UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARNAM SINGH 11

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Smt. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel for the respondent who has preferred this review petition. On a consideration of the matter, we find that the grounds raised in support of the review, do not justify our interference with the earlier order dated 9th February, 1993.

(2.) However, there is one other aspect which might bear consideration. In the course of the order, it was observed:

(3.) This statement might be susceptible of an interpretation that it denudes the efficacy of the pronouncement of this Court in 1991 (2) LLJ 112:Dr. Mahabal Ram v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research to which reference was not made at the hearing of the main appeal. It is, therefore, appropriate that the observations, excerpted above, are deleted from the order. They are, accordingly, deleted, lest there be scope for any such misunderstanding.