{"id":112086,"date":"1996-04-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-04-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996"},"modified":"2019-02-26T07:33:44","modified_gmt":"2019-02-26T02:03:44","slug":"state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996","title":{"rendered":"State Of Up &amp; Ors vs Harish Chandra &amp; Ors on 12 April, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Up &amp; Ors vs Harish Chandra &amp; Ors on 12 April, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (4),    414\t  1996 SCALE  (3)730<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Pattanaik<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.B. Pattanaik (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF UP &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHARISH CHANDRA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t12\/04\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\nBENCH:\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1996 (4)   414\t  1996 SCALE  (3)730\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nPATTANAIK, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The impugned  direction of\t the learned Single Judge of<br \/>\nthe Allahabad  High Court  in Civil  Misc. Writ Petition No.<br \/>\n25696 of  1990 is  being challenged-in\tthe first case and a<br \/>\nsimilar direction  of a\t learned Single\t Judge of  Allahabad<br \/>\nHigh  Court  dated  2.4.1993  passed  in  Civil\t Misc.\tWrit<br \/>\nPetition No. 28719 of 1992 following the earlier judgment is<br \/>\nbeing assailed\tin the\tsecond case.  The  question  of\t law<br \/>\ninvolved in both  these appeals is one and the same. namely,<br \/>\nis the\tHigh court  justified in  issuing a  mandamus to the<br \/>\nappellant to make recruitment of the respondents who were in<br \/>\nthe Select  List of  the year  1987 even after the expiry of<br \/>\nthe said  list, the  list under the Recruitment Rules having<br \/>\nthe force  only for  a period  of one  year from the date of<br \/>\nselection.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Recruitment\/Selection to the posts in class III and<br \/>\nclass IV  is made  under a  Statutory Rule  called the\tSub-<br \/>\nordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules,<br \/>\n1985 (hereinafter referred to as &#8220;Recruitment Rules&#8221;). Under<br \/>\nthe Rules  the Appointing Authority is required to determine<br \/>\nthe number  of vacancies  to be\t filled during the course of<br \/>\nyear and  notify the  same to  the Employment  Exchange\t for<br \/>\nsponsoring candidates.\t The  Appointing Authority  is\talso<br \/>\nentitled to  invite  applications  directly  by\t issuing  an<br \/>\nadvertisement in  a local daily newspaper. on receipt of the<br \/>\nnames of  the candidates  the Selection Committee prepares a<br \/>\nmerit list  in the  manner prescribed  under  Rule  23.\t The<br \/>\nSelection Committee then forwards the  list thus prepared to<br \/>\nthe  Appointing\t Authority  under  Rule\t 26  mentioning\t the<br \/>\naggregate marks obtained at the selection by each candidate.<br \/>\nThe names  of the  candidates are arranged by the Appointing<br \/>\nAuthority in accordance with the merit of the candidates and<br \/>\nthereafter the\tappointments are  offered in  the  order  in<br \/>\nwhich the names are arranged.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The respondents  approached the  High  Court  alleging,<br \/>\ninter alia,  that though  there existed vacancies during the<br \/>\nyear 1987 and the select list was prepared on 4.4.87 but the<br \/>\nAppointing  Authority\tarbitrarily  did  not  fill  up\t the<br \/>\nvacancies and the respondents having failed in their attempt<br \/>\nby filing  representations approached the Court for issuance<br \/>\nof  mandamus,  It  was\talso  alleged  that  the  Appointing<br \/>\nAuthority ignoring the select list prepared by the Statutory<br \/>\nSelection Committee  has been  filling up  the vacancies  in<br \/>\naccordance with\t its own  sweet will  and the  right of\t the<br \/>\ncandidates in  the select  list is  thereby being infringed.<br \/>\nThe appellant  filed  counter  affidavit  controverting\t the<br \/>\nallegations made  in the  Writ\tApplications  and  took\t the<br \/>\npositive stand\tthat the select list of the year 1987 became<br \/>\ninoperative after  lapse  of  one  year\t from  the  date  of<br \/>\nselection and,\ttherefore, the\tapplicants who claimed to be<br \/>\nin the\tselect list prepared on 4.4.87 do not have any right<br \/>\nto be  appointed as  the life  of the  list has\t expired  by<br \/>\n4.4.88. It was also pleaded before the High Court that there<br \/>\ndid not\t exist any  vacancy during  the year as contended in<br \/>\nthe Writ  application. The  High Court by The impugned order<br \/>\ninstead\t of   focussing\t its   attention  to   the  relevant<br \/>\nprovisions of  the Statutory  Rules,  relying  upon  certain<br \/>\nearlier decisions  of the Court came to hold that the select<br \/>\nlist does  not lapse  on the  expiry of\t one year  from\t the<br \/>\npreparation of\tthe list.  The High  Court also\t came to the<br \/>\nconclusion that\t several  vacancies  having  occurred  after<br \/>\n4.4.87 on  account of superannuation of many of the existing<br \/>\nemployees the stand of the State that there existed only one<br \/>\nvacancy cannot\tbe accepted.  With this conclusion direction<br \/>\nhaving been  issued to appoint the Writ Petitioners the same<br \/>\nis being assailed in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned counsel  for the  appellant contended  that  in<br \/>\nview of\t the provisions\t of Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules<br \/>\nthe High  Court erred  in law  that the select list does not<br \/>\nexpire after  expiry of\t one year. He further contended that<br \/>\nthe  vacancy   position\t as   was  indicated  by  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment is correct and the High Court erroneously came to<br \/>\nthe  conclusion\t  about\t the  existing\tof  more  number  of<br \/>\nvacancies during  the year  without examining  the  peculiar<br \/>\ncircumstances  where   some  appointments  have\t been  made.<br \/>\nLearned counsel appearing for the respondents do not dispute<br \/>\nthe position  that under  the Statutory Rule the select list<br \/>\nremains valid  for one year from the date of the preparation<br \/>\nof list.  But they  contended that  in the  past on  several<br \/>\noccasions the  Appointing Authority have been appointing the<br \/>\npersons from  the select  list even after expiry of one year<br \/>\nand  in\t  support  of  that  they  placed  reliance  on\t the<br \/>\nappointments made  in the  year 1992  of  persons  who\twere<br \/>\nselected in  the year  1985. The  learned counsel also urged<br \/>\nthat under the Recruitment Rules the Appointing Authority is<br \/>\nduty bound  to calculate  and notify The number of vacancies<br \/>\nas it  existed and  likely to  occur during  the  year\tand,<br \/>\ntherefore. the\tcontentions that  there\t will  be  only\t one<br \/>\nvacancy in the year 1987 is wholly unsustainable. Apart from<br \/>\nthe aforesaid  contention, on merit the learned counsel also<br \/>\nurged that  there has  been delay  of 480 days in preferring<br \/>\nthe Special  Leave Petition and no justifiable ground having<br \/>\nbeen given  the delay  should not  be condoned.\t The learned<br \/>\ncounsel also  urged that  against the judgment of the Single<br \/>\nJudge a\t special appeal\t lies to  the Division Bench and the<br \/>\nappellant not having taken recourse to alternative remedy of<br \/>\napproaching  the   Division  Bench  this  Court\t should\t not<br \/>\ninterfere in  exercise of  power under\tArticle 136  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Before going  into the  merits of\tthe matter  we would<br \/>\nfirst dispose  of the two technical objections raised by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     So far  as the  question  of  delay  is  concerned\t the<br \/>\nlearned counsel\t for the  respondents placed reliance on the<br \/>\ndecision of this court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1366480\/\">Commissioner of Income<br \/>\nTax, Bombay  vs. Amateur Riders Club, Bombay<\/a> (1994 Supp. (2)<br \/>\nSupreme Court  Cases 603)  and urged  that the grounds taken<br \/>\nfor condonation is due to the delay in processing the matter<br \/>\nthrough official  channel and  cannot be  held\tto  be\tgood<br \/>\nground for  condonation. It  is undoubtedly  true  that\t the<br \/>\napplicant seeking  for condonation of delay is duty bound to<br \/>\nexplain the  reasons for  the delay  but as has been held by<br \/>\nthis Court  in several\tcases. the  very manner in which the<br \/>\nbureaucratic process  moves, if\t the case deserves merit the<br \/>\nCourt should  consider the question of condonation from that<br \/>\nperspective.   That   apart   the   respondents\t  themselves<br \/>\napproached  the\t High  Court  in  the  year  1990  making  a<br \/>\ngrievance that\tthey had not been appointed even though they<br \/>\nare included in the Select List of 1987 and 1987 list itself<br \/>\nexpired under  the Rules  on 4.4.1988.\tin this\t view of the<br \/>\nmatter and  in view  of the merits of the case we are of the<br \/>\nopinion that  sufficient cause\thas been shown for condoning<br \/>\nthe delay and accordingly we have condoned the delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>     So far as the other contention, namely, availability of<br \/>\nan appeal  to the Division Bench, we are of the opinion that<br \/>\nwould not  stand on  the way  of this  Court in\t exercise of<br \/>\npower under  Article 136  of  the  Constitution.  Ordinarily<br \/>\nwhere  an  appeal  lies\t to  the  Division  Bench  from\t the<br \/>\nJudgement of a learned Single Judge this court refrains from<br \/>\ninvoking power\tunder Article  136 of  the Constitution\t but<br \/>\nthis is\t a self-imposed restriction and not a matter ousting<br \/>\nthe jurisdiction  of  the  Court.  The\tmatter\thaving\tbeen<br \/>\npending for  more than\t2 years\t and in\t view of  the patent<br \/>\nerror committed\t by the\t High  Court  we  do  not  think  it<br \/>\nappropriate to\tnon suit  the appellant merely on the ground<br \/>\nthat the  appellant could have approached the Division Bench<br \/>\nagainst the  judgment of  the learned  Single Judge.  In the<br \/>\nlarger interest\t of all concerned we think it appropriate in<br \/>\nthe facts  and circumstances  of this  case  to\t invoke\t our<br \/>\njurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Coming to\tthe merits  of the  matter, in\tview of\t the<br \/>\nStatutory Rules\t contained in the Rule 26 of the Recruitment<br \/>\nRules the  conclusion is  irresistible that  a\tselect\tlist<br \/>\nprepared under\tthe Recruitment\t Rules has its life only for<br \/>\none year from the date of the preparation of the list and it<br \/>\nexpires thereafter.  Rule 26  is  extracted  hereinbelow  in<br \/>\nextenso;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;26.  Appointment\t by   appointing<br \/>\n     authority.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  The select list referred to in<br \/>\n     sub-rules (b)  and (7)  of Rule  23<br \/>\n     shall be forwarded by the Selection<br \/>\n     Committees\t  to\tthe   appointing<br \/>\n     authority mentioning  the aggregate<br \/>\n     marks obtained  at the selection by<br \/>\n     each  candidates.\t The   name   of<br \/>\n     general  and   reserve   candidates<br \/>\n     shall be arranged by the appointing<br \/>\n     authority\t in    a   common   list<br \/>\n     according\tto   the  merit\t of  the<br \/>\n     candidates\t and   the   appointment<br \/>\n     shall be  offered in  the order  in<br \/>\n     which the names are arranged in the<br \/>\n     list shall\t hold good  for a period<br \/>\n     of\t one   year  from  the\tdate  of<br \/>\n     selection.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Notwithstanding  the   aforesaid  Statutory   Rule\t and<br \/>\nwithout applying  the mind  to the  aforesaid Rule  the High<br \/>\nCourt relying  upon some earlier decisions of the Court came<br \/>\nto hold\t that the list does not expire after a period of one<br \/>\nyear which  on the face of it is erroneous. Further question<br \/>\nthat arises  in this  context is  whether the High Court was<br \/>\njustified in  issuing the  mandamus to the appellant to make<br \/>\nrecruitment of\tthe Writ Petitioners. Under the Constitution<br \/>\na mandamus  can be  issued by  the Court  when the applicant<br \/>\nestablishes that  he has a legal right to the performance of<br \/>\nlegal duty  by the party against whom the mandamus is sought<br \/>\nand said  right was  subsisting on the date of the petition.<br \/>\nThe duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed<br \/>\nby the\tConstitution or\t a Statute  or by  Rules  or  orders<br \/>\nhaving the  force of  law. But\tso mandamus can be issued to<br \/>\ndirect\tthe   Government  to   refrain\tfrom  enforcing\t the<br \/>\nprovision of  law or  to do  something which  is contrary to<br \/>\nlaw. This  being the  position and  in view of the Statutory<br \/>\nRules contained\t in Rule  26 of\t the  Recruitment  Rules  we<br \/>\nreally fail to understand how the High Court could issue the<br \/>\nimpugned direction  to\trecruit\t the  respondents  who\twere<br \/>\nincluded in  the select list prepared on 4.4.87 and the list<br \/>\nno longer survived after one year and the rights, it any, of<br \/>\npersons included  in the list did not subsist. In the course<br \/>\nof hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, no doubt<br \/>\nhave pointed  out some\tmaterials which\t indicate  that\t the<br \/>\nAdministrative Authorities have made the appointments from a<br \/>\nlist beyond the period of one year from its preparation. The<br \/>\nlearned counsel\t appearing for the appellants submitted that<br \/>\nin some\t cases pursuance  to the direction of the Court some<br \/>\nappointments have been made but in some other cases it might<br \/>\nhave been  done by  the Appointing Authority. Even though we<br \/>\nare persuaded  to  accept  the\tsubmission  of\tthe  learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t for   the  respondents\t  that\ton   some   occasion<br \/>\nappointments have been made by the Appointing Authority from<br \/>\na select  list even  after the\texpiry of  one year from the<br \/>\ndata of\t selection but such illegal action of the Appointing<br \/>\nAuthority does\tnot confer  a right  on an  applicant to  be<br \/>\nenforced by  a Court  under Article 226 of the Constitution.<br \/>\nWe have\t no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that such<br \/>\nappointments by\t the Appointing\t Authority  have  been\tmade<br \/>\ncontrary to  the provisions  of the Statutory Rules for some<br \/>\nunknown reason\tand we deprecate the practice adopted by the<br \/>\nAppointing Authority in making such appointments contrary to<br \/>\nthe Statutory  Rules. But  at the  same time it is difficult<br \/>\nfor us\tto sustain  the direction  given by  the High  Court<br \/>\nsince, admittedly,  the life  of the select list prepared on<br \/>\n4.4.87 had  expired long since and the respondents who claim<br \/>\ntheir rights  to be appointed on the basis  of such list did<br \/>\nnot have  a subsisting right on the date they approached the<br \/>\nHigh Court.  We may not be understood to imply that the High<br \/>\nCourt must  issue such\tdirection, if  the writ Petition was<br \/>\nfiled before  the expiry  of the  period of one year and the<br \/>\nsame was  disposed of  after the  expiry  of  the  statutory<br \/>\nperiod. In  view of  the aforesaid  conclusion of ours it is<br \/>\nnot necessary to deal with the question whether the stand of<br \/>\nthe State  Government that  there existed one vacancy in the<br \/>\nyear 1987 is correct or not.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  aforesaid premises the appeals are allowed. The<br \/>\nimpugned judgments  are set  aside and\tthe  Writ  Petitions<br \/>\nfiled by  the respondents  stand    dismissed.\tBut  in\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances there will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Up &amp; Ors vs Harish Chandra &amp; Ors on 12 April, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (4), 414 1996 SCALE (3)730 Author: G Pattanaik Bench: G.B. Pattanaik (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF UP &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: HARISH CHANDRA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/04\/1996 BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112086","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Up &amp; Ors vs Harish Chandra &amp; Ors on 12 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Up &amp; Ors vs Harish Chandra &amp; Ors on 12 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-26T02:03:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Up &amp; Ors vs Harish Chandra &amp; Ors on 12 April, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-26T02:03:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2124,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996\",\"name\":\"State Of Up &amp; Ors vs Harish Chandra &amp; Ors on 12 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-26T02:03:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Up &amp; Ors vs Harish Chandra &amp; Ors on 12 April, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Up &amp; Ors vs Harish Chandra &amp; Ors on 12 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Up &amp; Ors vs Harish Chandra &amp; Ors on 12 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-26T02:03:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Up &amp; Ors vs Harish Chandra &amp; Ors on 12 April, 1996","datePublished":"1996-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-26T02:03:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996"},"wordCount":2124,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996","name":"State Of Up &amp; Ors vs Harish Chandra &amp; Ors on 12 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-26T02:03:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-up-ors-vs-harish-chandra-ors-on-12-april-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Up &amp; Ors vs Harish Chandra &amp; Ors on 12 April, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112086","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=112086"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112086\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112086"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112086"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112086"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}