abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Sh. Pramod Kumar Saini S/o Sh. Harbir Singh R/o 4/2991, Top Floor, Gali No.2, Shalimar Park Extension, Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi .... Defendant 1. CS No. : 1551/2016 2. CNR No. : DLSH010008592016 3. Under Section : Suit for recovery of Rs.75,00,000/. 4. Date of institution : 22/07/2013 5. Reserved for judgment : 29/11/2025 6. Date of Judgment : 27/01/2026 AND MISC DJ NO.281/2019 Digitally signed by DEEPANKER C.S. No.1551/2016 & MISC DJ No.281/19 DEEPANKER MOHAN Page 1 of 26 MOHAN Date: 2026.01.27 18:36:17 +0530 IN THE MATTER OF: Sh. Pramod Kumar Saini S/o Sh. Harbir Singh R/o 7D, Top Floor, Shivam Enclave, Jhilmil, Delhi95 .... Petitioner VERSUS Sh. O.P. Bhargava (Deceased) S/o Late Sh. P.N. Bhargava Represented through his legal representatives: a. Shri Pankaj Bhargava (son) b. Shri Sharad Bhargava Both resident of H. No.D389, 1st Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi110024 c. Smt. Preeti Bhargava Koundinya (Daughter) R/o E110, Shushant Lok, PhaseI, Gurgaon, Haryana ....Respondent 1. MISC DJ No. : 281/2019 2. CNR No. : DLSH010081712019 3. Under Section : Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 4. Date of institution : 16/12/2019 5. Reserved for judgment : 29/11/2025 6. Date of Judgment : 27/01/2026 JUDGMENT 1. Vide this common judgment, this Court shall dispose of the suit for recovery of Rs.75,00,000/ filed by plaintiff against defendant on 22/07/2013 and application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner against defendant on 16/12/2019. Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN C.S. No.1551/2016 & MISC DJ No.281/19 MOHAN Page 2 of 26 Date: 2026.01.27 18:36:22 +0530 AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT 2. Plaintiff is a doctor and he is aged about 76 years old. In the year 1996, defendant joined the service of plaintiff as a receptionistcumtelephone operator for a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/. Due to advancing age of plaintiff, he started relying a lot upon defendant and during the course of employment, plaintiff reposed utmost confidence and faith in the defendant. 3. Plaintiff owned a prime plot measuring 1400 sq. meters on New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh on which multistorey building was being constructed by him and defendant was looking after its construction work. The entire amount of the construction was spent from the means of plaintiff who had taken loans from the bank. 4. Defendant fraudulently and by forging some documents, presented a cheque of Rs.1 crore with his bankers on the pretext that the said cheque has been given by plaintiff in lieu of the alleged expenses on the construction have been born by defendant. On the basis of the said cheque, defendant fraudulently implicated plaintiff in a case under Section 138 of NI Act. 5. When the construction of the super structure was complete, defendant used his undue influence upon plaintiff to get a sum of Rs.75,00,000/ on which defendant induced
1. The Management of Bogapani Tea Estate, (to be represented by its Manager) P.O & P.S. Digboi, district Tinsukia, Assam, PIN:786171 .......Respondent 2. State of Assam to be represented by the Secretary, Labour & Welfare Department, Dispur, Guwahati781006. .......Proforma Respondents Page 1 of 23 2.WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2996/2018 The Management of Bogapani Tea Estate P.O. Digboi, in the District of Tinsukia, Assam 786171, represented by the Manager of the Tea Estate. .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Assam. Represented by its Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour and Welfare Department, Dispur, Guwahati 781006. 2. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia, PIN786125 3. Sri Mangra Etwa Son of Etwa Bango, resident of Line No.11 of Bogapani Tea Estate, P.O & P.S. Digboi, in the District of Tinsukia, Assam. PIN 786125 .......Respondents Page 2 of 23 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Chakravarty, Advocate in WP(C) No.6540/2018. : Mr. S. Chakravarty, Advocate in WP(C) No.2996/2018. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Chakraborty, Advocate for respondent No.1 in WP(C) No.6540/2018. : Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.2 in WP(C) No.6540/2018 and for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP(C) No.2996/2018. : Mr. B. Chakravarty, Advocate for respondent No.3 in WP(C) No.2996/2018. Date of Hearing : 18.03.2025. Date of Judgment : 18.03.2025. JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.6540/2018 and for the respondent No.3 in WP(C) No.2996/2018; Mr. S. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.2996/2018 and for the respondent No.1 in WP(C) No.6540/2018. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent in WP(C) No.6540/2018 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP(C) No.2996/2018. 2. Both the writ petitions having arisen out of the award dated 21.12.2017 passed by the learned Labour Page 3 of 23 Court, Dibrugarh in reference Case No.1/2015, which was published on 05.03.2018 vide Memo No.GLR.32/2018/16A, is being taken up together for final disposal by this common judgment. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as workman) in WP(C) No.6540/2018 was appointed as Substaff at the respondent tea estate of the respondent No.1 in WP(C) No.6540/2018 (hereinafter referred to as management) in the year 1986. 4. Thereafter, the workman was promoted to Sub staff, GradeII with effect from 01.06.2007 by order dated 22.05.2007. Upon attaining the age of superannuation, the management issued a notice of retirement to the workman indicating his date of retirement to be 31.12.2012. 5. It is the specific case of the workman that his date of birth ought to have been 24.08.1968 instead of 01.01.1954 and accordingly approached t
1. The Union of India represented by the Secretary Ministry of Personnel, AR., PG & Pensions (Dept. of Pensions & Pensioners' Welfare) Sardar Patel Bhavan, Sansad Marg New Delhi 110 001. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Union of India, New Delhi 110 001. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), Union of India North Block, New Delhi 110 001. OA No.32/2017 2 4. The Dy. Comptroller & Auditor General of India, (Admn.) O/o The Comptroller & Audit General of India Feroz Shah Road, New Delhi 110 001. 5. The Controller General of Defence Accounts Allahabad, U.P. 6. The Principal Accountant General (G&SSA) A.P. & Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad 500 004. 7. The Accountant General (A&E) A.P. & Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad 500 004. 8. The Chairman, Railway Board Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi 110 001. 9. The Director General, Posts Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 001. 10. The Director General, Postal Accounts New Delhi 110 001. 11. The Chief Postmaster General T.S.Circle, Hyderabad 500 001. 12. The Chief Postmaster General A.P.Circle, Vijayawada. ... Respondents (By Advocate:Smt. K. Rajitha, Sr. CGSC, Shri V. Vinod Kumar, Sr. CGSC and Shri N. Srinivasa Rao, SC for Railways) ORDER 2. The OA is filed aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in treating the applicants, who were inducted and absorbed into the service OA No.32/2017 3 of Public Sector Undertakings till the date of their superannuation, in public interest, with no pensionscheme in respective PSUs and denying the Pensionary benefits as given to other Central Government Pensioners, despite the Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the applicants. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are mostly members of the Central Subordinate Civil Services, having retired prematurely, in public interest, on their induction into the service of Public Enterprises/PSUs. In view of the facts mentioned in Para 4 of the OA, the applicants pray for the following relief(s): "(1) to call for records pertaining to restoration of 2/3rd pension as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court of Madras and the orders passed by the Hon'ble Tribunals of Hyderabad/Ernakulam Benches and direct the Respondents to consider the cases of the applicants herein for grant of the similar reliefs as granted by the Judicial fora supra, duly directing the Respondents to immediately extend the benefit of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement/order dated 192016 and restore the twothirds commuted pension of the Applicants retrospectively from the respective dates of complete repayment of commuted value with interest, as similarly placed pensioners on the same footing without any difference, as Ganesan in whose case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed for restoration of 2/3rd commuted pension after the requisite period of commutation; (2) to direct the Respondents to issue revised Pension Payment Orders to the Applicants fixing their pension as 50% of the minimum of the pay in th
Competition Commission of India 9th Floor, Office Block1, Kidwai Nagar (East) ...Respondent New Delhi11 0023, India Present For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Dhruv Malik, Ms. Aditi Sinha, Advocates for CCI. Mr. Dinesh Chandra, Dy. Director, for CCI. Ms. Sunaina Dutta, Jt. Director (Law) for CCI. With Competition Appeal (AT) No. 48 of 2022 & I.A Nos. 3891, 3893 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Rahul Gajanan Teni Office at 301303, A Square, Plot no. 34 ADC, Sector 26, Pradhikaran Pune, ...Appellant Maharashtra, Pin Code 411 044 Versus Competition Commission of India 9th Floor, Office Block1, ...Respondent Kidwai Nagar (East), Cont'd.../ 2 New Delhi11 0023, India Present For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Dhruv Malik, Ms. Aditi Sinha, Advocates for CCI. Mr. Dinesh Chandra, Dy. Director, for CCI. Ms. Sunaina Dutta, Jt. Director (Law) for CCI. With Competition Appeal (AT) No. 40 of 2022 & I.A No. 3233 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Fimo Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. Through its Authorized Representative Office at Shop No. 3, Ground Floor, E99, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, ...Appellant No.1 Pin Code 110007. Mr. Jai Kumar Gupta, Director, M/S Fimo Infosolutions Private Limited Office at Shop No. 3, Ground Floor, ...Appellant No.2 E99, Kamla NagarDelhi, Pin Code 11 0007. Versus Competition Commission of India 9th Floor, Office Block1, Kidwai Nagar (East), ...Respondent New Delhi11 0023, India. Present For Appellants : Mr. Rahul Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Dhruv Malik, Ms. Aditi Sinha, Advocates for CCI. Mr. Dinesh Chandra, Dy. Director, for CCI. Ms. Sunaina Dutta, Jt. Director (Law) for CCI. Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 36,48,40 of 2022 3 JUDGMENT (23rd September, 2025) INDEVAR PANDEY, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) These appeals arise from the final order and judgment passed by the Competition Commission of India (Hereinafter referred to as "Commission") on 04.04.2022 under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter called the Act), wherein the Commission held that Appellants along with other bidders, had contravened Sections 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) r/w Section 3 (1) of the Act. The appeals have been filed under Section 53 (b) of the Act challenging the impugned order of the Commission. Brief facts of the case 2. The commission received a general complaint dated 07.08.2018 alleging bidrigging in the tenders invited by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh for soil sample testing. The complaint related to alleged bid rigging in respect of two etenders namely, Tender 2018_AGRUP_210583_1 (Moradabad) dated 31.05.2018 ("Tender No. 1") and Tender 2018_AGRUP_212591_1 (Bareilly) dated 18.06.2018 ('Tender No. 2"), invited for the soil sample testing by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh. 3. It was stated in the complaint that the following parties participated in the aforesaid two tenders of soil testing in Uttar Pradesh: Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 36,48,40 of 2022 4 (i) Yash Solutions (ii) M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal (iii) M/s Siddhi Vinayak and Sons (iv) M/s Saraswati Sales Corporation (v) M/s Lab Traders (vi) Edward Food Research and An
Accused : Sri.Nanjunda. S.A. S/o Hanumanth Sa, Age 77 years, R/at.No.240/1, 1st Floor, 12th Cross, 3rd Main, Mahalakshmipuram, Bengaluru 560 086. And also at; Venus Silks & Sarees, No.47, Balepete Main Road, Balepete, Chickpet, Bengaluru 560 053. { By Sri.H.M.Anand Advocate } Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act., Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Accused is Convicted Date of Order : 01102022 3 C.C.12356/2019 JUDGMENT The present complaint is filed under section 2(d) read with section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish him for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act"). 02. The factual matrix of the complaint is summarized as under; It is averred in the complaint that, the accused and complainant are known to each other for some considerable time. The accused was required money to improve his business, therefore he requested the complainant to advance him of Rs.12,00,000/ during the year 2017 and had promised to repay the same within one year. In the first week of January 2017, the complainant has advanced Rs.3,00,000/ to the accused as a hand loan by way of cash and after few months, the accused had borrowed another 4 C.C.12356/2019 hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/ from the complainant by way of cash and once again, in the first week of October 2017, the accused has borrowed hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/ from the complainant. In all, the accused has borrowed hand loan of Rs.12,00,000/ by way of cash from the complainant. After one year, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.926184 dated 08.03.2019 for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/ drawn on Karnataka Bank, Chickpet Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. The complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker, but it returned unpaid with banker's endorsement dated 25.03.2019 as "Funds Insufficient". On 28.03.2019, demand notice was issued to the accused by RPAD. The demand notice issued by RPAD has been duly served to accused on 01.04.2019. Inspite of service of legal notice, the accused neither has paid the cheque amount nor has given any reply. On these grounds, it is sought to convict the accused for the offence 5 C.C.12356/2019 punishable under section 138 of NI Act and grant compensation as per section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 03. On presentation of complaint, this court has verified the averments of complaint along with records and thereby had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. Thereby, as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in AIR 2014 SC 1983 in the case of Indian Bank Association and others V/s Union of India and others, the sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded as PW.1 and got exh
Delhi High Court A.K.Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 April, 2012 * % Judgment reserved on: 10.4.2012 Judgment pronounced on: 17.4.2012 + W.P.(C) 2251522518/2005 & CM No.1469214694/2005, 6787/2006, 7955/2006, 15087/2008 & 1536/2012 Indian Telecom Service Association & Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2221722257/2005 & CMs No.14646/2005, 14648/2005 Arun Gupta And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2225822463/2005 & CMs No.14652/2005 & 14655/2005 Mukesh Kumar Chauhan And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 22783/2005 S.K.Talware ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents W.P(C) 17618/2006 Page 1 of 26 + W.P.(C) 2278422788/2005 & CM No.16074/2005 Pushpender Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2278922847/2005 & CMs No.12817/2006, 13732/2006 & 14503/2006 Akhilesh Trivedi ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 23093/2005 Rakesh Kumar Tripathi ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2312423126/2005 Awadhesh K. Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents W.P(C) 17618/2006 Page 2 of 26 + W.P.(C) 23655/2005 Gajender Kumar Yadav ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 1238012382/2006 & CMs No.9467/2006, 11074/2008 & 14543/2008 MTNL Executive Welfare Association ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Another ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 17618/2006 & CMs No. 1458814589/2006 & 170/2007 A.K.Sharma ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 3414/2007 & CM No.63966397/2007 Vinay Saran ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. VSR Krishna and Ms. Swati Sharma in WP(C) 2221522257/2005 Mr. Yasoban Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Srivastava, Mr. Ashish W.P(C) 17618/2006 Page 3 of 26 Sindhu and Mr. Arvind Tiwari in WP(C) 22789/2005 Mr. A.K.Srivastava and Mr. Ashish Sindhu in WP(C) 22783/2005, 22784/2005, 22789/2005, 23093/2005, 23124/2005 & 23655/2005 For Respondent : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. B.V.Niren, Mr Prasouk Jain, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma & Mr. Pratap for UoI Mr. Ravi Sikri with Mr. Vaibhav Kalra for MTNL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions are directed against the orders dated 21.10.2005 and 31.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No. 1963/2005 and other connected OAs. 2. Pursuant to its decision to set up a Public Sector Corpo
Delhi High Court Ifci Venture Capital Funds Limited vs Srgp Corporation Limited on 22 February, 2024 * % Pronounced on: 22nd February, 2024 + C.R.P. 115/2022 & CM APPL No. 35157/2022 IFCI VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjiv Kakra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Advocates with Mr. Saajan Rathi, AR. versus SRGP CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Mr. Ravi Data and Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocates. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH JUDGMENT CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. 1. The instant civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "(a) Call the records of C.S. No. 901/2021 titled as "SRGP Corporation VS. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Limited" is pending before the Ld. Trial Court Shri Aviral Shukla, Ld. Civil Judge, District (SouthEast) Saket Court, New Delhi. (b) Set aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the Hon‟ble Court of Shri Aviral Shukla, Ld. Civil Judge, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.R.P. 115/2022 Page 1 of 79 By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:22.02.2024 18:49:46 District (SouthEast) Saket Court, New Delhi in C.S. No. 901/2021 titled as "SRGP Corporation Ltd. VS. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Limited". (c) Allow the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Petitioner and Suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff may kindly be rejected. (d) Any other relief/ reliefs, which this Hon‟ble Court may think fit and proper in the interest of justice." FACTUAL HISTORY 2. The petitioner, i.e., the defendant before the learned Trial Court is a public financial institution under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at IFCI Tower, 61 Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019. inter alia the petitioner entity is involved in the business of assisting the innovation and development including application and commercialization of technology and/or granting financial assistance by way of equity participation, debentures or advances. 3. The respondent, i.e., the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013, also registered with the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India (hereinafter "MSME") and has its registered office at Ganges Nagar, 365, Harris Ganj, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh208004. 4. A project was proposed by the respondent company wherein it was agreed that the petitioner shall takeover/refinance all the loans advanced by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.R.P. 115/2022 Page 2 of 79 By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:22.02.2024 18:49:46 M/s Venus India Asset Finance Pvt. Ltd. to the respondent and the project also included for financing of development/finishing work of Ganges Nagar Mall (Phase I) & Ganges Nagar Plots TAT Mill (Phase II) respectively situated at 365 & 364, Harris Ganj, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter "the project"). 5. The respondent company through its director namely Mr. Raghu Raj
Delhi High Court Xx vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 August, 2025 * % Judgment reserved on: 07.08.2025 Judgment delivered on: 27.08.2025 + W.P.(C) 9931/2025 & CM APPL. 4134941351/2025 & CM APPL. 42157/2025 & CM APPL. 42663/2025 & CM APPL. 45892/2025 XX .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent Memo of Appearance For the Petitioner: Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Jatan Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. K.K. Mannan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rana S. Biswas, Mr. Vivek Jain and Mr. Puneet Parihar, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, ASG with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, SPC UOI, Mr. Sachin Singh, Advocate and Ms. Vidhi Gupta (GP) for R1/UOI, Mr. Tarun Agarwal, Ms. Parthvi Ahuja, Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Mr. Bhaskar Agarwal, Mr. Shrey Patnaik, Mr. Ritwik Batra and Ms. Mitali Karwa, Advocates for R2 & R3 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN JUDGMENT MANOJ JAIN, J 1. Petitioner challenges order dated 12.11.2024 whereby she has been terminated from service. She seeks issuance of appropriate writ directing her employer to reinstate her to the post of Assistant Director (Administration & Finance)Legal, with all consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner has withheld her identity and has masked her name in the present writ petition. This seems to have been done for the reason that W.P.(C) 9931/2025 1 of 38 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:27.08.2025 19:08:29 during the course of her employment in question, she had filed a complaint under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Though, the aforesaid complaint (being referred as POSH Complaint) has already been adjudicated, in the present matter, she would be referred to either as "petitioner" or as "XX". 3. Let me narrate factual matrix, in brief. 4. Petitioner is admittedly a law graduate and got herself enrolled as advocate on 23.10.2011. 5. Bureau of Indian Standards (respondent no. 2 herein) is a statutory body, working under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India. Needless to emphasize, Bureau of Indian Standards (in short „BIS‟) is a National Standard Body of India established under BIS Act 2016 engaged in harmonious development of activities of standardization and system certification. 6. BIS came up with an advertisement on 05.09.2020 for various posts falling under GroupA, GroupB & GroupC. 7. One such position was Assistant Director (Administration & Finance)Legal and the prescribed educational and other qualifications required for the aforesaid post were described as under in the advertisement: "For Assistant Director (Administration) for legal i) Degree in law from a recognized university/Bachelor of law; and ii) Three years' experience in the relevant field in Central/ Sta