{"id":30468,"date":"2008-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008"},"modified":"2016-01-16T23:29:40","modified_gmt":"2016-01-16T17:59:40","slug":"k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"K. K. Tiwari & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K. K. Tiwari & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: L S Panta<\/div>\n
Bench: A. K. Mathur, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  571 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nK. K. Tiwari & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUnion of India & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/04\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nA. K. Mathur & Lokeshwar Singh Panta\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nREPORTABLE<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 571 OF 2002<\/p>\n
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThis appeal by special leave is directed against the
\njudgment and order dated 9th August, 2001 passed by the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court of Allahabad at Allahabad in
\nCivil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 10242\/2000 and Civil
\nMiscellaneous Writ Petition No. 18114\/2000.  By the common
\njudgment under challenge, the High Court dismissed the writ
\npetitions whereby the order dated 8th February, 2000 passed
\nby the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to
\nas ‘the Tribunal’), Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, in O.A. No.
\n465\/1999 was affirmed, whereunder the Tribunal directed the
\nUnion of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence
\nrespondent No.1, Engineer-in-Chief, Army Head Quarters
\nrespondent No. 2 and Union Public Service Commission
\nrespondent No. 3 herein to fill in the posts of Executive
\nEngineer in proportion of 2\/3rd from the Assistant Executive
\nEngineers and 1\/3rd from Assistant Engineers in accordance
\nwith the relevant rules.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tFacts relevant and necessary leading to the filing of this
\nappeal may be stated.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThere are two feeder channels for promotion to the post
\nof Executive Engineers (EEs): (i) from direct recruit known as
\nAssistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) and (ii) from the grade of
\nAssistant Engineers (AEs) (promotees).\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe rules governing the service of the cadres framed
\nunder Article 309 of the Constitution of India are called ‘the
\nIndian Defence Service of Engineers (Recruitment and
\nConditions of Service) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as
\n‘the Rules’).  The appellants in the present case are the AEs,
\nwhereas private respondent Nos. 4 to 10 are AEEs.  The AEEs
\nare appointed by direct recruitment on the basis of selection
\nmade by Union Public Service Commission (for short ‘the
\nUPSC’).\n<\/p>\n
5.\tA Circular dated 29.07.1997 was issued by respondent
\nNo.2 in which it was stated that as on 1.4.1997 out of the then
\nsanctioned strength of 445 posts of EEs, 354 posts (as against
\n297 posts) were occupied by those employees who have been
\npromoted from the cadre of AEEs, while 76 posts (as against
\n148 posts) by those who belong to the cadre of AEs.  It was
\nalso stated in the said Circular that the total demand for the
\nyear 1997-98 to the cadre of EEs was 58 posts, which were
\ndirected to be filled in by promotion from amongst AEs only.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe private respondents herein challenged the order
\ndated 29.07.1997 of the Engineer-in-Chief  respondent No. 2
\nbefore the CAT, Principal Bench, Allahabad.  The Tribunal by
\nits order dated 08.02.2000 partly allowed the O.A. and
\ndirected respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to fill up the vacancies by
\npromotion in the ratio of  2\/3rd from AEEs and 1\/3rd from AEs in
\naccordance with the provisions of the relevant rules.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tFeeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the
\nTribunal, two writ petitions, one by the appellants and another
\nby the Engineer-in-Chief, were preferred before the High Court
\nof Allahabad.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tHaving heard the learned counsel for the parties and
\nhaving perused the entire record, the Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court has found no substance in the writ petitions and
\naccordingly dismissed the same inter alia holding as under:-
\n“The order of the Engineer-in-Chief
\ndated 29.7.1997 can at best be treated
\nto be an executive instruction.  If the
\nrules are silent on any point the
\nGovernment can fill up the gaps and
\nsupplement the rules and issue
\ninstructions consistent with the rules
\nalready framed.  But they cannot run
\ncontrary to statutory provisions or
\nwhittle down their effect.  The office
\nmemorandum dated 29.7.1997 clearly
\nruns contrary to the provisions of the
\nrules and as such, it is illegal.  The
\norder passed by the CAT directing
\nrespondent nos. 1 to 3 to fill up the
\nvacancies in proportion of 2\/3rd of
\nAssistant Executive Engineers and 1\/3rd
\nfrom Assistant Engineers is, therefore,
\nperfect, legal and calls for no
\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the discussion made above,
\nboth the writ petitions lack merit and
\nare hereby dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
9.\tHence, AEs-appellants have filed this appeal questioning
\nthe correctness and validity of the judgment of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tMr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the appellants, contended that the High Court erred
\nin reading Rule 7 of the Rules separately from Schedule III
\nappended to the Rules while construing the words “post to be
\nfilled” in Column 3 of Schedule III to mean the available
\nvacancies at a given point of time and thus, instead of
\napplying the quota to the “duty posts” or the cadre, has
\nwrongly applied it to the vacancies.  According to the learned
\ncounsel, if the interpretation to the duty posts as given by the
\nHigh Court is accepted, miscarriage of justice shall be
\nperpetuated to the AEs who shall never achieve their due
\nshare of quota as envisaged under the Rules.  He emphasized
\nthat the quota prescribed by the rules shall strictly be adhered
\nto and any promotion made in excess of the quota will not give
\nright to the promotee to hold the posts meant for the other
\nfeeder cadre and inaction of the Government to make
\npromotions from one feeder channel is not indicative of
\nbreaking down of quota.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tDr. R.G. Padia, learned senior counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, on the other hand, contended
\nthat the Tribunal as also the High Court have passed well-
\nreasoned and well-merited orders based upon the facts of the
\ncase, the relevant rules governing the service conditions of the
\nparties and the principles of law and, therefore, this Court
\nshall not be obliged to interfere with the judgment of the High
\nCourt upholding the order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIn order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned
\ncounsel for the parties, we think it appropriate that the rules
\nrelevant for the purpose of determination of the controversy
\nraised in this appeal need to be referred to.\n<\/p>\n
13.   \tRule 2(e) of the Rules defines ‘duty posts’ to mean any
\npost specified in Column 4 of Schedule I.  In Rule 2 (h) ‘grade’
\nmeans a grade of the Service specified in Column 1 of
\nSchedule 1.  ‘Regular services in relation to any grade’ in
\nterms of Rule 2(j) means the period of service in the grade
\nrendered after selection according to procedure laid down by
\nthe Government for long term appointment to that grade and
\nincludes any period or periods:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\ttaken into account for purpose of seniority in the
\ncase of these appointees in the initial constitution of
\nthe service;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tduring which an officer would have held a duty post
\nin the grade but for being on leave or otherwise not
\nbeing available for holding such post.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tRule 2(m) of the Rules defines ‘Service’ to mean the
\nIndian Defence Service of Engineers constituted under Rule 3.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tRules 3 deals with the Constitution of Indian Defence
\nService of Engineers, which reads as under:-
\n“There shall be constituted a service to be
\nknown as the Indian Defence Service of
\nEngineers consisting of posts specified in
\nSchedule I.”\n<\/p>\n
16.\tRule 4 deals with grade, authorized strength and its
\nreview.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tRule 5 prescribes members of the service and reads as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
“The following persons shall be members
\nof the service, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
“(a)\tPersons deemed to have been
\nappointed to the service under Rule 6;\n<\/p>\n
and\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tPersons appointed to the service
\nunder Rule 7.”\n<\/p>\n
18.\tThe Initial Constitution of the service on the
\ncommencement of these Rules is governed by Rule 6, which
\nreads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“All the existing officers in the Military
\nEngineer Services (Engineer Cadre)
\nholding Group ‘A’ posts on regular basis
\non the date of commencement of these
\nrules shall be deemed to have been
\nappointed to the corresponding posts and
\ngrades in the service in the substantive or
\nofficiating capacity, as the case may be,
\nat the initial constitution stage.”\n<\/p>\n
19.\tThe material and relevant rule on the basis of which the
\npoint in issue has been decided by the Tribunal and the High
\nCourt reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Rule 7.  After the commencement of
\nthese rules, the vacancies, excluding the
\nvacancies reserved for Army Officers
\nunder the Military Engineer Services
\n(Army Personnel) Regulations, 1989 shall
\nbe filled in the manner as provided in
\nSchedules II, III and IV.”\n<\/p>\n
20.\tThe relative seniority of members of the service is
\ngoverned by Rule 8.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tSchedule I attached to the Rules prescribes the names of
\nposts, total number of posts and number of posts, which are
\nto be held by Civilian Officers in each grade and scale of pay of
\nAdditional Director General, Chief Engineer and Additional
\nChief Engineer, Superintending Engineer (selection grade),
\nSuperintending Engineer (ordinary grade), Executive Engineer
\nand Assistant Executive Engineer.  The total number of
\nsanctioned posts of EEs is mentioned 890, out of which 445
\nposts are to be held by Civilian Officers.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tSchedule II prescribes minimum educational
\nqualifications and age limits for direct recruits to the post of
\nAEEs Group ‘A’ to be filled in on the basis of examination to be
\nconducted by the UPSC.\n<\/p>\n
23.\tSchedule III [see Rule 7] provides the method of
\nrecruitment, field of promotion and minimum qualifying
\nservice in the next lower grade or feeder grade for promotion to
\nduty posts in the various grades of the Indian Defence.  EEs
\nare placed at Serial No.6 of the Schedule.  EEs posts in terms
\nof Column 4 of the Schedule are to be filled in by two channels
\nof promotions, viz. (i) 662\/3% posts are to be filled on non-
\nselection basis from the grade of AEEs with four years regular
\nservice in the grade with a Degree in Civil, Mechanical or
\nElectrical Engineering or equivalent from a recognised
\nUniversity\/Institution and 33.1\/3% posts to be filled on
\nselection basis from the grade of AEs with 8 years regular
\nservice in the grade and possessing Degree in Civil,
\nMechanical or Electrical Engineering or equivalent from a
\nrecognised University\/Institution [see Column 5].\n<\/p>\n
24.\tWe have given our anxious consideration to the above
\nraised contentions of the learned counsel for the parties in the
\nlight of the above-extracted relevant Rules.\n<\/p>\n
25.\tRule 7 on its bare reading does not make reference to
\nSchedule I, which provides that 445 numbers of posts are to
\nbe held by Civilian Officers in the cadre of EEs.  The Rules
\nnowhere provide that the total strength of the cadre of EEs has
\nto be consistently maintained in a manner that 2\/3rd cadre is
\nmanned by those who are promoted from the posts of AEEs
\nand 1\/3rd cadre is manned by those who have been promoted
\nfrom the post of AEs.  It appears from the record that the
\nentire basis for issuing the Circular dated 29.7.1997 by
\nrespondent No.2 was that in the cadre of EEs the ratio of such
\nofficers who had been promoted from the post of AEs had been
\ndepleted and after calculation of the posts, the deficiency has
\nbeen found to the extent of 58 vacancies and, therefore, the
\nvacancies should be filled in from amongst AEs only for a
\nparticular year 1997-98.  The High Court, in our opinion, was
\nright in holding that such a direction in terms of the Circular
\nof respondent No.2 did not find support from the rules as Rule
\n7 neither refers to Schedule I which prescribes the total
\nstrength of the cadre nor it provides anywhere further that
\nrecruitment shall be made in a manner so as to maintain the
\nratio of 2\/3rd and 1\/3rd in the entire cadre for a particular
\nyear.  The language of Rule 7 is very clear and unambiguous
\nand it emphasises that after the commencement of the Rules
\nwhich came into force on 9th July, 1991, the vacancies shall be
\nfilled in a manner provided in Schedule III.  Schedule III, as
\nearlier noticed, prescribes that the post of EEs shall be filled in
\nthe ratio of 662\/3 posts to be filled on non-selection basis from
\nthe grade of AEEs and 33.1\/3 posts have to be filled on
\nselection basis from the post of AEs.  The expression “posts to
\nbe filled” used in the rule clearly indicates and means that
\nwhenever any selection is made to the post of EE, the ratio,
\nthe criteria and the essential minimum qualifying service in
\nterms of Schedule III shall have to be strictly followed and
\nadhered to and any promotion in excess of the quota will
\nresult in breaking down the prescribed quota. Thus, the
\nlanguage of Rule 7 read with Schedule III governing the service
\nconditions has to be read harmoniously with meaningful
\nconstruction.  It is not possible or advisable to interpret the
\nratio of 2\/3rd and 1\/3rd as prescribed in Schedule IV of Rule 7
\nin the manner that all the 58 posts of EEs for the year 1997-
\n98 should be filled in by promotion from the cadre of AEs only.
\nIf the claim of the appellants that all 58 posts of EEs for the
\nyear 1997-98 are to be filled in by promotion from amongst the
\nAEs cadre only is accepted, then the quota rule as prescribed
\nby Rule 7 read with Schedule IV shall break down with the
\nresult that the ratio of 2\/3rd and 1\/3rd prescribed in the rules
\nfor AEEs and AEs has to be ignored and resultantly a situation
\nmay arise when one cadre will get excess quota as compared
\nto other feeder cadre.  If we construe the service rules in right
\nperspective and read their provisions in a harmonious manner
\nthen the desired result can be achieved.  If the interpretation
\nwhich is sought to be given by the learned senior counsel for
\nthe appellants is to be accepted, then it is likely to disturb the
\nratio in the cadre strength of sanctioned strength.  When the
\nRules say that posts of EEs shall be filled in from two
\nchannels i.e. AEEs and AEs in the proportion of 662\/3 and
\n331\/3 respectively we cannot ignore the intention of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
26.\tOn evaluation of the findings recorded by the High Court
\nand for the reasons discussed hereinabove, we do not find any
\nmanifest error or perversity in the judgment of the High Court
\nwarranting interference in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
27.\t In the result, the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with
\nno order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K. K. Tiwari & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2008 Author: L S Panta Bench: A. K. Mathur, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 571 of 2002 PETITIONER: K. K. Tiwari & Ors RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/04\/2008 BENCH: A. […]<\/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-30468","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK. K. Tiwari & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2008 - 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\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. K. Tiwari & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-16T17:59:40+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\\\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. K. Tiwari & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-16T17:59:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2342,\"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\\\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008\",\"name\":\"K. K. Tiwari & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-16T17:59:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. K. Tiwari & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"K. K. Tiwari & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2008 - 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\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. K. Tiwari & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-16T17:59:40+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\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. K. Tiwari & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-16T17:59:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008"},"wordCount":2342,"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\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008","name":"K. K. Tiwari & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-16T17:59:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-tiwari-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. K. Tiwari & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2008"}]},{"@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\/30468","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=30468"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30468\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30468"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30468"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}