this court,\nHELD:\t1.   The   order   made\t  by   the   appellant-\nAdministration\tcancelling  the select\tlist cannot  but  be\nregarded athe  right and  just one.  Such an order cannot be\nvitiated on  the  ground  that\tit  had\t been  made  without\naffording an  opportunity of  hearing to  the members of the\nSelection Board\t who had prepared it. Further, such an order\ncannot be  vitiated either  because no\tdirect evidence\t was\nmade available\tto   prove corruption  charges\tagainst\t the\nmembers of  the Selection  Board in  the matter\t of award of\ninterview marks\t by them so as to tilt the balance in favour\nof  candidates\twith  poor  educational\t qualifications\t and\nagainst the  candidates with high educational qualifications\nor because  there was  no opportunity of hearing afforded to\nthe candidates\tin theselect  list to  sustain it before its\ncancellation by the appellant-Administration. [318-c-f]\n2.Affording  of\t  an  opportunity   of\thearing\t by  an\nAdministration\tto   the  members   of\ta   Selection  Board\nconstituted by\tit, before  cancelling a dubious select list\nof candidates  for appointment\tto civil  posts prepared  by\nsuch Selection\tBoard is  not and cannot be a requirement of\neither law or any principle of natural justice. It is so for\nthe reason  that no  member of\ta Selection  Board. Besides,\nthere is  no personal  right or\t interest of any member of a\nSelection Board\t which could  be adversely  affected by\t the\nAdministration\tcancelling   a\tselect\tlist  of  candidates\nprepared by  the Selection  Board when\tit is  found to have\nbeen  prepared\t by  the  Selection  Board,  in\t unfair\t and\ninjudicious manner. [318-G; H 319-A]\n3.  The\t  select  list,\t which\twas  cancelled\tby  the\nappellant-Administration  was  found  by  it  to  have\tbeen\nprepared in  unfair and\t injudicious  manner,  in  that\t the\ninterview marks\t purported  to\thave  been  awarded  by\t the\nmembers of  the\t Selection  Board  for\tthe  performance  of\ncandidates at  their interview\twere either inflated to push\nup  the\t  candidates  who  had\tgot  poor  marks  for  their\neducational qualifications  or deflated\t to  pull  down\t the\ncandidates who\thad got\t high marks  for  their\t educational\nqualifications. That select list was also found to have been\nprepared without  adopting common  eligibility criteria\t for\nall candidates.\t when the  said reasons formed the basis for\nthe appellant-Administration  to cancel the select list, the\nfact that charges of corruption levelled against the members\nof the\tSelection Board\t in the\t preparation of\t that select\nlist had not been established by direct evidence produced in\nthat regard, can make no difference. [319-E-H]\n4. Since  it is\t accepted that\ta candidate who finds a\nplace in  the  select  list  as\t a  candidate  selected\t for\nappointment  to\t  a  civil   post,  does   not\tacquire\t  an\nindefeasible right  to be  appointed in\t such  post  in\t the\nabsence\t of   any  specific  Rule  entitling  him  for\tsuch\nappointment and he could be aggrieved by hes non-appointment\nonly when  the Administration  does so either arbitrarily or\nfor  no\t bona  fide  reasons,  it  follows  as\ta  necessary\nconcomitant that  such candidate even if he has a legitimate\nexpectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name\nfinding a  place in  the select\t list of  candidates, cannot\nclaim to have a right to be heard before such select list is\ncancelled  for\t bona  fide   and  valid   reasons  and\t not\narbitrarily.[321-B,C]\nShankarasan Dash v. Union of India, JT<\/a> (1991) 2 SC 380,\nrelied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4649 of
\n1992.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  27.5.1991  of\t the
\nCentral Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in Regn. No. OA-
\n139-CH of 1990.\n<\/p>\n
     Raj Birbal for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     S.S. Nijjar,  Bhal Singh Malik and Vishal Malik for the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     VENKATACHALA, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     The short\tquestion arising  for our  decision in\tthis
\nAppeal\tis,  whether  the  Order  by  which  the  Chandigarh
\nAdministration cancelled  the select  list of candidates for
\nappointment  as\t  Conductors  in  the  Chandigarh  Transport
\nUndertaking (CTU)  prepared by a Selection Board constituted
\ntherefor, because of its view of that select list not having
\nbeen prepared  in a fair and judicious manner, was liable to
\nbe interfered  with by\tthe Central  Administrative Tribunal
\n(CAT) on the ground of that Order having not been made after
\naffording an  opportunity of  hearing thereon to the members
\nof the concerned Selection Board.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts\tgiving rise  to the  said question  lie in a
\nnarrow compass.\t In the\t year 1989, there arose 32 vacancies
\nof conductors  in CTU  of Chandigarh was required to sponsor
\nthe  names  of\teligible  candidates  while  a\tthree-member
\nSelection Board constituted by the Chandigarh Administration
\nwas required  to prepare  a select list of 32 candidates out
\nof such candidates. That selection Board interviewed as many
\nas 446\tcandidates so  sponsored by  the Regional Employment
\nExchange and  prepared a select list of 32 candidates on the
\nbasis\tof    marks   awardable\t   for\t their\t educational
\nqualifications plus  the marks awarded for their performance
\nat the\tinterview, a  criteria which  was said\tto have been
\nfollowed by  a Selection  board constituted  for  a  similar
\npurpose in  the Year  1953. That criteria, although required
\nthe  award   of\t marks\tfor  the  educational  qualification
\npossessed by  a candidate  upto 110, enabled every member of
\nthe Selection  Committee to award marks for such candidate’s
\nperformance at\tthe interview upto 20. The select list of 32
\ncandidates meant  to fill  the 32 vacancies of conductors in
\nCTU, when  was announced  on September\t11,1989, it  invited
\nsevere criticism from the members of both the public and the
\nPress as  to the role of the members of t he Selection Board
\nin the matter of its preparation. The select list, according
\nto the\tcriticism, was\tthe amalgum  of favourtism. nepotism
\nand even  corruption resorted  to  by  the  members  of\t the
\nSelection Board.  The Chandigarh  Administration which could
\nnot ignore such criticism, got examined the select list with
\nreference   to the  marks awardable  to the  candidates\t for
\ntheir educational qualification and the marks awarded by the
\nmembers of  the Selection  Board to the candidates for their
\nperformance at\tthe interview  had brought  into select list
\nthe least  qualified candidates\t who had  been awarded least
\nmarks for  marks for  their educational qualifications. Such
\nexamination also  revealed that\t uniform standards  had\t not
\nbeen applied  to app  candidates by  the Selection  Board in
\ntheir selection. These revelations, compelled the Chandigarh
\nAdministration\tto   conclude  that   the  select   list  of
\ncandidates for appointment as conductors in CTU had not been
\nprepared by  the members  of the  Selection Board fairly and
\njudiciously in\tthat those members had taken undue advantage
\nof the\tmarks awardable\t by them  at the interview to favour
\nthe  candidates\t of  their  choice  although  there  was  no
\nclinching  evidence   of  corruption   attributable  to\t the
\nmembers. This  situation made  the Chandigarh Administration
\nto think of cancellation of the dubious select list prepared
\nby the\tSelection Board\t and of\t the constitution  of a\t new
\nSelection Board\t to prepare a fresh select list on the basis
\nof only\t 15 per cent interview marks awardable to candidates
\nas against  30 per  cent interview  marks awardable earlier,
\nlest the  power of  the Selection  Board to  award interview
\nmarks may be utilised either to pull up unmerited candidates
\nor pull\t down  the  merited  candidates.  Consequently,\t the
\nChandigarh Administration  made an  order of  cancelling the
\nselect list  of candidates  for\t appointment  as  conductors
\nprepared by  the Selection  Board and published on September
\n11,1989, and  constituted a new Selection Board to prepare a
\nfresh select list of candidates including those who had been
\ninterviewed by the earlier Selection Board, according to the
\nfresh selection\t criteria with\t85 per\tcent marks awardable
\nfor educational qualifications of candidates and 15 per cent
\nmarks awardable for their performance at interview.\n<\/p>\n
     The newly constituted Selection Board when was about to
\ninterview the eligible candidates for selection as conductor
\nfor CTU,  the Respondents  in this  Appeal, whose  names had
\nfound places  in the  cancelled select\tlist of\t candidates,
\nfiled applications before CAT seeking the setting aside of t
\nhe aforesaid  order made by the Chandigarh Administration by
\nwhich it  had cancelled\t the select  list  prepared  by\t the
\nearlier Selection  Board and  directed the newly constituted
\nSelection Board to prepare a fresh select list of candidates
\non the\tbasis  of  altered  criteria  of  marks.  CAT  which
\nentertained those  applications, has  by its  Judgment dated
\nMay 27,1991  not merely\t set aside that part of the impugned
\norder of  the Chandigarh  Administration  by  which  it\t had
\ncancelled the  earlier select  list but\t also  directed\t the
\nChandigarh Administration  by  which  it  had  cancelled  to
\nearlier\t select\t  list\tbut  also  directed  the  Chardigarh
\nAdministration to  appoint in  the  available  vacancies  of
\nconductors in  CTU the\tcandidates from the cancelled select
\nlist in\t preference to\tcandidates selected as conductors in
\nthe select  list prepared  by the fresh Selection Board. The
\nChandigarh Administration,  which  felt\t aggrieved  by\tthis
\nJudgment of CAT has preferred this Appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
     In its  judgment under  Appeal, the  CAT has, no doubt,
\nexpressed its  reactions to  the  views\t of  the  Chandigarh
\nAdministration as  to t\t he charge  of\tcorruption  levelled
\nagainst the  members of\t the earlier  Selection Board in the
\nmatter of preparation of select list of candidates by it and
\nthe percentage\tof marks  awardable to\tcandidates for their
\nperformance  at\t interview  while  examining  the  challenge
\ndirected  against   the\t order\t made  by   the\t  Chandigarh
\nAdministration cancelling that select list and requiring the
\npreparation of a fresh select list. Yet, those reactions are
\nnot made  use of by the CAT as grounds for setting aside the
\norder of  Chandigarh Administration  impugned before it. The
\nsole ground,  has been\tfrom the Judgment, which has weighed
\nwith the  CAT for  setting aside  that part  of the impugned
\norder of  Chandigarh Administration  by\t which\tit  had\t can
\ncalled the select list of candidates prepared by the earlier
\nSelection Board\t in  the  non-affording\t by  the  Chandigarh
\nAdministration of  an opportunity  of hearing to the members
\nof its\tSelection Board before cancelling the select list of
\ncandidates prepared by them.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  contended on  behalf of  the  Appellant  –\t the
\nChandigarh Administration-that\taffording of  an opportunity
\nof hearing  to the  members of\tthe earlier  Selection Board
\nbefore cancelling  their dubious  select list  of candidates
\nfor appointment\t as  conductors\t in  CTU,  being  neither  a
\nrequirement of\tlaw nor\t a requirement\tof any\tprinciple of
\nnatural Justice,  the CAT   could  not have made it the sole
\nground for setting aside of the order by which the Appellant
\nhad cancelled such select list and hence the Judgment of CAT
\nunder appeal  based on\tsuch untenable ground required to be
\nset aside. The learned counsel for Respondents-Candidates in
\nthe select  list cancelled by the Chandigarh Administration,
\nhowever, did  not choose  to urge  that the  ground of\tnon-
\naffording of an opportunity by the Chandigarh Administration
\nto the\tmembers\t of  the  selection  Board  before  ordering
\ncancellation of\t their select  list, was  a valid  ground on
\nwhich the  CAT could  have rested its Judgment under appeal.
\nBut,  he   contended,  rather  very  streneously,  that\t the
\nJudgment of  CAT under\tappeal was  required to be sustained
\nfor the\t reason that  the cancellation of the select list of
\ncandidates prepared  by the earlier Selection Board had been
\nmade by\t the Appellant\t(Chandigarh Administration)  without
\nproof of  corruption charges levelled against the members of
\nthat  Selection\t  Board\t in  that  matter  of  selection  of
\ncandidates and\tfurther without\t affording an opportunity of
\nhearing to  the candidates in the select list to sustain the
\nsame.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  now proceed  to examine the sustainability or
\notherwise of  the rival\t contentions. The  Judgment  of\t CAT
\nitself refers  to the  enquiry got  conducted by  Chandigarh
\nAdministration about  the select  list of  32 candidates  as
\nprepared by  its Selection Board. Such enquiry revealed that
\nthe members  of the  Selection Board.  Such enquiry revealed
\nthat the  members of the Selection Board had made use of the
\ninterview  marks   awardable  by  them\tfor  performance  of
\ncandidates at interview to eliminate merited candidates from
\nthe list  and to  bring in unmerited candidates, is a matter
\nadverted to  in the  said Judgment. No doubt, the Chandigarh
\nAdministration (Appellant)  has\t found\tthat  there  was  no
\ndirect evidence\t of corruption\tproduced against the members
\nof the\tSelection Board for the favour they had shown in the
\nmatter\tof   awarding  high  interview\tmarks  to  unmerited
\ncandidates. Yet,  having regard\t to the systematic manner of
\naward by  the Selection\t Board of  high interview  marks  to
\ncandidates  with   low\tmarks\tgot  for  their\t educational
\nqualifications and of low interview marks to candidates with
\nhigh marks  got for  their educational\tqualifications,\t the
\nChandigarh Administration  discerned the  tilting of balance
\nby the\tSelection Board\t in favour  of candidates  with poor
\nqualifications\t and\tagainst\t  candidates\twith\thigh
\nqualifications.\t Consequently,\t it   concluded\t  that\t the
\nSelection  Board   had\tnot   prepared\tto  select  list  of
\ncandidates for\tappointment as\tconductors in CTU, in a fair
\nand judicious  manner. When  the select list prepared by the
\nSelection  Board   was\tthus   regarded\t by  the  Chandigarh
\nAdministration as  a dubious  select list, it cancelled that
\nselect list and constituted a new Selection Board to prepare
\na fresh\t select list  of candidates  out  of  the  competing
\ncandidates  including\tthe  candidates\t  whose\t cases\twere
\nconsidered by  the  earlier  Selection\tBoard,\ton  a  fresh
\nselection criteria  which provided  for award of as large as
\n85     percent\tmarks\tfor  educational  qualifications  of
\ncandidates and\tfor award  of as  little as  15 percent\t for
\nperformance of\tcandidates at  interview, by making an order
\nin  that  regard.  The\torder  so  made\t by  the  Chandigarh
\nAdministration cannot  but be  regarded as the right and the
\njust one.  Such an  order, as  is held\tby  CAT,  cannot  be
\nvitiated on  the  ground  that\tit  had\t been  made  without
\naffording an  opportunity of  hearing to  the members of the
\nSelection Board\t who had prepared it. Further, such an order
\ncannot be  vitiated either  because no\tdirect evidence\t was
\nmade available\tto  prove  corruption  charges\tagainst\t the
\nmembers of  the Selection  Board in  the matter\t of award of
\ninterview marks\t by them so as to tilt the balance in favour
\nof  candidates\twith  poor  educational\t qualifications\t and
\nagainst the  candidates with high educational qualifications
\nor because  there was  no opportunity of hearing afforded to
\nthe candidates\tin the select list to  sustain it before its
\ncancellation by the Chandigarh Administration.\n<\/p>\n
     Affording\tof   an\t opportunity   of  hearing   by\t  an
\nAdministration\tto   the  members   of\ta   Selection  Board
\nConstitute by it, before cancelling a dubious select list of
\ncandidates for\tappointment to\tcivil posts prepared by such
\nSelection Board\t is not\t and cannot be requirement of either
\nlaw or\tany principle  of natural  justice. It is so for the
\nreason that  no member\tof a  selection Board  acquires\t any
\nvested\tright  or  interest  in\t sustaining  a\tselect\tlist
\nprepared by  the  Selection  Board.  Besides,  there  is  no
\npersonal right\tor interest  of any  member of\ta  Selection
\nBoard  which   could   be   adversely\teffected,   by\t the
\nAdministration\tcancelling   a\tselect\tlist  of  candidates
\nprepared by  Selection Board  when it  is found to have been
\nprepared by  the selection  Board in  unfair and injudicious
\nmanner.\t Therefore,   there  can   arise  no   need  to\t any
\nAdministration to  afford an  opportunity of  hearing to the
\nmembers of  the Selection  Board before cancelling a dubious
\nselect list  of candidates  for appointment  to civil  posts
\nprepared by it. Hence, we must hold that the CAT  was wholly
\nwrong in  setting  aside  the  Chandigarh  Administration’s
\norder by  which the  dubious select  list of  candidates for
\nappointment as conductors in CTU prepared by Selection Board
\nconstituted by\tit had been cancelled, on its erroneous view
\nthat non-affording  of an  opportunity of  hearing  tot\t the
\nmembers of  the Selection Board before cancelling its select
\nlist had  vitiated that\t Order. This would be our answer tot
\nhe question adverted to at the outset.\n<\/p>\n
     Coming to\tthe contentions\t of the\t learned counsel for
\nRespondents (selectees\tin the\tcancelled select  list) that
\nthe Chandigarh\tAdministartion\twhen  had  found  no  direct
\nevidence  which\t  could\t establish   charges  of  corruption
\nlevelled against  the members  of the Selection Board in the
\nmatter of  preparation of  select  list\t of  conductors\t for
\nappointments as\t conductors in\tits CTU,  it should not have
\nmade an\t order cancelling the select list, all that could be
\nsaid is,  that\tfailure\t on  the  part\tof  complainants  to
\nestablish charges of corruption levelled against the members
\nof the Selection Board could not have saved the select list,
\nif it  was otherwise  found to\tbe dubious. The select list,
\nwhich was  cancelled by\t the Chandigarh\t Administration\t was
\nfound by  it to have been prepared in unfair and injudicious
\nmanner, in  that the  interview marks purported to have been
\nawarded by  the members\t of  the  Selection  Board  for\t the
\nperformance of\tcandidates at  their interview\twere  either
\ninflated to  push up  the candidates  who had got poor marks
\nfor their  educational qualifications  or deflated  to\tpull
\ndown the  candidates  who  had\tgot  high  marks  for  their
\neducational qualifications.  That select list was also found
\nto have\t been prepared\twithout adopting  common eligibility
\ncriteria, for  all candidates.\tWhen the said reasons formed
\nthe basis  for the  Chandigarh Administration  to cancel the
\nselect list of the Selection Board, the fact that charges of
\ncorruption levelled  against the  members to  the  Selection
\nBoard in  the preparation  of that  select list had not been
\nestablished by\tdirect evidence produced in that regard, can
\nmake no difference.\n<\/p>\n
     What remains  for our  consideration is that contention
\nof the\tlearned counsel for Respondents that the Respondents
\nwho were  the selectes\tin the\tselect list should have been
\nheard by  the Chandigarh  Administration before it cancelled
\nthat list  as a\t dubious one.  According to learned counsel,
\nnon-affording  of   an\topportunity   of  hearing   to\t the
\nRespondents- Selectees\tbefore the select list in which they
\nhad found  places as  selected condidates for appointment in
\nthe vacant  civil posts\t of  conductors\t in  CTU  should  be
\nregarded by  us a  s a\tsufficient ground not to disturb the
\nJudgment of  the CAT  under appeal,  although  the  Judgment
\nitself is  not rendered\t on that  basis. The  contention  of
\nlearned counsel on our view, misconceived and hence calls to
\nbe rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     In Shankarasan  Das v.  Union of  India, reported in JT
\n(1991) 2  SC 380,  a Constitution  Bench of this Court which
\nhad occasion  to examine  the question\twhether a  candidate
\nseeking appointment  to a civil post can be regarded to have
\nacquired an  indefeasible right\t to appointment in such post
\nmerely because\tof the\tappearance of  his name in the merit
\nlist (select  list) of candidates for such post has answered
\nthe question  in the  negative by  enunciating\tthe  correct
\nlegal position thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “it is not correct to say that if a
\n     number of\tvacancies  are\tnotified
\n     for appointment and adequate number
\n     of condidates  are found  fit,  the
\n     successful\t candidates  acquire  an
\n     indefeasible right to b appointment
\n     which   cannot    be   legitimately
\n     denied. Ordinarily the notification
\n     merely amounts  to an invitation to
\n     qualified candidates  to apply  for
\n     recruitment and  on their selection
\n     they do  not acquire  any right  to
\n     the  post.\t  Unless  the\trelevant
\n     Recruitment Rules\tso indicate, the
\n     State is  under no\t legal\tduty  to
\n     fill  u   p  all\tor  any\t of  the
\n     vacancies.\t However,  it  does  not
\n     mean that the State has the licence
\n     of acting\tin an  arbitrary manner.
\n     The decision  not to  fill\t up  the
\n     vacancies has to be taken bona fide
\n     for appropriate reasons. And if the
\n     vacancies or any of them are filled
\n     up, the  State is\tbound to respect
\n     the  comparative\tmerit\tof   the
\n     candidates,  as  reflected\t at  the
\n     recruitment    test,     and     no
\n     discrimination  can  be  permitted.
\n     This  correct   position  has  been
\n     consistently   followed   by   this
\n     Court,  and  we  do  not  find  any
\n     discordant note in the decisions in
\n     the State\tof  Haryana  v.\t Subbash
\n     Chander
\n     Marwaha and  others<\/a>. [1974]  1  SCR
\n     165; Miss Neelima\tShangla v. State
\n     of Haryana and others<\/a>, [1986] 4 SCC
\n     268, or  Jitendra Kumar  and others
\n     v.\t State\tof  Punjab  and\t others:
\n     [1985] 1 SCR 899.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     If we  have regard\t to the\t above\tenunciation  that  a
\ncandidate who  finds  a\t place\tin  the\t select\t list  as  a
\ncandidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not
\nacquire an  indefeasible  right\t to  be\t appointed  in\tsuch
\nposting the  absence of\t any specific Rule entitling him for
\nsuch appointment  and he  could be  aggrieved  by  his\tnon-
\nappointment only  when the  Administration  does  so  either
\narbitrarily or\tfor no\tbona fide  reasons, it\tfollows as a
\nnecessary concomitant  that such  candidate even  if  has  a
\nlegitimate expectation\tof being appointed in such posts due
\nto  his\t  name\tfinding\t a  place  in  the  select  list  of
\ncandidates, cannot  claim to have a right to be heard before
\nsuch select  list is  cancelled\t for  bona  fide  and  valid
\nreasons and  not arbitrarily:  In the instant case, when the
\nChandigarh  Administration  which  received  the  complaints
\nabout the unfair and injudicious manner in which select list
\nof candidates  for appointment\tas  conductors\tin  CTU\t was
\nprepared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose,
\nfound those  complaints to be well founded on an enquiry got
\nmade in\t that  regard,\twe  are\t unable\t to  find  that\t the
\nChandigarh Administration  had acted  either arbitrarily  or
\nwithout bona  fide and\tvalid  reasons\tin  cancelling\tsuch
\n0dubious select\t list. Hence, the contentions of the learned
\ncounsel for  the Respondents as to the sustainability of the
\nJudgment of  CAT under appeal on the ground of non-affording
\nof an  opportunity of hearing to the Respondents (candidates
\nin  the\t  select  list)\t  is  a\t  misconceived\tone  and  is
\nconsequently rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result, we\t allow this  appeal, set  aside\t the
\nJudgment under\t appeal, and reject the applications made by
\nRespondents before  CAT, Chandigarh.  However, in  the facts
\nand circumstances  of this  appeal, we\tmake no\t order as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
 G.N.\t\t\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992 Bench: [J.S. Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal Venkatachala, Jj.] PETITIONER: UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH Vs. RESPONDENT: DILBAGH SINGH AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/11\/1992 BENCH: [J.S. VERMA, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] ACT: Civil Services; Chandigarh Transport Undertaking-Conductors-Selection for appointment-Constitution […]<\/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-227231","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1992-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-17T05:40:23+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=\"21 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-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-17T05:40:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992\"},\"wordCount\":3064,\"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-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992\",\"name\":\"Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-17T05:40:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992\"}]},{\"@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 Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-17T05:40:23+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992","datePublished":"1992-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-17T05:40:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992"},"wordCount":3064,"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-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992","name":"Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-17T05:40:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-territory-of-chandigarh-vs-dilbagh-singh-and-ors-on-3-november-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992"}]},{"@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\/227231","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=227231"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227231\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227231"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227231"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227231"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}