{"id":258862,"date":"1997-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997"},"modified":"2016-03-23T12:06:33","modified_gmt":"2016-03-23T06:36:33","slug":"ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997","title":{"rendered":"Ashok Kumar Sharma &amp; Others vs Chander Shekhar &amp; Another on 10 March, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ashok Kumar Sharma &amp; Others vs Chander Shekhar &amp; Another on 10 March, 1997<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B J Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, S.B. Majmudar, S. Saghir Ahmad<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           PETITIONER:\nASHOK KUMAR SHARMA &amp; OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCHANDER SHEKHAR &amp; ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/03\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.B. MAJMUDAR, S. SAGHIR AHMAD\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nB.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">     These  two\t  review  applications\t are  filed  by\t the<br \/>\nrespondents in\tCivil appeal  Nos. 5407-5408 of 1992 decided<br \/>\non February  18, 1993  (reported in  1993  Suppl.(2)  S.C.C.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">611).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">     On\t January   9,1982  an  advertisement  was  published<br \/>\ninviting applications  for appointment to the post of Junior<br \/>\nEngineer in the service of the Jammu and Kashmir State.\t The<br \/>\nlast date for submitting applications was specifically sated<br \/>\nas July\t 15, 1982.   A\tpass in B.E. (Civil) examination was<br \/>\nthe minimum  academic\/technical qualification  required\t for<br \/>\napplying for  the said\tpost. A\t number of  persons  applied<br \/>\npursuant to  the advertisement.\t Out of\t them, 33  persons (<br \/>\nreferred   to hereinafter as the Respondents) had not passed<br \/>\nthe B.E.  (Civil) Examination  on or  before July  15, 1982.<br \/>\nThey had  appeared  for the said examination earlier  to the<br \/>\nsaid date  but the results were published only on August 21,<br \/>\n1982.\tInterviews were\t held on various dates commencing on<br \/>\nAugust 24,1982.\t  Though these 33 persons (respondents) were<br \/>\nnot qualified  as on  the  specified  date,  they  were\t yet<br \/>\ninterviewed pursuant  to certain  instructions given  by the<br \/>\ngovernment.  They   were  selected   alongwith\tsome   other<br \/>\ncandidates.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">     Certain candidates\t who were  fully qualified to  apply<br \/>\nfor the\t said post  according to the aforesaid advertisement<br \/>\nand who\t were selected\tbut paced in the selected but placed<br \/>\nin the\tselect List  below the\trespondents, filed  a  write<br \/>\npetition in the Jammu and kashmir High Court contending that<br \/>\nthe 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for<br \/>\nthe interview  because they  had not  acquired the requisite<br \/>\nacademic\/technical qualification  by  the  prescribed  date,<br \/>\nviz., July  15, 1982.\tThe  write petition was dismissed on<br \/>\n27.5.83. No  Letters patent Appeal having been filed against<br \/>\nthe said order, it became final.  (It is, however, not known<br \/>\nhow many persons have joined as petitioners in the said writ<br \/>\npetition &#8211; W.P. No 250 of 1983).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">     Write Petition  483 of  1983, from\t which\tthe  present<br \/>\nproceedings arise,  was fled by four candidates, who are the<br \/>\nreview petitioners  herein, in Jammu and Kashmir High Court,<br \/>\nquestioning the\t selection of the said 33 respondents on the<br \/>\nvery same  ground as was urged in the Write petition No. 250<br \/>\nof 1983. While this write  petition was pending, appointment<br \/>\norders wee issued as per the Select Lists.  (The petitioners<br \/>\nin Writ\t Petition No.  483 of 1983 were placed in the Select<br \/>\nList below  the 33  respondents)   another batch of selected<br \/>\ncandidates was appointed on 5th September, 1984.  Thereafter<br \/>\non 20th\t December 1984,\t Write Petition No. 483 of 1983 came<br \/>\nup for\tfinal hearing  and was dismissed following the order<br \/>\ndated 27.5.83  dismissing writ\tPetition No.  250  of  1983.<br \/>\nThereupon, the\tpetitioners filed  a letters  patent  appeal<br \/>\nwhich was  allowed by  a Division  Bench on  13th  December,<br \/>\n1991. The  Division Bench held that the 33 respondents could<br \/>\nnot have  been allowed\tto appear  in the  interview for the<br \/>\nreason\tthat   they   had   not\t  acquired   the   requisite<br \/>\nacademic\/technical qualification  by  the  prescribed  date.<br \/>\nThe Division  Bench, however,  thought it just and proper to<br \/>\ndirect\tthat   while  the   appointment\t of  the  said\t  33<br \/>\nrespondents be\tnot set\t aside, they  should be\t treated  as<br \/>\nqualified  by  the  prescribed\tdate.  In  other  word,\t the<br \/>\ncandidates who\twere not  qualified by\tthe prescribed\tdate<br \/>\n(15th July,  1982) were\t treated as  Juniors en\t bloc to the<br \/>\ncandidates who\twere fully  qualified by the prescribed date<br \/>\nand were  selected.   It may  be mentioned  that all  the 33<br \/>\nrespondents were  impleaded  as\t respondents  both  in\tWrit<br \/>\nPetition No.  483 of  1983 as  well as in the Letters Patent<br \/>\nAppeal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">     The 33  respondents filed\tcivil Appeal no 5407 of 1992<br \/>\nin this\t Court, while  the State  of Jammu and Kashmir filed<br \/>\nCivil appeal  no. 5408\tof 1982\t questioning the decision of<br \/>\nthe Division  Bench aforesaid.\t The  appeals  came  up\t for<br \/>\nhearing before\ta Bench\t comprising Dr.\t T.K. Thommen,\t  V.<br \/>\nRamaswami and  R.M. Sahai,  JJ.\t  There was  a difference of<br \/>\nopinion on  one question though all the three learned judges<br \/>\nagreed on  the result.\t The  Majority (Dr.  Thommen and  V.<br \/>\nRamaswami, JJ)\theld that allowing the said 33 candidates to<br \/>\nappear for  interview was  not\timpermissible.\tthe  learned<br \/>\nJudges were of the opinion that by allowing the said persons<br \/>\nto appear  for the  interview &#8220;the  recruiting authority was<br \/>\nable to get the best talents available.\t It was certainly in<br \/>\nthe public  interest that  the interview  was made as broad-<br \/>\nbased as  was possible\ton the basis of qualification&#8221;.\t The<br \/>\nlearned Judges\theld that  inasmuch as\tthe  33\t respondents<br \/>\n(appellants before  them )  were qualified  by the  date  of<br \/>\ninterview,  though   not  by  the  date\t prescribed  in\t the<br \/>\nadvertisement inviting applications, there was no illegality<br \/>\nin allowing  them to  appear for  the interview. R.M. Sahai,<br \/>\nJ., however,  held that\t the said   33 candidates should not<br \/>\nhave been allowed to appear for the interview since they did<br \/>\nnot possess  the requisite academic\/technical qualifications<br \/>\nby the\tprescribed date.   Even\t so the learned Judge agreed<br \/>\nwith the  majority that\t the  seniority\t of  the  said\t  33<br \/>\nCandidates vis-a-vis  the qualified  candidates\t (  who\t are<br \/>\nplaced at  lower position  in the  Select List)\t need not be<br \/>\ndisturbed in  the particular  facts and circumstances of the<br \/>\ncase.\tThe Result  was that  all the  three learned  Judges<br \/>\nallowed the  appeals preferred by the 33 respondents and the<br \/>\nState of Jammu and Kashmir and set aside the Judgment of the<br \/>\nDivision Bench.\t The present  review  petitions are filed by<br \/>\nthe four   original  writ Petition No. 483 of 1983. who were<br \/>\nrespondents in\tthe Civil  appeals in  this  court.    After<br \/>\nhearing the  counsel for  the review   petitioners,  we\t had<br \/>\npassed the following order on 1.9.95.\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>\t  &#8220;Heard Mr. Rohinton Nariman<br \/>\n     for the   petitioners.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>\t  Mr. Nariman  has attempted  to<br \/>\n     bring to  our  notice  several  new<br \/>\n     questions of  fact which  were  not<br \/>\n     urged in  the high Court or in this<br \/>\n     Court.\tTheir  letters\t patents<br \/>\n     appeal too\t failed,  except  for  a<br \/>\n     certain modification.   This  court<br \/>\n     dismissed\ttheir  appeal  restoring<br \/>\n     the judgement of the learned Single<br \/>\n     judge.   All this\ttook ten  years.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_2\"><p>     It\t is   only   in\t  these\t  Review<br \/>\n     Petitions that  certain  new  facts<br \/>\n     are sought\t to be\tbrought\t to  the<br \/>\n     notice of\tthe Court.    We  cannot<br \/>\n     permit  them  to  do  sos\tat  this<br \/>\n     distance of  time.\t  We are  of the<br \/>\n     opinion that  the petitioners  have<br \/>\n     not been  diligent.   We cannot re-<br \/>\n     open   the whole  case on the basis<br \/>\n     of new  facts.   We are, therefore,<br \/>\n     not inclined  to permit them to put<br \/>\n     forward new facts\tor issues before<br \/>\n     us.     The  Review  Petitions  are<br \/>\n     admitted confined\tto the following<br \/>\n     two issues.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_3\"><p>\t  (1)  Whether the view taken by<br \/>\n     the majority  (Hon&#8217;ble Thommen &amp; V.<br \/>\n     Ramaswami, JJ)  that it  is  enough<br \/>\n     for a  candidate to be qualified by<br \/>\n     the date  of interview   even if he<br \/>\n     was not qualified by the lasts date<br \/>\n     prescribed\t  for\t receiving   the<br \/>\n     applications,  is\tcorrect\t in  law<br \/>\n     and whether the majority  was right<br \/>\n     in extending  the principle of Rule<br \/>\n     37 of the public Service Commission<br \/>\n     Rules  to\t the  present\tcase  by<br \/>\n     analogy?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_4\"><p>\t  (2)  Whether in  the facts and<br \/>\n     circumstances of the case, would it<br \/>\n     not  be   just   to   restore   the<br \/>\n     direction\tof  the\t Division  Bench<br \/>\n     with  respect   to\t the   inter  se<br \/>\n     seniority between\tthe two\t sets of<br \/>\n     candidates, namely\t  those who were<br \/>\n     qualified as  on the  last date for<br \/>\n     receiving\tapplications  and  those<br \/>\n     who were  not  so\tqualified.    In<br \/>\n     other  words,   the  question    is<br \/>\n     whether  the   direction\tof   the<br \/>\n     Division\tBench\tto   treat   the<br \/>\n     candidates who  were not  qualified<br \/>\n     by the  lasts date\t of  receipt  of<br \/>\n     applications  as\tjuniors,  as   a<br \/>\n     class, to those who were qualified,<br \/>\n     was not a just one ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_5\"><p>\t  Notice   of\t theses\t  Review<br \/>\n     Petitions shall  go  to  Respondent<br \/>\n     Nos. 1  to 33 in the Writ Petition.<br \/>\n     Dasti  service also permitted.<br \/>\n       List after service of notice.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_7\">     The Review\t  petitions  came up  for final\t hearing  on<br \/>\nMarch 3,  1997. We  heard the learned counsel for the review<br \/>\npetitioners, for  the State of Jammu and Kashmir and for the<br \/>\n33 respondent  So far  as the first issue referred to in our<br \/>\norder dated  Ist September, 1995 is concerned, we are of the<br \/>\nrespectful opinion  that majority judgment (rendered  by the<br \/>\nDr. T.K.  Thommen and  V. Ramaswami, JJ) is unsustainable in<br \/>\nlaw,. the proposition that where applications are called for<br \/>\nprescribing a particular date as the last date for fling the<br \/>\napplications, the  eligibility\tof the candidates shall have<br \/>\nto be  judged with  reference to  that date  and that  dat e<br \/>\nalone, is  a well-established one. A person who acquires the<br \/>\nprescribed qualification  subsequent to such prescribed date<br \/>\ncannot\tbe   considered\t at   all.     An  advertisement  or<br \/>\nnotification  issued\/published\t calling  for\tapplications<br \/>\nconstitutes a representation to the public and the authority<br \/>\nissuing it  is bound  by such  representation. It cannot act<br \/>\ncontrary to  it. One  reason behind this proposition is that<br \/>\nif  it\t were  known   that   persons\twho   obtained\t the<br \/>\nqualifications after the prescribed date but before the date<br \/>\nof interview  would be\tallowed to  appear for the interview<br \/>\nwould  be   allowed  to\t appear\t for  the  interview,  other<br \/>\nsimiliarly placed  persons could  also have  applied.\tJust<br \/>\nbecause some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that<br \/>\nthey had  not acquired\tthe prescribed qualifications by the<br \/>\nprescribed date,  they could  not have\tbeen   treated on  a<br \/>\npreferential basis.   Their application\t ought\tto have been<br \/>\nrejected at  the inception  itself.    This  proposition  is<br \/>\nindisputable and  in fact was not doubted or disputed in the<br \/>\nmajority Judgement.   This  is also the proposition affirmed<br \/>\nin <a href=\"\/doc\/1243161\/\" id=\"a_1\">Rekha  Chaturvedi (Smt.)  v. University  of Rajasthan and<br \/>\nothers<\/a> [1993  Suppl. (3)   S.C.C  168].\t  The  reasoning  in<br \/>\nmajority opinion  that by  allowing the\t 33  respondents  to<br \/>\nappear for  the interview, the Recruiting Authority was able<br \/>\nto get\tthe bests  talent available and that such course was<br \/>\nin furtherence\tof public  interest is,\t with respect,\t  an<br \/>\nimpermissible  Justification\tIt  is,\t in  our  considered<br \/>\nopinion, a  clear error\t of low and an error apparent on the<br \/>\nface of the record.  In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the<br \/>\nDivision Bench\tof the High Court) was right in holding that<br \/>\nthe 33\trespondents could  not have  allowed to\t appear\t for<br \/>\ninterview.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">     Mr.  Rakesh   Dwivedi,  learned   counsel\tfor  the  33<br \/>\ncandidates, submitted  that these 33 candidates had appeared<br \/>\nfor the\t B.E. Examination  prior to  their applying  for the<br \/>\npost and that there was some delay in publishing the results<br \/>\nand that  these respondents cannot be punished for the delay<br \/>\non the\tpart of\t the concerned authorities in publishing the<br \/>\nresults.   In our opinion, the said contention is beside the<br \/>\npoint.\t In these proceedings, we cannot examine the reasons<br \/>\nfor delay  &#8211; assuming that there was delay in publishing the<br \/>\nresults.   That issues\tis outside  the purview of the write<br \/>\npetition. Whatever  may be  the reason,\t the 33 persons were<br \/>\nnot qualified  as on  the prescribed  date and,\t there fore,<br \/>\ncould not  have been allowed to appear for the interview. on<br \/>\nthe  first   issue  (mentioned\tin  the\t order\t  dated\t 1st<br \/>\nSeptember, 1995), therefore, we hold in favour of the review<br \/>\npetitioners, affirming the opinion of Sahai, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">     The question  then arises\tas  to\tthe  relief  to\t the<br \/>\ngranted in  these review  applications.\t  Mr.  R.K.  Jain  ,<br \/>\nLearned counsel\t for the  review petitioners,  says that the<br \/>\nnecessary and  logical consequence  of our  opinion  on\t the<br \/>\nfirst issue  would be  to set aside  the appointment  of the<br \/>\n33 respondents,\t or at any  rate to restore the order of the<br \/>\nDivision   Bench of  High Court.   On  the other  hand,\t Mr.<br \/>\nRakesh Dwivedi\tand the\t learned counsel  for the  State  of<br \/>\nJammu and  Kashmir Brought   to\t our notice  several reasons<br \/>\nfor which,  they submitted, we should not interfere with the<br \/>\norder under review on this score.  The Facts pointed out are<br \/>\n: (a)  Writ Petition  No.  250\tof  1983  filed\t by  certain<br \/>\nsimilarly placed  persons (similar to the review petitioners<br \/>\nwho are\t the writ  petitioners in  Writ Petition  No. 483 of<br \/>\n1983 from  which these\tproceedings arises) was dismissed on<br \/>\n27.5.1983. that order has become  final, which means that so<br \/>\nfar as\tthose writ  petitioners are concerned, no relief can<br \/>\nbe granted  to them  in these  proceedings.   (b)  Even\t the<br \/>\npresent Writ Petition No. 483 of 1983 was filed only by four<br \/>\ncandidates and\tnot by\tall   the candidates affected. these<br \/>\nfour petitioners  did not  sue in  a representative capacity<br \/>\nbut in\ttheir\tindividual capacity.\tThe  other  affected<br \/>\npersons have  not chosen  to implead themselves at any stage<br \/>\nof these  proceedings. It cannot be said  that they were not<br \/>\naware of  these proceedings.  (c) Even\tthough\t  Sahai,  J.<br \/>\ndisagreed with\tthe Majority  on the question of law, he too<br \/>\nopined (for reasons stated in Paragraphs 22 and 23) that the<br \/>\nseniority   of the 33 respondents vis-a-vis other candidates<br \/>\nought\tnot to\tbe disturbed.  In other words, all the three<br \/>\nleaned Judges  are unanimous  in holding  that the seniority<br \/>\ngiven to  the 33  candidates (by  the selecting\t Authority )<br \/>\nshould not  be disturbed.   This  Bench, sitting  in  review<br \/>\njurisdiction, should  not interfere  with the said unanimous<br \/>\nopinion of  three learned judges, more so because the matter<br \/>\nlies with  in the  realm of  discretion and  is\t a  case  of<br \/>\nmoulding the  relief in exercise of this Court&#8217;s power under<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/500307\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 142<\/a>  of the  Constitution.   (d) the  33 respondents<br \/>\nwere appointed\tas far\tback as\t in 1984 and have earned two<br \/>\npromotions namely  to the  post of  assistant  Engineer\t and<br \/>\nthereafter to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.\t The<br \/>\nReview petitioners  and other  similarly placed persons have<br \/>\nalso been  promoted once  i.e., to  the\t post  of  Assistant<br \/>\nEngineer.  Thirteen Years have passed by since their initial<br \/>\nappointment.  upturning\t  the  inter-se\t seniority  at\tthis<br \/>\ndistance of time  would not be just and equitable.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">     Having given  our anxious and earnests consideration to<br \/>\nthe question  and keeping  in view  the\t fact  that  we\t are<br \/>\nsitting in  review jurisdiction\t and  that  this  particular<br \/>\naspect is a matter lying within the discretion of the Court,<br \/>\nwe do  not  think  it  appropriate  to\tinterfere  with\t the<br \/>\nunanimous opinion  of the three learned Judges of this Court<br \/>\non this\t aspect.   It is true that the Division Bench of the<br \/>\nHigh Court  had granted\t the relief  not only  to  the\tfour<br \/>\nreview\tpetitioners\/writ   petitioners\tbut   to   all\t the<br \/>\ncandidates falling in that category yet we cannot ignore the<br \/>\nfact  that  even  Sahai,  J.  who  agreed  with\t the  review<br \/>\npetitioners   on the first issue, thought it just and proper<br \/>\nnot to\tdisturb the  inter-se seniority\t between   these two<br \/>\ngroups of  selected candidates.\t   The\tsaid  seniority\t was<br \/>\ndetermined by  the  selecting  Authority.    Though  certain<br \/>\nallegations are\t made with  respect to\tthe fairness  of the<br \/>\nprocess of selection, that issue is not open in these review<br \/>\napplications nor  was it  gone into  by this  court   in the<br \/>\ncivil appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">     For the  above  reasons,  these  review  petitions\t are<br \/>\ndismissed subject  to the  clarification on the legal issue,<br \/>\nviz., Issue  No. 1 mentioned in our order dated September 1,<br \/>\n1995.  there shall be order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ashok Kumar Sharma &amp; Others vs Chander Shekhar &amp; Another on 10 March, 1997 Author: B J Reddy Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, S.B. Majmudar, S. Saghir Ahmad PETITIONER: ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA &amp; OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: CHANDER SHEKHAR &amp; ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/03\/1997 BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.B. MAJMUDAR, S. SAGHIR [&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-258862","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ashok Kumar Sharma &amp; Others vs Chander Shekhar &amp; Another on 10 March, 1997 - 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\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashok Kumar Sharma &amp; Others vs Chander Shekhar &amp; Another on 10 March, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-23T06:36:33+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashok Kumar Sharma &amp; Others vs Chander Shekhar &amp; Another on 10 March, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-23T06:36:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997\"},\"wordCount\":2449,\"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\\\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997\",\"name\":\"Ashok Kumar Sharma &amp; Others vs Chander Shekhar &amp; Another on 10 March, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-23T06:36:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashok Kumar Sharma &amp; Others vs Chander Shekhar &amp; Another on 10 March, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Ashok Kumar Sharma &amp; Others vs Chander Shekhar &amp; Another on 10 March, 1997 - 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\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashok Kumar Sharma &amp; Others vs Chander Shekhar &amp; Another on 10 March, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-23T06:36:33+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashok Kumar Sharma &amp; Others vs Chander Shekhar &amp; Another on 10 March, 1997","datePublished":"1997-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-23T06:36:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997"},"wordCount":2449,"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\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997","name":"Ashok Kumar Sharma &amp; Others vs Chander Shekhar &amp; Another on 10 March, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-23T06:36:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-sharma-others-vs-chander-shekhar-another-on-10-march-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashok Kumar Sharma &amp; Others vs Chander Shekhar &amp; Another on 10 March, 1997"}]},{"@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\/258862","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=258862"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258862\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258862"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258862"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258862"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}