SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 609

DORAISWAMY RAJU, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Ashwani Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
U. P. Public Service Commission – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

These two appeals involve identical issues and, therefore, are taken up together.

2. Factual position which is necessary to be noted for disposal of the appeals in a nutshell is as follows :

3. The appellants appeared at the Combined State Services Examination of 1987. They indicated the preference for appointment as Treasury Officer/Accounts Officer and also for Assistant Accounts Officer as required to be indicated in the application form. The examination was conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission ) on the basis of requisition made by the State of U.P. Requisition for 40 vacancies was sent by the State to the Commission in July 1987. Out of said 40 vacancies, 21 were meant for General category, while 7, 1, 2, 6, 2 and 1 vacancies were meant for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Dependents of Freedom Fighters, Backward Classes, Retrenched Emergency/Short Service Commission Military Officers, and Handicapped persons respectively. The Accounts service has two designated posts i.e. Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer and Assistant Accounts Officer. Results were declared on 29.12.1989.


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the cases explicitly mention being overruled, reversed, or explicitly criticized as bad law based solely on the language provided. However, multiple references indicate that certain judgments, such as the Supreme Court's decision in Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission (AIR 2003 SC 2661), are frequently cited and relied upon, suggesting their continued authority.

Some entries mention that judgments are being relied upon or distinguished, but without clear indication of being overruled or criticized.

Notably, references to "blind reliance" or "disapproved" are not present in the provided list, which would typically indicate a case has been overruled or criticized.

Therefore, based solely on the information provided, there is no explicit identification of any case as bad law or overruled.

The majority of references (e.g., entries citing "Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission" with the same AIR 2003 SC 2661 citation) indicate that this case is frequently cited, relied upon, and reaffirmed in subsequent judgments. For example:

Entries like [Girish Chandra Srivastava

VS State of U. P. - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2342](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500043615), Anil Kumar VS State of Raj. - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 979, AJIT SINGH @ MURAHA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 1727, LAL BAHADUR VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2007 0 Supreme(All) 509, Rajendra Surekha VS State of Rajasthan - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2091, RAMESH CHANDRA VS STATE OF U. P. - 2009 0 Supreme(All) 175, SANJAY KUMAR PATHAK VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2007 0 Supreme(All) 533, SANJAY KUMAR PATHAK VS STATE OF U. P. - 2007 0 Supreme(All) 542, UTTAR PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ALLAHABAD VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2007 0 Supreme(All) 578, U. P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ALLAHABAD VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2007 0 Supreme(All) 567, Union of India VS S. Vinodh Kumar - 2007 0 Supreme(Raj) 1229, Parshuram VS State of Uttarakhand - 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 238, Commissioner Central Excise & Customs VS Dujodwala resins & terpenes Ltd. - 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 316, Anurag Kumar Gupta, S/o. Late Jai Prakash Narain Gupta VS U. P. Sahkari Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd. Thru M. D. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1215, T. H. D. C. India Ltd. through its CMD VS State of Uttarakhand - 2023 0 Supreme(UK) 562, Subramanian Swamy VS State of Uttarakhand - 2020 0 Supreme(UK) 179, Subramanian Swamy VS State Of Uttarakhand - 2020 0 Supreme(UK) 203, Shaharoz Alam VS State Of U. P. - 2020 0 Supreme(All) 973, GANGAMATI PATEL VS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. - 2008 0 Supreme(Ori) 751, Chandrapal Singh VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1341, Raj Kumar Mahto VS State of Jharkhand - 2019 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1255, The Regional Manager : Anurag Sharma VS Anurag Sharma : Union Of India And Others. - 2020 0 Supreme(MP) 206, State of Kerala VS Vinod Kumar C. R. - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 378, Archana Kanungo VS State of Orissa - 2024 0 Supreme(Ori) 16, Anurudh VS State Of UP - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 893, State of Jharkhand VS Jharkhand Abhiyojan Sewa Sangh (Jharkhand Prosecution Service Association) - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 379, Devsing Ramchandra Chavan VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay (2022), Lakshmikanta K. VS State of Karnataka - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 685, Chandra Bhushan Sahay VS Union of India through Central, Bureau of Investigation - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1245, Anurudh VS State Of UP - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 893, Sitaram S/o Shri Nekiram VS Union Of India, Through The Secretary Home Department Government Of India Secretariate New Delhi India - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 784, T. H. D. C. India Ltd. through its CMD VS State of Uttarakhand - 2023 0 Supreme(UK) 562, Chandrapal Singh VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1341, Akshay Ashok Chaudhari VS Government of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1463, Archana Kanungo VS State of Orissa - 2024 0 Supreme(Ori) 16, Anurudh VS State Of UP - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 893, State of Jharkhand VS Jharkhand Abhiyojan Sewa Sangh (Jharkhand Prosecution Service Association) - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 379, Devsing Ramchandra Chavan VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay (2022), Lakshmikanta K. VS State of Karnataka - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 685, Chandra Bhushan Sahay VS Union of India through Central, Bureau of Investigation - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1245, Anurag Kumar Gupta, S/o. Late Jai Prakash Narain Gupta VS U. P. Sahkari Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd. Thru M. D. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1215, Sitaram S/o Shri Nekiram VS Union Of India, Through The Secretary Home Department Government Of India Secretariate New Delhi India - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 784, T. H. D. C. India Ltd. through its CMD VS State of Uttarakhand - 2023 0 Supreme(UK) 562, Chandrapal Singh VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1341, Akshay Ashok Chaudhari VS Government of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1463, Archana Kanungo VS State of Orissa - 2024 0 Supreme(Ori) 16, Anurudh VS State Of UP - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 893, State of Jharkhand VS Jharkhand Abhiyojan Sewa Sangh (Jharkhand Prosecution Service Association) - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 379, Devsing Ramchandra Chavan VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay (2022), Lakshmikanta K. VS State of Karnataka - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 685, Chandra Bhushan Sahay VS Union of India through Central, Bureau of Investigation - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1245, Anurag Kumar Gupta, S/o. Late Jai Prakash Narain Gupta VS U. P. Sahkari Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd. Thru M. D. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1215, Sitaram S/o Shri Nekiram VS Union Of India, Through The Secretary Home Department Government Of India Secretariate New Delhi India - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 784, T. H. D. C. India Ltd. through its CMD VS State of Uttarakhand - 2023 0 Supreme(UK) 562, Chandrapal Singh VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1341, Akshay Ashok Chaudhari VS Government of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1463, Archana Kanungo VS State of Orissa - 2024 0 Supreme(Ori) 16, Anurudh VS State Of UP - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 893, State of Jharkhand VS Jharkhand Abhiyojan Sewa Sangh (Jharkhand Prosecution Service Association) - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 379, Devsing Ramchandra Chavan VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay (2022), Lakshmikanta K. VS State of Karnataka - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 685, Chandra Bhushan Sahay VS Union of India through Central, Bureau of Investigation - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1245, etc.]

These demonstrate that the case is considered authoritative and is consistently cited as a binding precedent.

Several entries mention reliance on or reference to the case without indicating any criticism or overrule, suggesting the case's principles are still accepted.

Some references (e.g., Sanjoy Das VS State of Tripura - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 581, Bharat Bhushan Basotia VS State of Rajasthan - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 2370) mention that the case's principles are being applied or followed, indicating continued judicial acceptance.

Cases such as [Girish Chandra Srivastava

VS State of U. P. - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2342](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500043615), JAGRUTI J. VYAS VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2004 0 Supreme(Guj) 695, VINODKUMAR RAJABHAI RATHOD VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2004 0 Supreme(Guj) 715, Anil Kumar VS State of Raj. - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 979, Dr. Anil Kumar VS State of Rajasthan - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 3032, and others mention reliance on the case but do not specify whether the case has been questioned or criticized in subsequent judgments.

Entries like ATRAYEE GAS SERVICE VS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED - 2004 0 Supreme(Cal) 581, Bharat Bhushan Basotia VS State of Rajasthan - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 2370, UNION OF INDIA VS Ashwani Kumar Malhotra - 2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 224, RANJIT KHOSLA VS UNION OF INDIA - 2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 223, and others refer to the case in the context of citing or applying it, but without explicit commentary on its current legal standing or treatment.

The treatment of some cases is ambiguous because the language indicates reliance or citation but does not clarify whether the case has been upheld, criticized, or overruled.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top