The main legal principle established in this judgment is that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, and the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employment decision.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 77 of 192X) from two judgments of the Chief Court of the Punjab, dated July 22, 1918, and December 11, 1918, and a decree of that Court of the latter date, which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Hissar.

Upon the appeal first coming on for hearing it appeared from the argument on behalf of the appellant, the respondents not being represented, that an important question of procedure arose as to the limits of the jurisdiction in review conferred by Order xlvii. of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The hearing was thereupon adjourned and ordered to come before a full Board. The circumstances in which that question arose, and the terms of Order XLVII., rr. 1 and 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, appear from the judgment of their Lordships. The argument upon the adjourned hearing was confined to the question of the jurisdiction in review, and was as follows.

1922. Feb. 2. Sir George Lowndes K.C., and Dube for the appellant. The Division Bench had no jurisdiction to order a review on the ground which they did—namely, because in their opinion "the judgment on appeal proceeded upon a wrong exposition of the law." The jurisdiction was exclusively that conferred by Order XLVII, which specifies certain grounds upon which an order may be made none of which arose. The further words in the rule " or for any other sufficient reason " must be read as adding grounds ejusdem generis with those specified, according to well-established principles of construction Sandiman v. Breach (( 1827) 7 B. & C. 96, 100.) ; Reg. v. Cleworth (( 1864) 4 B. & S. 927.) ; Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co. (( 1887) 12 App. Cas. 484, 490.) ; Tillmans & Co. v. Knutsford. ([ 1908] 2 K. B. 385, 401; affd. [ 1908] A. C. 406.) The "genus" in this case is something of the nature of an unintentional omission or mistake, and does not include the ground that in the opinion of the Court a wrong conclusion of law was arrived at. The jurisdiction in applications for review is widely different from that on an appeal; a contrary view would lead to inconvenience. A consideration of the numerous decisions upon the practice in India as to review under the enactments applicable at various periods shows that, although in some decisions a view contrary to that now contended for has been expressed, the weight of judicial authority is in favour of the appellant. It is to be observed that the terms of the Regulation of 1814 and the Act of 1859 are somewhat wider than those of the later enactments. [Reference was made to Ben. Reg. XXVI. of 1814, s. 4; Moheshur Singh v. Bengal Government (( 1859) 7 Moo. I. A. 283, 304.); Act VIII. of 1859, ss. 376, 378, Nusseeroodeen Khan v. Indurnarain Chowdhry (( 1866) 5 Suth. W. R. 93 (F. B.).); Nobeen Kishen Mookerjee v. Shib Per shad Pattuck (( 1868) 9 Suth. W. R. 161.) ; Koh Poh v. Moung Tay (( 1868) 10 Suth. W. R. 143.); Montoora v. Ablak Roy (( 1869) 11 Suth. W. R. 197.); Chinta Monee Paul v. Pearee Mohun Mookerjee (( 1870) 15 Suth. W. R. (F. B.) 1.); Wise v. Huro Lall Giree (( 1871) 16 Suth. W. R. 150.) ; Jadub Ram Deb v. Ram Lochun Mudduck (( 1873) 19 Suth. W. R. 189.); Koleemooddeen Mundul v. Heerun Mundul (( 1875) 24 Suth. W. R. 186.); Ranee Madhub Bose v. Kalee Churn Singh Roy (( 1875) 24 Suth. W. R. 387.) ; Ellem v. Basheer (( 1875) I.

L. R. 1 C. 184.) ; Roy Meghraj v. Beejoy Gobind Burral (( 1875) I. L. R. 1 C. 197.); Raman v. Karunatha Tharakan (( 1876) I. L. R. 2 M. 11.); Mahadeva Rayar v. Sappani (( 1878) I. L. R. 1 M. 396.); Reasat Hossein v. Abdulla (( 1876) L. R. 3 I. A. 221.); Act X. of 1877, s. 623, Sheo Ratan v. Lappu Kuar (( 1882) I L. R. 5 A. 14.) ; Act XIV. of 1882, s. 623, Vellaja v. Jaganatha (( 1883) I. L.

R. 7 M. 307.) ; Amir Hasan v. Ahmad Ali (( 1886) I. L. R. 9 A. 36.); Gopal Chandra Lahiri v. Solomon (( 1886) I. L. R. 13 C. 17.); Gungapershaud Sahu v. Maharani Bibi (( 1884) L. R. 12 1. A. 47, 51.); Sharup Chand Mala v. Pat Dassee (( 1887) I L. R. 14 C. 627.); Muhammad Yusuf Kh