w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others v/s Megha Sharma & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- B S AND SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92419MH1946PTC004912

Company & Directors' Information:- S C SHARMA AND CO PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1948PTC001507

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035620

Company & Directors' Information:- K P SHARMA (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1988PTC045569

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2017PTC220657

Company & Directors' Information:- P C SHARMA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1981PTC012750

Company & Directors' Information:- J. R. SHARMA & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24211DL1966PTC004602

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICE CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U93090KL1946PLC001075

Company & Directors' Information:- M K SHARMA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74994DL1982PTC014090

Company & Directors' Information:- MEGHA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066019

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA AND SHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2015PTC276949

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA & CO. PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28991WB1949PTC018064

    Review Petition (Writ) Nos. 180, 143, 181, 188, 190, 191, 195, 198, 210 of 2019 in Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 1055, 1390, 1564 of 2018 & 23 of 2019

    Decided On, 23 March 2020

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

    For the Appellants: R.N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate, Shovit Jhajharia, J.M. Saxena, M.F. Baig, Vigyan Shah, R.R. Choudhary, Akshit Gupta, Advocates. For the Respondents: A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Advocate, Namo Narayan Sharma, Banwari Lal Sharma, Prakhar Gupta on behalf of Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, AAG, Vikram Singh Panwar on behalf of M.P. Singh, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.

1. The common issue involved in all these review petitions is whether the list of candidates eligible to undertake main examination on the basis of their marks obtained in the screening test, was required to be prepared permitting migration of reserved category candidates to open category on the basis of their higher marks or the procedure adopted by the RPSC in preparing it categorywise, was correct and whether the reservation has to be applied at the time of final selection only i.e. preparation of the final merit list or at every stage of the recruitment process.

2. These review petitions have been filed seeking review of the judgement dated 8.5.2019 whereby, the intra court appeals preferred against the order dated 2.8.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein/the unsuccessful candidates, have been partly allowed.

3. The facts in brief are that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short-the RPSC) vide advertisement dated 16.7.2015 invited applications for 37 posts of Assistant Professor (Obst. and Gyn.). It was stipulated in the advertisement that in case of receipt of a large number of applications in comparison to the posts advertised, the RPSC shall conduct screening test to shortlist the candidates and the marks obtained in the screening would be for the purpose of shortlisting only. The criteria of selection was marks obtained in the interview of such shortlisted candidates. The screening test was conducted on 15.3.2016 and in the result declared on 9.6.2016, total 114 candidates were declared eligible to participate in the interview. The RPSC declared the select list on 18.5.2017 on the basis of marks obtained in the interviews permitting migration. Assailing the method and manner of the recruitment process carried out by the RPSC, the writ petitions were filed by the candidates who could not make to the list of eligible candidates contending therein that the RPSC erred in preparing the list of the candidates eligible to participate in interview categorywise; whereas a general merit list of candidates as per marks obtained by them in the screening test should have been prepared. It was submitted that it resulted into calling the candidates for interview categorywise. It was further contended that if the candidates were shortlisted for interview categorywise, the same procedure should have been adopted while preparing the final select list and a candidate who was called for interview from Scheduled Caste Category, ought to have been selected against that category post only and migration could not have been permitted. The writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge inter alia on the premise that either a common merit list of the candidates shortlisted for interview should have been prepared by the RPSC on the basis of marks obtained by them in the screening test or if the candidates were shortlisted categorywise, they should have been permitted to participate in the interview in their respective category only. Accordingly, the select list dated 18.5.2017 was quashed and the RPSC was directed to re-frame the select list.

4. The D.B. Special Appeals preferred thereagainst came to be partly allowed and the division bench directed the RPSC to call all the candidates who were declared successful in the screening process; for interview, together and not categorywise; to prepare a combined merit list and to work out the respective merit giving due weightage to the rule of migration.

5. Assailing the impugned judgement passed by the division bench, it was contended by the learned counsels for the review petitioners that the judgement dated 8.5.2019 suffers from the error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as the division bench has proceeded under the belief as if the RPSC has subjected the candidates shortlisted to interview categorywise. Drawing attention of this Court to the list of candidates shortlisted and the list of candidates subjected to interview, it was contended that all the candidates shortlisted, were subjected to common interview and the final select list was prepared giving benefit of reservation i.e. permitting the candidates of reserved category to migrate vertically to open category on the basis of their higher marks. It was submitted that although the RPSC has shortlisted the candidates on the basis of their marks obtained in the screening categorywise; but they were never subjected to interview categorywise and therefore, the direction vide judgement dated 8.5.2019 deserves to be reviewed.

6. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents writ petitioners supporting the judgement dated 8.5.2019 submitted that the RPSC erred in shortlisting the candidates categorywise and as a matter of fact, migration should have been permitted at that stage also. It was contended that the judgement dated 8.5.2019 suffers from no error warranting review.

7. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

8. This Court has, vide order dated 19.8.2019, confined the scope of the review petition qua the findings recorded in paragraph 2 at internal page 8 of the judgement dated 8.5.2019, which read as under:

'As far as the main argument which found favour with the learned Single Judge are concerned, this Court is of the opinion no exception can be taken in this regard. The judgment in R.K. Sabarwal (supra) and subsequent authorities are clear that there is a possibility if a reserved category candidate performs and obtains a considerably higher rank, he has to be accommodated in the merit list. In such circumstances the authorities should accommodate him in the general merit category so as to ensure that a vacancy occurs in the appropriate reserved category. The adoption of the separate interview process has defeated that Rule. Quiet rightly, in this Court's opinion, the learned Single Judge held that the procedure adopted in calling separate categories of candidates for interview to be arbitrary.'

9. It is undisputed that the RPSC has shortlisted the candidates eligible to appear in the interview categorywise as per their merit without permitting migration; but, all such candidates, so shortlisted, were subjected to interview uniformly and not categorywise and the reservation policy has been applied while preparing the final select list permitting migration of the reserved category candidates in the open category as per their merit. From the record, we are satisfied that there has been no categorywise interview. It is settled law that reservation has to be applied at the time of final selection only and cannot be resorted to at each and every stage of the recruitment process. A larger bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chattar Singh v. State of Rajasthan; (1996) 11 SCC 742 , while interpreting Rule 13 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962, held as under:

'Then candidates who had appeared for the Preliminary Examination and qualified for Main Examination are to be screened by the test. The object is to eliminate unduly long list of candidates so that opportunity to sit for Main Examination should be given to candidates numbering 15 times the notified posts/vacancies in various services in various services; in other words for every one post/vacancy there should be 15 candidates. There would be wider scope to get best of the talent by way of competition in the examination. The ultimate object is to get at least three candidates or as is prescribed, who may be called for viva-voce. Therefore, the lowest range of aggregate marks as cut off for general candidates should be so worked out as to get the required number of candidates including OBCs, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The lowest range would, therefore, be worked out in such a way that candidates numbering 15 times the notified posts/vacancies would be secured so as to afford an opportunity to the candidates to compete in the Main Examination.

Under the proviso, if that range has not been reached by the candidates belonging to the SCs or the STs, there may be 5% further cut off from the last range worked out for the general candidates so as to declare them as qualified for appearing in the main examination. In other words, where candidates belonging to the SCs and STs numbering 15 times the total vacancies reserved for them are not available then the Service Commission has to go down further and cut off 5% of the marks from the lowest of the range prescribed for general candidates and then declare as eligible the SC and ST candidates who secured 5% less than the lowest range fixed by PSC for general candidates so as to enable them to appear for the main examination. The candidates who thus obtain qualifying marks are eligible to appear and write the main examination. The respective proportion of 1:3 or as may be prescribed and candidates who qualified in the main examination will be called by the Commission, in their discretion, for interview. The Commission shall award marks to each candidate interviewed by them, having regard to their character, personality, address, physique and knowledge of Rajasthani culture as is in vogue as per rules. However, for selection to the Rajasthan Police Service, candidates having C Certificate of NCC will be given preference. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the main examination by each such candidate.

In working out this procedure, if the minimum of 15 times of the candidates are identified and results declared, it would not be necessary to pick up more general/reserved candidates. It would not be necessary to declare the result of more than 15 times the total notified vacancies/posts so as to enable them to compete in the Main Examination. The object of screening test is to eliminate unduly long number of persons to appear for Main Examination. If more candidates are called by declaring their result in Preliminary Examination the object of Rule 13 would be frustrated.'

10. Relying upon the aforesaid judgement, a division bench of this Court in Dharamveer Tholia v. State of Rajasthan - 2000 (3) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 399 , held as under:

'49. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 provides the procedure to prepare the list of candidates for appearing in the main examination, therefore, the result of the preliminary examination cannot be considered to be a final result. In regard to the submission made by the Senior Counsel for the petitioner about the reservation policy provided under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution as well as the judgments cited are not in dispute but the same in our view, will not be of any help or assistance to the petitioners at this stage of short listing. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the petitioner in Sabharwal's case (supra) pertains to the promotion policy and also of the vacancies based on roster system which in our opinion, will be applicable only at the time of preparing the final select list. As per Rule 15, the RPSC shall permit the candidates 15 times the total approximate number of vacancies in each category in the main examination and this Rule has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Chattar Singh's case (supra). The reservation policy is meant for recruitment only and there is no other reservation policy for short listing in examination. As such, the actions of the RPSC are within the mandate of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India as well as the Rules of 1999. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is accepted, the thousands of meritorious candidates who have been selected as per the preliminary examination will be affected and their interest will be jeopardized.

50. It is seen from the additional affidavit filed by the Service Commission that the Commission has declared the result of the preliminary examination on 27th May, 2000 and the list of successful candidates coming with the range of 15 times the number of vacancies set apart for that category was also published and the list of candidates who were not able to come within that range was also published. It is useful to reproduce the details furnished in Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the additional affidavit:

3. That in general category, there are in all 252 vacancies meant for male candidates and 105 vacancies are meant for female candidates. Thus, combined vacancies in general category comes to 357 and the Commission has admitted 5412 candidates for the main examination in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules.

4. That similarly, the combined vacancies reserved in OBC category are 140 and the Commission has admitted 2109 candidates for the main examination, which constitute 15 times the number of vacancies/posts reserved in the OBC category.

5. That similarly, there are 102 combined vacancies reserved in the SC category for male and female both and the Commission has admitted 1538 candidates for the main examination, which also constitute 15 times the number of vacancies reserved in that category.

6. That in ST category, 78 combined vacancies meant for both male and female have been reserved and the Commission has admitted 1190 candidates for the main examination, which constitutes 15 times the number of vacancies reserved in that category.

51. As held by the Supreme Court, the list of candidates belonging to one category cannot be shifted to another category on the basis of their merit as the list of successful candidates in the preliminary examination is meant only for short-listing the candidates for the main examination and it does not constitute merit of the candidates which is done at the time of preparation of final merit under Rule 17 of the Rules.'

11. Yet, another division bench of this Court in Garima Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1448/2016 and one connected matter vide judgement dated 8.5.2018, held as under:

'The question may be raised as to how the list of open category is to be arranged because it is commonly known as the list of meritorious candidates irrespective of caste.

We appreciate the aforesaid issue. The answer of the question was given by this Court in the case of Dharmveer Tholia (supra). The principal of vertical reservation for migration of meritorious reserve caste candidates to open category would not be applicable for short-listing. The list should only of general caste candidates. In fact, framers of the Constitution never visualized that reservation would be arranged vertically or horizontally. The theory aforesaid has been developed by the Court while adjudicating the issue. So far as the present matter is concerned, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of UP , (1995) 5 SCC 173 also supports the case. If vertical reservation is applied at the stage of short-listing also then v

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

irtually it would amount to grant of reservation at every stage of selection, though, is meant to apply at the final stage of recruitment and while giving appointment. Onwards, the RPSC would not deviate from Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999, rather, not only that candidates would not be called more than fifteen times to each category but it would not be by migrating the candidates from one category to other. They would follow the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hanuman Jat (supra) and the Apex Court in the case of Chattar Singh (supra).' 12. The upshot of the aforesaid judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and division benches of this Court is that migration is not to be applied while shortlisting the candidates for interview/main exam after subjecting them to screening test and it has to be applied at the time of final selection i.e. preparing the final merit list only. Since, there was no categorywise interview, the judgement dated 8.5.2019 qua its findings recorded in paragraph 2 at internal page 8, suffers from the error apparent on its face. Therefore, the review petitions are allowed, the judgement dated 8.5.2019 is recalled and set aside to the extent directions contained therein requiring the RPSC to subject all the candidates declared successful in the screening process together for interview, prepare a combined merit list and thereafter work out the revise merit list giving due weightage to the rule of migration. Resultantly, the special appeals are allowed in terms that the select list dated 18.5.2019 is held to be valid. 13. Office to place a copy of this judgement in each connected case.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

16-10-2020 Umesh Kumar Sharma Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others Supreme Court of India
16-10-2020 R (on the application of Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd) Versus Crown Prosecution Service United Kingdom Supreme Court
15-10-2020 Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Limited Versus Piyush Kant Sharma & Others Supreme Court of India
15-10-2020 C. Gopala Krishnan Versus The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep. by it's Secretary, TNPSC Road, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-10-2020 Akul Bhargava & Others Versus Union Public Service Commission & Others High Court of Delhi
05-10-2020 T.K. David Versus Kuruppampady Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
28-09-2020 Uzhuva Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., No A 305, Represented by its Secretary, Versus, Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha & Others High Court of Kerala
23-09-2020 Charu Sharma & Others Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Maharshtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-09-2020 Arun Sharma Versus Roxann Sharma In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
09-09-2020 Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Management Service, Rep. by its Authorized Representative J. Anjananandan Versus The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation, (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Arun Kumar Sharma Versus Adesh Goel & Others High Court of Delhi
07-09-2020 The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai Versus P. Muthian High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 Suneeta Sharma Versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Punjab & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-09-2020 Rajesh Kumar Singh Versus State Public Service Tribunal Thru.Chairman & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Rajesh Kumar Versus C.B.I. High Court of Delhi
26-08-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nand Kishore Sharma & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
25-08-2020 Abhishek Sharma @ Chanchal Pandit Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-08-2020 Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Gauhati
24-08-2020 ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Through Manager, Rajasthan Versus Ram Prakash Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 H.N. Sharma & Anr versus Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 Venkateshvara Logistics Fleet, Represented by its Authorized Representative Rachya, Hubballi Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bijapur Division, Vijayapur High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
18-08-2020 Goods & Service Tax Network Versus Information Commissioner, Cic & Anr High Court of Delhi
14-08-2020 T.V. Maniyappan & Another Versus Pattanakkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
14-08-2020 Union of India & Another Versus M/s. K.C. Sharma & Co. & Others Supreme Court of India
14-08-2020 Nipun Sharma Versus Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-08-2020 P. Balamurugan Versus The Controller of Examinations, The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 V.P. Sharma & Others Versus Dr. G.S. Kochar Surgeon Urologist) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-08-2020 Vineeta Sharma V/S Rakesh Sharma and Others. Supreme Court of India
11-08-2020 Vineeta Sharma Versus Rakesh Sharma & Others Supreme Court of India
07-08-2020 Syed Ahmar Ali Hasmi Versus Union Public Service Commission, through Secretary Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-08-2020 Vijay Ramswarup Sharma Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
06-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Kailash Chand Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-08-2020 M/s. Siti Cable Network Ltd. & Another Versus Commissioner of Service Tax & Another Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
04-08-2020 The Managing Committee, (Under Order of Suspension), The Vellathooval Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Represented by Its President Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Office of The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Idukki & Others High Court of Kerala
31-07-2020 M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd., Cement Grinding Unit, Kancheepuram Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (South Zonal Bench), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2020 The Karassery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kozhikode, Represented by Its General Manager Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Co-Operative Societies, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
27-07-2020 M/s. Sainath Security Force & Man Power Service, Represented by its Proprietor B.S. Mannur Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Under Secretary, Bangaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
27-07-2020 Manish Sharma & Another Versus Urmila Arora High Court of Delhi
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-07-2020 Cheriyan Mathew, Member, The Kanakkary Service Cooperative Bank Limited & Others Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Kottayam & Another High Court of Kerala
14-07-2020 M/s. Sanwaliya Tractor Sales & Service, Rajasthan & Others Versus Bhagwati Devi Bhatt & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-07-2020 Prabhat Ranjan Deo Versus Union Public Service Commission & Others High Court of Delhi
24-06-2020 Tara Prasad Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
23-06-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Through The General Manager & Another Versus Narendra Kumar Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-06-2020 Ashok Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
19-06-2020 Sri Bhagavathy Dyes & Chemicals, Kochi, Represented by Its Proprietor, B. Ravindranath Versus Alleppey Parcel Service, Alappuzha, Represented by T.T. Kuruvila, Proprietor & Others High Court of Kerala
17-06-2020 Aman Sharma Versus The Chief Election Commissioner & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
15-06-2020 Rajan Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
11-06-2020 Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana Versus State by Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
04-06-2020 Secretary, Keechery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Ernakulam Versus P.M. Sajitha Nizar Alias Sajitha & Others High Court of Kerala
04-06-2020 The Karnataka Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary Versus Dr. S.S. Madhukeshwara & Another High Court of Karnataka
02-06-2020 Prateek Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 Pappu Ram Jat Versus Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
30-05-2020 Kshitiz Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
22-05-2020 Dhiraj Milind Dhurve Versus Union Public Service Commission & Another High Court of Delhi
22-05-2020 M/s Gauri Shankar Indane Service, Patna Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-05-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Ernakulam Versus M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Kochi Refinery, Ambalamugal, Represented by The Chief Finance Manager High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 Mukesh Sharma Versus C.V. Ramana High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-05-2020 Randhir Rambrij Sharma Versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
06-05-2020 Kamla Sharma Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Anurag Sarmah @ Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
22-04-2020 Anand Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-04-2020 Dr. Mahesh Sharma & Another Versus Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Rajasthan
15-04-2020 Sanjeev Sharma Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
13-04-2020 Mamta Sharma & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Mohmmad Yunus Versus Madho Prasad Sharma High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
30-03-2020 Prashant Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
23-03-2020 Chennai Goods Transport Owners Service Industrial Cooperative Society Limited., Rep. by its President, R. Padmanaghan & Another Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Secretary to the Government, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-03-2020 Anju Sharma Versus Sunita Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
19-03-2020 Jagdish Kumar Choudhary & Others Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
18-03-2020 Shambhu Prasad Sharma Advocate Versus Renu Jogi High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 Saurav Sharma Versus State of HP & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
17-03-2020 P.B. Biju Versus The Managing Committee of The Vayyattupuzha Service Co-Operative Bank, Ltd No. Q 354, Represented by Its President, Pathanamthitta District & Others High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 Aashu Pandit @ Aashu Bajpai @ Aash Narayan Sharma Versus Union of India High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
13-03-2020 Unnati Bhardwaj & Another Versus K.P. Sharma High Court of Delhi
11-03-2020 Ajay Sharma & Others Versus Kulwant Singh High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 Rampal Sharma & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-03-2020 Instakart Service Pvt. Ltd., Brigade Manae Court, Karnataka Versus Chacko Rajan, Alappuzha Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
06-03-2020 Mithun Sharma Versus Tripura Gramin Bank & Others High Court of Tripura
05-03-2020 Sancha Bahadur Subba Versus Ramesh Sharma High Court of Sikkim
05-03-2020 M/s. N.K. Enterprise, West Bengal & Another V/S Narayan Prasad Sharma & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Sharma Versus Nirmaldas Manikpuri High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-03-2020 Amitabh Versus Amit Rghunandan Saran Sharma & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
03-03-2020 Md. Waheed V/S The Telangana State Public Service Commission In The High Court Of State Of Telangana
28-02-2020 Dilip Kumar Sharma Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
28-02-2020 M/s. Padmavathi Hospitality & Facilities Management Services, Rep. by its Partner & Authorized Representative Pradeep Kanumuri & Another V/S The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking) Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 J. Anbazhagan Versus The Chairman The Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 N.A. Eswaramurthi Versus Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep.by its Member Secretary, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram V/S P. Priya And Others High Court of Kerala
25-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
24-02-2020 Sarwan Kumar Sharma Versus Ranjana Sharma @ Ranjana Rani & Another High Court of Delhi
24-02-2020 P.H. Thajudeen Versus Secretary, Pathanamthitta Service Co-op: Bank Ltd., Near Govt. Hospital, Pathanamthitta & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
21-02-2020 CP Cell, Directorate General Ordnance Service, Informant Master General of Ordnance Service, CP Cell/OS Dte, New Delhi V/S M/s AVR Enterprises, Kanpur & Another Competition Commission of India
19-02-2020 M/s. Millions Fashion, Chennai Versus The Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 Bhupendra Sharma & Others Versus Union of India, Represented By The Secretary Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Principal Commissioner Goods & Service Tax Delhi South Versus Premium Real Estate Developers High Court of Delhi