Controversy – to the reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotions in the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Public Works Department, Government of Uttarakhand. ? Apex court held that There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide reservations. – the High court order directing that all future vacancies that are to be filled up by promotion in the posts of Assistant Engineer, should only be from the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, is wholly unjustifiable and is hence set aside.- The submission made on behalf of the reserved category candidates that the judgment of this Court in Suresh Chand Gautam (supra) needs reconsideration is without substance in view of the findings recorded above. We are in agreement with the decision of this Court in Suresh Chand Gautam (supra) in which it was held that no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State to collect quantifiable data relating to adequacy of representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services.

Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 1226 of 2020
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 23701 of 2019]
Mukesh Kumar & Anr.
…. Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
…. Respondent(s)
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 1227 of 2020
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22640 of 2019]
Civil Appeal No. 1228 of 2020
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25508 of 2019]
Civil Appeal No. 1229 of 2020
[Arising out of Dy. No.39572 of 2019 @S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3668
of 2020]
Civil Appeal No. 1230 of 2020
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27715 of 2019]
Civil Appeal No. 1231 of 2020
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28039 of 2019]
Civil Appeal No. 1232 of 2020
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27735 of 2019]
Civil Appeal No. 1233 of 2020
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28947 of 2019]
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1 | P a g e

  1. The Controversy in the above Appeals pertains to the
    reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
    promotions in the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Public
    Works Department, Government of Uttarakhand.
  2. The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for
    Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
    Classes) Act, 1994 (for short “the 1994 Act”) provided for
    reservation in public services and posts in favour of persons
    belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
    Backward Classes of citizens. Section 3(1) of the said Act
    stipulated reservation at the stage of direct recruitment.
    According to Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act, the Government
    Orders providing reservation for appointment to public posts
    filled up by promotion which were existing on the date of
    commencement of the 1994 Act shall continue till they are
    modified or revoked. After the formation of the State of
    Uttarakhand in 2001, the Uttar Pradesh Public Services
    (Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward
    Caste Reservation) Act, 1994 was made applicable to the
    State of Uttaranchal by a Notification dated 30.08.2001 with
    2 | P a g e
    a modification in the percentage of reservations. 21%
    reservation for Scheduled Castes was modified to 19% and
    2% for Scheduled Tribes was increased to 4%. Likewise,
    21% reservation provided in the 1994 Act for Other
    Backward Classes was altered to 14%.
  3. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
    Allahabad in Mukund Kumar Shrivastava v. State of
    U.P.
    1
    upheld the validity of Rule 8-A of the Uttar Pradesh
    Servants Government Seniority Rules, 1991 (for short “the
    Seniority Rules”) which dealt with consequential seniority of
    persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
    Tribes. Later, in Prem Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.
    2
    ,
    another Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
    Allahabad, Lucknow Bench held that the judgment in
    Mukund Kumar Shrivastava (supra) is per incuriam and
    not a binding precedent. In Prem Kumar Singh’s case
    (supra), the High Court declared Section 3(7) of the 1994
    Act and Rule 8-A of the Seniority Rules unconstitutional.
    While declaring the correctness of the judgments of the
    1 (2011) 1 ALL LJ 428
    2 (2011) 3 ALL LJ 343
    3 | P a g e
    High Court, this Court by its judgment in Uttar Pradesh
    Power Corporation v. Rajesh Kumar
    3
    held that Section
    3(7) of the 1994 Act is unconstitutional insofar as it is
    contrary to the dictum in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of
    India & Ors.
    4
  4. The challenge to Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act, as
    extended to the State of Uttarakhand, was upheld by the
    High Court of Uttarakhand in Vinod Prakash Nautiyal &
    Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Others
    5
    . Relying
    upon the judgment of this Court in U.P. Power
    Corporation (supra), the High Court of Uttarakhand
    declared Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act unconstitutional and
    directed that no promotion can be given by the State by
    taking recourse to Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act. The
    application filed for review of the judgment in Vinod
    Prakash Nautiyal (supra) was dismissed. By way of
    implementation of the judgment of the High Court dated
    06.07.2011 in Vinod Prakash Nautiyal (supra), a
    committee was constituted by the Government of
    3 (2012) 7 SCC 1
    4 (2006) 8 SCC 212
    5 W.P. (S/B) No.45 of 2011
    4 | P a g e
    Uttarakhand for collection of quantifiable data relating to
    the backwardness of the reserved communities in the State
    of Uttarakhand and the inadequacy of their representation
    in public posts.
  5. On 05.09.2012, the State Government decided that all
    posts in public services in the State shall be filled up without
    providing any reservations to Scheduled Castes and
    Scheduled Tribes. All Government Orders to the contrary
    were superseded by the proceeding dated 05.09.2012. Mr.
    Gyan Chand who was working as Assistant Commissioner
    (Civil), State Tax and belonging to Scheduled Caste
    Community filed a Writ Petition for quashing the proceeding
    dated 05.09.2012. The High Court by its judgment dated
    01.04.2019 struck down the proceeding dated 05.09.2012
    as being contrary to the law declared by this Court in Indra
    Sawhney v. Union of India & Ors.
    6 and Jarnail Singh &
    Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors.
    7
    While referring to
    the judgments of this Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) and
    Jarnail Singh (supra), the High Court held that Article 16(4)
    6 (1992) Supp.3 SCC 217
    7 (2018) 10 SCC 396
    5 | P a g e
    of the Constitution in an enabling provision. The High Court
    observed that it is not necessary for the State Government
    to collect quantifiable data regarding representation of
    Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in State services or
    regarding their backwardness before providing reservation
    in their favour in promotion posts. The High Court was of the
    opinion that the judgment in Vinod Prakash Nautiyal
    (supra) related to the constitutional validity of Section 3(7)
    of the 1994 Act alone and the Notifications pertaining to
    reservation in promotion in favour of Scheduled Castes and
    Scheduled Tribes were not set aside. The Appeals arising
    out of Civil Appeal @ S.L.P.(Civil) No.25508 of 2019 and Civil
    Appeal @S.L.P. (Civil) @ Diary No.39572 of 2019 have been
    filed assailing the judgment of the High Court dated
    01.04.2019.
  6. Vinod Kumar and three others belonging to the
    Scheduled Castes working in the Public Works Department,
    Government of Uttarakhand filed a Writ Petition in the High
    Court of Uttarakhand seeking a direction to the Respondent
    therein to prepare a separate list of eligible candidates as
    6 | P a g e
    per Rule 5 of the Uttarakhand Promotion by Selection (on
    posts outside the purview of Public Service Commission)
    Eligibility Rules, 2003 and to prepare a separate list for each
    category of eligible candidates of General, Scheduled Castes
    and Scheduled Tribes for promotion to the post of Assistant
    Engineer (Civil) in Public Works Department. A further
    direction to the State Government was sought to hold a
    departmental promotion committee for promotion to the
    posts of Assistant Engineers after providing reservation to
    Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in accordance with
    the Government Orders dated 30.08.2001, 31.08.2001 and
    17.02.2004 by which reservation was provided in promotion.
    The Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court on
    15.07.2019 with a direction to the State Government to
    implement reservations in promotion by promoting only
    members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
    future vacancies to maintain the quota earmarked for the
    said categories. Civil Appeals @ S.L.P.(Civil) No. 23701 of
    2019 and Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (Civil) No.22640 of 2019 are
    challenging the judgment dated 15.07.2019.
    7 | P a g e
  7. In the meanwhile, the Respondents in Writ Petition
    (Civil) No.117 of 2019 i.e. the State of Uttarakhand filed an
    application for review of the judgment dated 01.04.2019.
    The High Court realized that it committed an apparent error
    in its judgment dated 01.04.2019, while deciding the Writ
    Petition by referring to the judgment of this Court in Jarnail
    Singh (supra). The High Court clarified that the State
    Government is obligated to collect quantifiable data
    regarding inadequacy of representation of the Scheduled
    Castes and Scheduled Tribes in state services before
    providing reservation in promotion. The High Court clarified
    that it is not necessary for the State Government to collect
    data regarding backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and
    Scheduled Tribes in the light of the direction of this Court in
    Jarnail Singh (supra). The High Court also observed that
    the State is not obligated to provide reservation in
    promotions to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
    Tribes as Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution is an enabling
    provision. However, reservation can be provided by the
    State Government only after collecting data regarding
    inadequacy of representation of the Scheduled Castes and
    8 | P a g e
    Scheduled Tribes in state services. As such, the High Court
    directed the State Government to collect quantifiable data
    regarding inadequacy of the representation of the
    Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Government
    services which would enable the State Government to take
    a considered decision on providing or not providing
    reservation. The State Government was directed to take a
    decision whether to provide reservation or not only after
    considering the data relating to the adequacy or inadequacy
    of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
    in the services of the State within a period of four months
    from the date of receipt of the judgment. Aggrieved by the
    order dated 15.11.2019 passed in Review Petition in W. P.
    (S/B) No.117 of 2019, the Civil Appeal @ S.L.P.(Civil)
    No.27715 of 2019, Civil Appeal @ S.L.P.(Civil) No.28039 of
    2019, Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (Civil) No.27735 of 2019 and Civil
    Appeal @ S.L.P.(Civil) No. 28947 of 2019 have been filed.
  8. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
    the Appellants in SLP (C) No. 25508 of 2019, Mr. Mukul
    Rohtagi and Mr. P.S. Narsimha, learned Senior Counsel
    9 | P a g e
    appearing for the State of Uttarakhand contended that there
    is no fundamental right to claim reservation in appointments
    or promotions to public posts. There is no constitutional
    duty on the part of the State Government to provide
    reservations. Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are merely
    enabling provisions. On 15.09.2012, the State of
    Uttarakhand, after due consideration, decided that there
    shall be no reservation in promotions. They relied upon the
    judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Vinod
    Prakash Nautiyal (supra) by which Section 3 (7) of the
    1994 Act was declared unconstitutional. It was submitted by
    them that the State Government has not brought any law in
    terms of the judgment of this Court in M. Nagaraj & Ors.
    (supra). It was urged by the learned Senior Counsel that
    there is no necessity for collection of any quantifiable data
    after the Government has taken a decision not to provide
    reservations. The collection of data, according to them, is
    required only to justify a decision to provide reservation. It
    was also submitted by them that according to a judgment of
    this Court in Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of U.P.
    8
    no
    8 (2016) 11 SCC 113
    10 | P a g e
    direction can be given by the Court to the State Government
    to collect quantifiable data on the basis of which a decision
    to provide reservation should be taken. They placed
    reliance on the judgment of this Court in M. Nagaraj &
    Ors. (supra) to argue that the State is not bound to make
    reservations.
  9. On the other hand, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Dushyant Dave
    and Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel and Dr. K.
    S. Chauhan, learned counsel, appearing for the reserved
    category employees submitted that the State cannot refuse
    to collect quantifiable data regarding the adequacy or
    inadequacy of representation of the Scheduled Castes and
    Scheduled Tribes in public services. They submitted that
    there is an obligation on the State to provide reservations in
    promotions for upliftment of the members of the Scheduled
    Castes and Scheduled Tribes as mandated by Article 16 (4)
    and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution of India. The right to
    equality of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and
    Scheduled Tribes cannot be defeated by the State
    Government by not discharging its constitutional obligation
    of implementing Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the
    11 | P a g e
    Constitution. They urged before this Court that according to
    the law laid down by this Court, the State has a duty to
    decide not to provide reservations only after the State is
    satisfied that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
    are adequately represented in public posts on the basis of
    quantifiable data. According to them, Suresh Chand
    Gautam (supra) was not correctly decided and needs
    reconsideration. It was also submitted on behalf of the
    reserved category candidates that a Committee was
    constituted by the Government of Uttarakhand to collect
    quantifiable data regarding the adequacy of representation
    of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Schedules
    Tribes in public posts in accordance with the judgment of
    this Court in M. Nagaraj (supra). According to the report
    submitted by the Committee, there is inadequate
    representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
    Tribes in government services in the State of Uttarakhand.
    The said report was approved by the State Cabinet. It was
    contended by the learned counsel that the State
    Government was duty bound to provide reservations on the
    basis of the data that was collected by the Committee.
    12 | P a g e
  10. The central point that arises for our consideration in
    these appeals is whether the State Government is bound to
    make reservations in public posts and whether the decision
    by the State Government not to provide reservations can be
    only on the basis of quantifiable data relating to adequacy
    of representation of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes
    and Scheduled Tribes.
  11. Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) do not confer fundamental
    right to claim reservations in promotion9
    . By relying upon
    earlier judgments of this Court, it was held in Ajit Singh
    (II) (supra) that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are in the nature
    of enabling provisions, vesting a discretion on the State
    Government to consider providing reservations, if the
    circumstances so warrant. It is settled law that the State
    Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for
    appointment in public posts10. Similarly, the State is not
    bound to make reservation for Scheduled Castes and
    Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions. However, if they
    wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision,
    the State has to collect quantifiable data showing
    9 Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209
    10 C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India, (1968) 1 SCR 721
    13 | P a g e
    inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.
    If the decision of the State Government to provide
    reservations in promotion is challenged, the State
    concerned shall have to place before the Court the requisite
    quantifiable data and satisfy the Court that such
    reservations became necessary on account of inadequacy of
    representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
    a particular class or classes of posts without affecting
    general efficiency of administration as mandated by Article
    335 of the Constitution11
    .
  12. Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) empower the State to make
    reservation in matters of appointment and promotion in
    favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ‘if in
    the opinion of the State they are not adequately
    represented in the services of the State’. It is for the
    State Government to decide whether reservations are
    required in the matter of appointment and promotions to
    public posts. The language in clauses (4) and (4-A) of
    Article 16 is clear, according to which, the inadequacy of
    representation is a matter within the subjective satisfaction
    11 M. Nagaraj (supra)
    14 | P a g e
    of the State. The State can form its own opinion on the
    basis of the material it has in its possession already or it
    may gather such material through a
    Commission/Committee, person or authority. All that is
    required is that there must be some material on the basis of
    which the opinion is formed. The Court should show due
    deference to the opinion of the State which does not,
    however, mean that the opinion formed is beyond judicial
    scrutiny altogether. The scope and reach of judicial scrutiny
    in matters within the subjective satisfaction of the executive
    are extensively stated in Barium Chemicals v. Company
    Law Board
    12
    , which need not be reiterated13
    .
  13. On the basis of the settled law of this Court pertaining
    to the scope of Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the
    Constitution, we proceed to determine the correctness of
    the judgments of the High Court. As noted above, the
    judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No.117 of 2019 is
    to the effect that the proceeding dated 05.09.2012 issued
    by the Government of Uttarakhand by which it was decided
    to fill up the promotional posts or vacancies without
    12 AIR 1967 SC 295
    13 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) Supp. (3) SCC 217
    15 | P a g e
    providing reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
    Tribes was struck down. It was held by the High Court that
    the notifications that were issued by the Government of
    Uttarakhand, providing for reservations, continued to
    operate. A direction was issued by the High Court that
    reservation in promotion in favour of the Scheduled Castes
    and Scheduled Tribes can be made by the State Government
    without having quantifiable data regarding the
    backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes
    or the adequacy of their representation in the Government
    services.
  14. The application filed for review of the judgment in Writ
    Petition No.117 of 2019 was decided by a judgment dated
    08.11.2019 by the High Court. Realising the error
    committed in its judgment dated 01.04.2019, the High Court
    modified the judgment by holding that according to the
    decision of this Court in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain
    Gupta
    14
    , the State was obligated to collect quantifiable
    data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the
    Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services.
    14 (2018) 10 SCC 396
    16 | P a g e
    The High Court observed that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of
    the Constitution are enabling provisions, and the State
    Government is not obligated to provide reservations in
    promotion in favour of members of the Scheduled Castes
    and Scheduled Tribes. The High Court expressed its opinion
    that reservation in promotion to public posts can be
    provided by the State Government only after collecting data
    regarding the inadequacy of their representation in service.
    In light of the above, the High Court directed the State
    Government to collect quantifiable data regarding the
    adequacy or inadequacy of representation of Scheduled
    Castes and Scheduled Tribes in state services which would
    enable the State Government to take a considered decision
    as to whether or not reservation in promotion should be
    provided in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
    Tribes. The collection of quantifiable data was directed to
    be completed within four months from the date of receipt of
    the judgment.
  15. The High Court committed an error by striking down
    the proceeding dated 05.09.2012 by which a decision was
    taken not to provide reservation in promotions without
    17 | P a g e
    giving any reasons, except stating that the said decision is
    contrary to the judgments of this Court in Jarnail Singh and
    Indra Sawhney (supra). A perusal of the proceeding dated
    05.09.2012 would show that the decision taken by the State
    Government was by way of implementation of the judgment
    of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Vinod Prakash
    Nautiyal (supra) by which Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act,
    relating to the provision of reservation in promotion, was
    struck down. By its judgment dated 10.07.2012 in Vinod
    Prakash Nautiyal (supra), the High Court declared Section
    3 (7) of the 1994 Act as contrary to the law laid down by this
    Court in M. Nagaraj (supra). There was a further
    declaration that no promotion can be given by the State of
    Uttarakhand by taking recourse to Section 3 (7) of the 1994
    Act. However, the State Government was given liberty to
    bring out another legislation in accordance with the
    mandate of the Constitution of India, by following the
    judgment in M. Nagaraj (supra). This Court dismissed the
    SLP filed against the said judgment. At this juncture, it is
    relevant to mention that certain notifications were issued
    after the formation of the State of Uttarakhand by which
    18 | P a g e
    reservation in promotion to public posts as provided in the
    State of Uttar Pradesh was adapted with certain
    modifications. As stated above, the Government of
    Uttarakhand appointed a Committee for collection of
    quantifiable data pertaining to the adequacy or inadequacy
    of representation of the members of Scheduled Castes and
    Scheduled Tribes in public services in the State. The
    Committee submitted its report, according to which the
    representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is
    inadequate. The State Cabinet approved the
    recommendation of the Committee on 12.04.2012.
    Ultimately, the State Government by a proceeding dated
    05.09.2012 decided to set aside all previous Government
    orders relating to reservation in promotions to Government
    services in the State. As the Government is not bound to
    provide reservation in promotions, we are of the opinion
    that there is no justifiable reason for the High Court to have
    declared the proceeding dated 05.09.2012 as illegal.
  16. The direction that was issued to the State Government
    to collect quantifiable data pertaining to the adequacy or
    inadequacy of representation of persons belonging to
    19 | P a g e
    Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Government
    services is the subject matter of challenge in some appeals
    before us. In view of the law laid down by this Court, there
    is no doubt that the State Government is not bound to make
    reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in
    an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No
    mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State
    Government to provide reservations. It is abundantly clear
    from the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney, Ajit
    Singh (II), M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh (supra) that
    Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are enabling provisions and the
    collection of quantifiable data showing inadequacy of
    representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
    public service is a sine qua non for providing reservations in
    promotions. The data to be collected by the State
    Government is only to justify reservation to be made in the
    matter of appointment or promotion to public posts,
    according to Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution.
    As such, collection of data regarding the inadequate
    representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and
    Schedules Tribes, as noted above, is a pre requisite for
    20 | P a g e
    providing reservations, and is not required when the State
    Government decided not to provide reservations. Not being
    bound to provide reservations in promotions, the State is
    not required to justify its decision on the basis of
    quantifiable data, showing that there is adequate
    representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and
    Schedules Tribes in State services. Even if the underrepresentation of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in
    public services is brought to the notice of this Court, no
    mandamus can be issued by this Court to the State
    Government to provide reservation in light of the law laid
    down by this Court in C.A. Rajendran (supra) and Suresh
    Chand Gautam (supra). Therefore, the direction given
    by the High Court that the State Government should first
    collect data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of
    representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
    Government services on the basis of which the State
    Government should take a decision whether or not to
    provide reservation in promotion is contrary to the law laid
    down by this Court and is accordingly set aside. Yet another
    direction given by the High Court in its judgment dated
    21 | P a g e
    15.07.2019, directing that all future vacancies that are to be
    filled up by promotion in the posts of Assistant Engineer,
    should only be from the members of Scheduled Castes and
    Scheduled Tribes, is wholly unjustifiable and is hence set
    aside.
  17. The submission made on behalf of the reserved
    category candidates that the judgment of this Court in
    Suresh Chand Gautam (supra) needs reconsideration is
    without substance in view of the findings recorded above.
    We are in agreement with the decision of this Court in
    Suresh Chand Gautam (supra) in which it was held that
    no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State to
    collect quantifiable data relating to adequacy of
    representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
    Tribes in public services.
  18. The High Court was not informed about the
    appointment of a Committee for collection of quantifiable
    data and the completion of such exercise by the Committee,
    which was approved by the State Cabinet. However, the
    State Government took a conscious decision not to provide
    reservation in promotions. The direction given by the High
    22 | P a g e
    Court to collect quantifiable data, therefore, is wholly
    unnecessary as the State is already in possession of the said
    data.
  19. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgments of
    the High Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.351 of 2019, Writ
    Petition (S/B) No.117 of 2019 and Review Application No.389
    of 2019 in Writ Petition (S/B) No.117 of 2019 are set aside.
  20. The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
    .…………………………..J.
    [L. NAGESWARA RAO] ……………………………J.
    [HEMANT GUPTA]
    New Delhi,
    February 07, 2020.
    23 | P a g e