Jaspal Singh v. Union of India

14. Aggrieved by the above order dated 4th June, 2018, Respondent No.4 filed LPA No.131/2018 which is pending before the Division Bench of the High Court of J & K. On 14th September, 2018 an order was passed by the Division Bench in the said LPA noting the submission of senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 herein (the Appellant in the aforementioned LPA) that against the Annual Performance Appraisal Review („APAR‟) for 2004-2005 an appeal was pending and that in view of Clauses 8.[8] and 8.[9] of Swamy‟s compilation on confidential reports of Central Government employees, such adverse remarks cannot be treated as final and cannot be acted upon. The Division Bench then ordered that in case a review DPC was held the case of the Respondent No.4 should be considered in light of the said clauses.

15. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the statement that an appeal in relation to the ACRs for 2004-2005 was pending is a misleading one, since the appeal by Respondent No.4 against the adverse remarks in ACR for 2004-2005 already stood rejected on 10th April, 2007.

16. On 23rd October, 2018 a review DPC was convened. Respondent No.4 was found fit to be promoted as Additional DIG with effect from 30th May,

2007. The Petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) seeking a copy of the proceedings of the aforementioned review DPC. By a response dated 22nd March, 2019 the Petitioner was informed by the Respondents that the ITBP, in terms of the second Schedule to the RTI Act, was exempted from providing information/documents unless it related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

17. By the impugned order dated 11th January, 2019 Respondent No.4 was promoted as Additional DIG with effect from 30th May, 2007 and placed above Sanjeev Raina, his immediate junior in the cadre of Commandants and below Satpal. This effectively meant that Respondent No.4 was placed above the Petitioner herein. According to the Petitioner, this was done without any notice to him and was, therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice.

18. It is pointed out by the Petitioner that as a result of the change brought about in the seniority position by the impugned order dated 11th January, 2019, he was deprived of his chance for being considered for the post of next promotional post of Inspector General (IG). The Petitioner was originally at Sl. No.3 below Anil Kumar Gautam and V. K. Sharma. However, as a result of the order dated 11th January, 2019, Respondent No.4 is now at Sl.No.1 and the Petitioner has come down to Sl.No.5. A DPC for promotions to the post of IG was convened on 27th February, 2019. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 6th March, 2019 to defer the result of the said DPC till his representation was decided. He made another representation on 31st March, 2019 for protection of seniority. It is in the above circumstances that the Petitioner has filed the present petition in this Court on 15th May, 2019. Orders of this Court

19. On 21st May, 2019 while directing notice to issue in the petition, this Court passed the following order: “Issue notice. Dr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent nos.[1] to 3 accepts notice. Let notice be issued to the respondent no.4 returnable on 29.05.2019. Dasti in addition. We direct the respondent nos.[1] to 3 to produce before us the original consideration of the respondent no.4 by the DPC on 27.02.2007 as well as his subsequent consideration by the Review DPC on 23.10.2018. The ACRs for the years 2004- 05 and 2005-06 qua the respondent no.4 should also be placed before this Court on the next date. Dasti.”

20. Subsequently, on 30th May, 2019 the following order was passed: “We have heard substantial arguments of learned counsels. Mr. Bhardwaj has produced before us the original record relating to respondent No. 4's ACRs for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06. He has also produced the Minutes of the DPC held on 27.02.2007 which assessed respondent No. 4 as unfit for promotion to the post of ADIG as well as the Minutes of the Review DPC held on 23.10.2018 which assessed him as fit for promotion to the rank of Addl. DIG notionally w.e.f. 30.05.2007. The arguments have still not concluded. Keeping in view the fact that the summer vacation of the Court are starting from 01.06.2019, we adjourned the proceedings to 05.07.2019. Since we have substantially heard the matter and we have gone into the depth of it, without expressing our opinion, lest it causes prejudice to the case of the parties, we consider it appropriate to direct that respondent No. 4 shall not be promoted to the next higher post of Inspector General of Police till the next date. The original record be kept available on the next date. Dasti.”

21. Pursuant to the notice issued in the petition, Respondent No.2 has filed a reply defending the order under challenge. Respondent No.4 has filed a separate counter affidavit again defending the order of the impugned order.

22. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) for Respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. K. C. Mittal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

23. Mr Chhibber submitted that in terms of Recruitment Rules („RRs‟) and other rules, the criteria for promotion from Commandant to Additional DIG, as on 27th February, 2007 was that there should be no adverse entry in the ACRs of the immediate previous five years. Further the minimum benchmark grading had to be „good‟. He pointed out that there were adverse remarks in the ACR of the Respondent No.4, both for 2004-05 and 2005-06. Further, the grading in the ACR for 2005-06 was „average‟. Although the adverse remarks in the ACR for 2005-06 were set aside, the grading of „average‟, remained. According to him, till date no Court had set aside the average grading for 2005-06. Even the adverse remarks for 2004-05 remained. Accordingly, he submitted that the Respondent No.4 did not meet the criteria for promotion to the rank of Additional DIG.

24. Mr. Chhibber submitted that the Review DPC could not have graded the Respondent No.4 fit for promotion to the rank of Additional DIG in 2007. He referred to para 18.[3] of of Part-VI of Chapter-54 of the Swami‟s Complete Manual on Establishment and Administration, in terms of which, the Review DPC cannot change the grading of an officer without valid reasons. He also referred to para 18.11, in terms of which, the action on the basis of an Annual Performance Appraisal Review („APAR‟) would remain, if the representation was rejected.

25. Mr Chhibber questioned the action of the Respondents in changing the seniority of the Petitioner, after a period of ten years, without issuing him a show cause notice („SCN‟). He further pointed out that the Division Bench of the High Court of J&K had been misled by the statement made on behalf of the Respondent No.4 in the LPA that an appeal against the adverse remarks for 2004-05 was pending. The learned Single Judge dealing with the review petition of the Respondent No.4 had noted that this adverse remark remained, with the representation against it by the Respondent No.4 having stood rejected. Mr Chhibber submitted that the Respondents had travelled far beyond even the High Court orders in declaring the Respondent No.4 fit for promotion as Additional DIG, and that too from an earlier date, ignoring the adverse remarks in the ACR for 2004-05 and the average grading for 2005-06. Submissions on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3

26. Mr Arun Bhardwaj, learned Central Government Standing Counsel („CGSC‟) maintained that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had gone strictly by law. He placed before the Court the minutes of the DPC meeting held on 27th February, 2019 to consider the promotions to the post of Inspector General/General Duty („IG/GD‟) from the post of Deputy IG. There were two vacancies and the zone of consideration was eight. Among the eight, senior most were to be considered for promotions. The Respondent No.4 was at serial number 2, whereas the Petitioner was at serial number 5. In terms of the assessment also, the Respondent No.4 figured at serial number 2 and below him was Mr A.K. Gautam, who was also found fit. As far as the remaining names were concerned, they were not required to be assessed as two of the vacancies already stood filled. One officer above Respondent No.4, viz., Satpal, was facing disciplinary enquiry and, therefore, his assessment was placed in a sealed cover.

27. Mr Bhardwaj also referred to the minutes of the Review DPC held on 23rd October, 2018, which took into account the interim order dated 31st May, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of J & K in W.P.(C) No.1157/2011, the final order dated 11th December, 2017 in the same writ petition, the order dated 4th June, 2018 dismissing the review petition and the order of the DB dated 14th September, 2018 in the LPA. After setting out those orders and considering them, it was concluded that when it met on 27th February 2007, the DPC should have deferred the consideration of the case of the Respondent No.4, as his appeal dated 4th December, 2006 was pending in the Ministry of Home Affairs („MHA‟) for the decision of the Competent Authority.

28. It was further noted that the interim order of the High Court dated 31st May, 2011, “was not implemented in its letter and spirit”, as both the adverse remark and below benchmark for 2004-05 and 2005-06 “were to be ignored”. The Review DPC “revisited and discussed the entire service record” of the Respondent No.4 and observed that the adverse remarks awarded to him for not visiting the border out-posts, does not amount to an omission for which this officer should now be penalized further.” It concluded that he had already suffered the punishment for approximately “eleven long years” for that omission. The Review DPC decided to use the “discretion at their command”; reassess the ACR by devising “its own methods and procedure for objective assessment”, and found him fit for promotion to the rank of Additional DIG notionally from 30th May, 2007, the date of taking over charge as Additional DIG by his immediate junior Sanjeev Raina. Submissions on behalf of Respondent No.4

29. Mr K.C. Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4, at the outset questioned the locus standi of the Petitioner to challenge the impugned order dated 11th January, 2019, particularly since on 27th February, 2007 he was at Sl. No. 14 and was not in the zone of consideration for promotion as Addl DIG. As far as the Respondent No.4 was concerned, he was at Sl. No. 9. He was assessed and found unfit due to the ACRs of 2004-05 and 2005-06. He pointed out that those adverse remarks ought not to have been taken into account since the representation of the Respondent No.4 against the adverse remarks of 2004-05 by way of an appeal filed on 4th December, 2006 was still pending as of the date of the DPC held on 27th

30. As far as the average grading in the ACR for 2005-06 was concerned, Mr. Mittal submitted that since it was admittedly not communicated as on 27th February 2007, it could not have been taken into account. He relied upon the judgment in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 188 in support of this submission. He also referred to paras 18.[1] and 18.[2] of Part-VI of Chapter-54 of the Swami‟s Complete Manual on Establishment and Administration.

31. Mr Mittal submitted that the regular DPC held on 27th February, 2007, had committed an irregularity in considering the ACRs of 2004-05 and 2005-06, when representations were pending. The Review DPC had necessitated it to relate back to the situation as on 27th

32. Mr Mittal questioned the maintainability of the present petition also on the ground that the ACR/APAR of Respondent No.4 for 2004-05 and 2005- 06 was already sub judice in the appeal pending before the DB of the High Court of J&K. Mr Mittal submitted that mere fact that the average grading was communicated after 27th February, 2007, pursuant to the orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, would not change the legal position that February 2007, it was an uncommunicated grading and could not have been considered. He referred to an OM dated 4th December, 2009, in terms of which it was incumbent to hold a Review DPC since the adverse remarks for 2005-06 had been expunged after the initial DPC on 27th February, 2007. Even for promotions to the post of IG, he pointed out that there are five posts, of which those at Sl. Nos. 1 to 7 in the seniority list of Additional DIGs have been found fit and promoted, whereas the Petitioner has not even been assessed. Mr Mittal accordingly submitted that there was no occasion to interfere with the decision in the Review DPC.

33. The above submissions have been considered. Analysis and reasons

34. The issue concerning the ACRs of the Respondent No.4 for 2004-05 and 2005-06, has engaged the attention of at least two High Courts i.e. the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the High Court of J&K. Consequently, the orders of those two High Courts have to necessarily be examined in some detail by this Court.

35. As far as the maintainability of this petition is concerned, the impugned orders of the Respondent No.2 have been passed in New Delhi. The Petitioner was not made party to the petitions filed by the Respondent No.4 in the aforementioned two High Courts. He could not, therefore, be faulted for not participating in those proceedings. The Petitioner is adversely affected by the impugned orders insofar as in the seniority list of Additional DIGs, he has been pushed below the Sl. No. 2, where he originally was at Sl. No. 5. It, therefore, cannot be said that he is not affected by the impugned order. The objection raised by the Respondent No.4 as to the locus standi of the Petitioner to file the present petition is accordingly rejected.

36. The central issue that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 11th January, 2019, re-fixing the seniority of the Respondent No.4 as Additional DIG above the Petitioner is valid in law.

37. At the outset it is required to be noted as regards the factual position that for 2004-05 that then there was an adverse remark in the ACR of the Respondent No.4, as far as the ACR for 2005-06 is concerned there was both an „adverse remark‟ as well as „average grading‟ in his ACR. The above facts are not in dispute. When the DPC convened to meet on 27th February 2007, to consider making of promotions from the post of Commandant to the post of Additional DIG/ DIG, the representation of Respondent No.4 against the adverse remark in his ACR for 2004-05 stood rejected by a decision dated 6th June, 2006. Against such rejection, he had filed an appeal on 4th December, 2006. That appeal was pending.

38. As regards the adverse remarks for 2005-06, communicated to Respondent No.4 on 17th August 2006, his representation against the said adverse remarks made on 28th September, 2006 was pending consideration and had not been disposed of as on 27th February, 2007. The further admitted position is that as on 27th February 2007, the average grading in the ACR for 2005-06, was not communicated to Respondent No.4.

39. That the DPC could not have taken into account either the adverse remark for 2004-05 or the average grading for 2005-06 when it met on 27th February, 2007 is made explicit by Rule 8.[8] and 8.[9] of the relevant RRs found in Swami‟s Compilation on Confidential Reports, which read as under: “8.8. Adverse remarks should not be deemed to be operative if any representation is filed within the prescribed time and is pending. If no representation is made within the time prescribed, or the one preferred has been finally disposed, there is no bar to take notice of the adverse remarks. 8.[9] A memorial or appeal against the rejection of the representation against adverse remarks is to be allowed within six months of such rejection. Pending of any memorial or appeal would mean that the adverse remarks”

40. Incidentally, the order dated 14th September, 2018 of the DB of the High Court of J&K in I.A. No. 1 of 2018 in LPA No.131/2018, also refers to the above two clauses.

41. As regards the adverse remarks for 2005-06, the representation of Respondent No.4 against them made on 28th September, 2006 was still pending. Therefore, those adverse remarks could also not have been taken into account. Ultimately, the adverse remarks were expunged on 13th March,

2007.

42. The submission by Mr. Chhibber that a misleading statement was made to the Division Bench of the High Court of J&K that an appeal was pending against the adverse remarks for 2004-05, is not entirely correct. While it is true that the representation made against those remarks stood rejected on 6th June 2006, the appeal filed against such rejection was pending as on 27th February 2007. Clause 8.[9] in fact refers to the pendency of such appeal and states that “pendency of any memorial or appeal would mean that the adverse remarks are not final and cannot be acted upon.”

43. Turning now to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of J&K in the review petition filed by Respondent No.4 seeking review of the order dated 11th December 2017. It is seen that the said order only refers to Rule 8.[8] and not Rule 8.9. It, therefore, overlooks the fact that even the pendency of the appeal against the non-expunction of the adverse remarks for 2004-05 would mean that the said adverse remarks were not final and could not have been taken into account. As regards the adverse remarks and average grading for 2005-06, admittedly, it was not communicated as on 27th February 2007 and could not therefore be taken into account.

44. As explained in Brij Mohan Chopra v. State of Punjab (supra), it would not be right to act upon adverse entries, the representation against which has not been disposed of. An uncommunicated average grading could also not be considered for denial of promotion.

45. As far as the impugned order dated 11th January, 2019 is concerned, it refers to the reports of the proceedings dated on 23rd October, 2018 of the review DPC. It correctly notes that as far as the adverse remarks of 2004-05 is concerned, the DPC ought to have deferred consideration in view of the pendency of the appeal filed by Respondent No.4, which was still pending. It also noted the interim order dated 31st May, 2011 and noted that if the adverse remarks of 2004-05 and average grading of 2005-06 were to be ignored, then at the DPC held on 27th February 2007, the suitability of Respondent No.4 for promotion as Additional DIG, ought to have been considered on that date itself.

46. Consequently, the Court finds no error having been committed by the Respondents in deciding, in the review DPC held on 23rd October, 2018, that February, 2007, Respondent No. 4 was fit for promotion as Additional DIG (since he upgraded as DIG in 2008) notionally from 30th May, 2007, the date on which his immediate junior Sanjeev took over charge as Addl DIG.

47. The further order dated 11th January, 2019 was a follow up of the aforementioned review DPC on 23rd October, 2018 and has correctly placed Respondent No.4 at the appropriate seniority as DIG. What is relevant in this context was only the position of his immediate junior Sanjeev Raina and immediate senior Shri Satpal.

48. The re-fixation of the seniority of the Petitioner at Sl. No. 5 as a result of the above change was inevitable. The only question that now remains is whether it was incumbent upon the Respondents to issue a SCN to the Petitioner before effecting the above change. It is seen that the Respondents were in fact implementing judicial orders passed by the High Court of J&K in the proceedings to which the Petitioner was not a party. The Petitioner was not required to be made as a party in the petitions filed by Respondent No.4 as the grievance of Respondent No.4 was only about the promotions given to his immediate junior Sanjeev Raina.

49. As rightly pointed out, as of 27th February, 2007, the date of the DPC when the cases of promotion to the post of Additional DIG were being considered, the Petitioner admittedly was not in zone of consideration.

50. There is an additional issue raised by counsel for the Petitioner that the review DPC went beyond the scope of the orders passed by the High Court of J&K when reassessment of the ACRs of Respondent No.4 for 2005-06 as far as the „average‟ grading is concerned. It will be noticed here that a call had to be taken on the appeal filed by the Respondent No.4 against the rejection of his representation against the adverse remarks of 2004-05 on 6th June 2006. This stood rejected only on 10th April, 2007. Once it was clear that the uncommunicated „grading‟ was non est and was not to be taken into account for promotion, as emphasised by the OM dated 4th December 2009, a case was made out for reconsidering the said grading on account of the adverse remarks for the same period i.e. 2005-06 standing expunged.

51. The appeal by Respondent No.4 is pending before the DB of the High Court of J&K. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11th December, 2017, insofar as no directions have been issued therein for deletion of the adverse remarks in the ACR 2004-05 and the average grading of 2005-06 were issued, forms the subject matter of the appeal pending before the DB of that High Court. It is in the appeal that an interim order has been passed asking the Respondents to abide by clauses 8.[8] and 8.[9] referred to hereinbefore.

52. Respondent No.4 has been diligently following up on the issue of the entries in his ACRs for 2004-05 and 2005-2006 in his case. It is on account of judicial delay that the Review DPC could not be held earlier. The interim order dated 14th September, 2018 has remained undisturbed and has been complied with by Respondents 1 to 3. It is not possible to entertain a plea on behalf of the Petitioner in these proceedings questioning the said orders of the High Court of J&K, which as of date are binding on the Respondents.

53. As regards the scope of review DPC, it is seen that it is covered by the guidelines issued by the DoPT by letter dated 10th April, 1989. Clause 5 of part 4 of these guidelines states that each DPC should devise its own method and procedures for the objective of the suitability of candidates. In para 6.1.[2] onwards further guidelines have been laid down, which read as under: “6.1.[2] At present DPCs enjoy full discretion to devise their own methods and procedures for objective assessment of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by them. In order to ensure greater selectivity in matters of promotions and for having uniform procedures for assessment by DPCs, fresh guidelines are being prescribed. The matter has been examined and the following broad guidelines are laid down to regulate the assessment of suitability of candidates by DPCs. 6.1.[3] While merit has to be recognized and rewarded, advancement in an officer's career should not be regarded as a matter of course, but should be earned by dint of hard work, good conduct and result oriented performance as reflected in the annual confidential reports and based on strict and rigorous selection process. 6.1.[4] Government also desires to clear the misconception about "Average" performance. While "Average" may not be taken as adverse remark in respect of an officer, at the same time, it cannot be regarded as complimentary to the officer, as "Average" performance should be regarded as routine and undistinguished. It is only performance that is above average and performance that is really noteworthy which should entitle an officer to recognition and suitable rewards in the matter of promotion.”

54. Paras 24 and 25 of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11th December, 2017, also made a reference to the DoPT‟s instructions dated 4th December, 2009 and noted as under: “24. It is also important to refer to the instructions dated 4.12.2009 issued in terms of All India Services (Confidential Rules), Rules 1970 which envisages that after the adverse remarks are expunged, the overall grading be kept blank for appropriate regarding by Empanelment Committee/DPC.

25. In the backdrop of the aforesaid provision, it becomes necessary to notice that after the adverse remarks against the Petitioner had been expunged in regard to year 2005-06, the fact of expunction of such adverse remarks had to be reconsidered by DPC/Empanelment Committee, which had then to appropriate decision with regard to regrading of the confidential rolls. Since the adverse remarks had been expunged after the DPC had been convened on 27th February, 2007, the case of the Petitioner would necessarily have to be reconsidered not only for purposes of regarding of ACRs for relevant year 2005-06 but even for purposes for consideration of his case for promotion by Review DPC in terms of Regulation 18.1.”

55. Although the above observations were in the context of the ACRs for 2005-06, and are silent on the ACR for 2004-05, it was that which led to the interim order dated 14th September, 2018, by the DB in the LPA, which is still pending. The effect of the Review DPC on 23rd October, 2018 has been that the average grading for the year 2005-06, has not been viewed as rendering the Respondent No.4 unfit. This is more or less consistent with instructions in para 6.1.[4] of the Guidelines for DPCs, which have been extracted hereinbefore.

56. The following observations in Union of India v S.K. Goel (2007) 14 SCC 641 are also relevant in this context: “28...DPC is not required to be guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the ACRs but to make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in ACRs. The DPC enjoyed full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of suitability and merit of the candidate being considered by it Hence, the impugned order of the High Court, in our opinion, is liable to be set aside. …. 31...We hold that the DPC enjoyed full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of suitability and merit of the candidate being considered by it. Hence, the interference by the High Court is not called for.”

57. In the matter of grading, the discretion essentially is with the DPCs/ Selection Committees and the Court would generally not interfere. In Ramanand Prasad Singh v Union of India (1996) 4 SCC 64, it was observed as under: “14 The Committee applies its mind to the service records and makes its own assessment of the service records of the candidates marking them as outstanding, very good, good and so on. The Selection Committee does not necessarily adopt the same grading which is given by the Reporting/Reviewing Officer in respect of each of the candidates. In fact, the Selection Committee makes an overall relative assessment of the confidential report dossiers of the officers in the zone of consideration. It thus does not evaluate the confidential report dossier of an individual in isolation. It is after this comparative assessment that the best candidates are put in the Select List..."

58. In M.V. Thimmaiah v UPSC (2008) 2 SCC 119, the Supreme Court observed as under: “16. Therefore, in view of a catena of cases, courts normally do not sit as a court of appeal to assess ACRs and much less the Tribunal can be given this power to constitute an independent Selection Committee over the statutory Selection Committee. The guidelines have already been given by the Commission as to how ACRs to be assessed and how the marking has to be made. These guidelines take care of the proper scrutiny and not only by the Selection Committee but also the views of the State Government are obtained and ultimately the Commission after scrutiny prepares the final list which is sent to the Central Government for appointment. There also it is not binding on the Central Government to appoint all the persons as recommended and the Central Government can withhold the appointment of some persons so mentioned in the select list for reasons recorded. Therefore, if the assessment of ACRs in respect of Shri S. Day a Shankar and Shri R. Ramapriya should have been made as "outstanding" or "very good" it is within the domain of the Selection Committee and we cannot sit as a court of appeal to assess whether Shri R. Ramapriya has been rightly assessed or Shri Daya Shankar has been wrongly assessed. The overall assessment of ACRs of both the officers were taken; one was found to be ''outstanding" and the second one was found to be "very good". This assessment cannot be made subject of court's or Tribunal's scrutiny unless actuated by mala fide."

52. In view of the above settled position in law, the Court is not persuaded to interfere with the decision arrived at by the Review DPC held on 23rd October, 2018. The consequential order dated 10th January, 2019 was but a corollary and therefore consistent with that determination.”

59. In Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (2013) 9 SCC 566, the legal position has been reiterated, upholding the ruling in Dev Dutt v. UOI (2008) 8 SCC 725, underscoring the necessity to communicate every entry in the ACR.

60. The impugned order dated 11th January, 2019 re-fixing the seniority therefore is not bad in law. The Court is satisfied that the reasons for the change in the seniority position of the Petitioner as DIG is neither unreasonable nor illegal.

61. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court on 30th May, 2019 stands vacated. The pending applications are also disposed of. No costs.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

TALWANT SINGH, J. NOVEMBER 05, 2019 mw/rd/rhc