{"id":117389,"date":"1997-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997"},"modified":"2017-03-24T09:59:13","modified_gmt":"2017-03-24T04:29:13","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nR. DAYAL &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t17\/02\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nK. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This appeal  by special leave arises from the judgement<br \/>\nof the\tDivision Bench\tof the\tRajasthan High Court, Jaipur<br \/>\nBench, made on August 30, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 3759\/95.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  admitted  position  is  that\tfor  nine  vacancies<br \/>\nexisting  and\tanticipated  as\t  on  April   1,  1995,\t the<br \/>\nDepartmental Promotion\tCommittee (for short, the &#8220;DPC&#8221;) was<br \/>\nconvened including  respondent Nos.  12 and  13, viz.,\tB.S.<br \/>\nBhatnagar  and\tH.L.  Meena  (ST)  respectively.  The  other<br \/>\nrespondents filed  the\twrit  petition\tin  the\t High  Court<br \/>\nimpugning their\t appointments based  on\t Rule  24-A  of\t the<br \/>\nRajasthan Service  of  Engineers  (Building  and  the  Roads<br \/>\nBranch) Rules,\t1954 (as  amended) (for short, the &#8216;Rules&#8217;).<br \/>\nThe only  question is  : whether the appointment of the said<br \/>\nrespondents, viz., B.S. Bhatnagar and H.L. Meena, is made in<br \/>\naccordance with the Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri Aruneshwar  Gupta, learned  counsel appearing\t for<br \/>\nthe State, contends that under Rules 9 of the Rules, subject<br \/>\nto the\tprovision therein,  the appointing  authority  shall<br \/>\ndetermine as  on the  first day of the financial year, i.e.,<br \/>\ncommencing from\t 1st April  of ensuing\tyear and ending with<br \/>\n31st March  of successive  year, the  number  of  vacancies,<br \/>\nactual or  anticipated, occurring during the financial year.<br \/>\nThey are required to be considered by the DPC constituted in<br \/>\nthat behalf as per the criteria prescribed in Rule 23 of the<br \/>\nRules. In  accordance therewith,  for the  nine existing and<br \/>\nanticipated vacancies,\tthe DPC considered the claims of all<br \/>\nthe eligible  candidates, as per the Rules then existing and<br \/>\nselected them. A list of selected candidates is contained in<br \/>\nthe minutes  of the  DPC held  on April 13, 1995. As per the<br \/>\ncriteria then  existing, B.S.  Bhatnagar (General)  and H.L.<br \/>\nMeena (Reserved),  were selected on merit. As a consequence,<br \/>\nthey were  appointed by\t promotion in  accordance  with\t the<br \/>\nRules, though  Rule 23-A and Rule 24-A came to be introduced<br \/>\nby statutory  amendment w.e.f.\tJuly 24,  1995. Shri  Jayant<br \/>\nDas, learned  senior counsel appearing for respondent No.13,<br \/>\npromotee-respondent, contends  that under  Rule\t 23  of\t the<br \/>\nRules, the  criteria  prescribed  as  on  the  date  of\t the<br \/>\nselection by  the DPC  is required  to be applied. Since the<br \/>\nexisting criteria  had been  applied,  their  selection\t was<br \/>\ncorrect in  law. Consequently,\tthe  vacancies\twhich  arise<br \/>\nduring that  financial year  were required  to be  filled up<br \/>\nfrom amongst the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the<br \/>\ncontesting respondents,\t who had  filed the  writ  petition,<br \/>\ncontends that  in view\tof the\tfact that amendment of Rules<br \/>\nhas been  made effective  by clause  1 (ii)  with  immediate<br \/>\neffect, the  amended Rules  having come into force from July<br \/>\n24, 1995,  public  policy  demands  and\t the  Government  is<br \/>\nrequired to  apply the\tcriteria prescribed  in the  amended<br \/>\nlaw. It\t should be  applied as\tindicated in  column in Rule<br \/>\n2(iii) thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;2.(iii) in  column numbers 2 and 4<br \/>\n     against serial No.2 after the words<br \/>\n     &#8220;Addl.Chief      Engineer&#8221;\t     and<br \/>\n     &#8220;Superintending   Engineers&#8221;    the<br \/>\n     expression &#8220;(Civil)&#8221; shall be added<br \/>\n     an in column No.5 the following new<br \/>\n     entry shall be inserted:-<br \/>\n\t  &#8220;Must\t  hold\t a   degree   in<br \/>\n     Engineering (Civil) of a University<br \/>\n     established  by  law  in  India  or<br \/>\n     qualification  declared   quivalent<br \/>\n     thereto by\t Government with 5 years<br \/>\n     service as Suyperintending Engineer<br \/>\n     (Civil)&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (iv) After\t serial\t number\t 2,  the<br \/>\n     following\tnew  serial  number  and<br \/>\n     entries thereto  shall be inserted,<br \/>\n     namely :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>1     2.       3.\t    4.\t       5       6\t  7.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<pre>\n\"2-A  Addl.   100% by\t Superintending\t    Must hold a\n      Chief   promotion\t Engineer\t    degree in\n      (Mechanical)\t (Mechanical)\t    Engineering\n\t\t\t\t\t    (Mechanical) of\n\t\t\t\t\t    a University\n\t\t\t\t\t    established by\n\t\t\t\t\t    law in India or\n\t\t\t\t\t    qualification\n\t\t\t\t\t    declared\n\t\t\t\t\t    equivalent\n\t\t\t\t\t    thereto by\n\t\t\t\t\t    Government with\n\t\t\t\t\t    5 years service\n\t\t\t\t\t    as\n\t\t\t\t\t    Superintending\n\t\t\t\t\t    Engineer\n\t\t\t\t\t    (Mechanical\".\"\n<\/pre>\n<p>     As a  consequence, any  appointment  made\tas  on\tthat<br \/>\nshould\tbe  consistent\twith  the  above  Rule.\t In  support<br \/>\nthereof, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1978023\/\">V.V. Rangaiah vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao<\/a> [(1983) 3 SCC 284].\n<\/p>\n<p>     The question,  therefore, is: whether the view taken by<br \/>\nthe High  Court in  the impugned judgment is correct in law?<br \/>\nIt is  true, as contended by Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, that the<br \/>\ndetermination of vacancies is required to be done under Rule<br \/>\n9 of  the  Rules  and  the  selection  has  to\tbe  made  in<br \/>\naccordance with the criteria prescribed under Rule 23 of the<br \/>\nRules. Even  Rule 23-A\tof the\tRules  prescribes  the\tsame<br \/>\nprocedure and the criteria thereunder was also followed. The<br \/>\nrevised criteria  of eligibility and procedure for promotion<br \/>\nof the\tofficers has  been prescribed under Rule 24-A of the<br \/>\nRules. Sub-rule (2) of Rules 12 envisages as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;The persons enumerated in Column 5<br \/>\n     or the  relevant  Column  regarding<br \/>\n     `posts from  which promotion  is to<br \/>\n     be made.&#8217;\tas the\tcase may  be  of<br \/>\n     the  relevant   Schedule  shall  be<br \/>\n     eligible  for  promotion  to  posts<br \/>\n     specified against\tthem in Column 2<br \/>\n     thereof to\t the extent indicated in<br \/>\n     Column   3\t   subject   to\t   their<br \/>\n     possessing\t minimum  qualifications<br \/>\n     and experince  on the  first day of<br \/>\n     the month\tof April  of the year of<br \/>\n     selection as  specified in Column 6<br \/>\n     or in the relevant Column regarding<br \/>\n     &#8220;minimum\t  qualification\t     and<br \/>\n     experience for  promotion&#8221;, as  the<br \/>\n     case may be.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Therefore, it  is not in dispute and cannot be disputed<br \/>\nthat   while\tselecting   officers,\t minimum   requisite<br \/>\nqualifications and experience for promotion specified in the<br \/>\nrelevant column,  should be taken into consideration against<br \/>\nvacancies existing as on 1st April of the year of selection.<br \/>\nBut since  the Rules  cane to be amended and the amendedment<br \/>\nbecame effective  with immediate effect and clause (11-B) of<br \/>\nRule 24-A  indicates that  options have\t been given  to\t the<br \/>\nGovernment or  the appointing Authority, as the case may be,<br \/>\nto revise  the select  list as existing as per the law as on<br \/>\nthe date  of the  appointment or  as may  be directed  by  a<br \/>\ncompetent court,  selection is\trequired to  be made  by the<br \/>\nconcerned DPC.\tAn appointment\tmade, after selection as per<br \/>\nthe procedure,\tto  the\t vacancies  existing  prior  to\t the<br \/>\namendment, is  valid. But the question is: whether selection<br \/>\nwould be  made, in  the case of appointment to the vacancies<br \/>\nwhich admittedly arose after the amendment of the Rules came<br \/>\ninto force,  according to  the amended\tRules or in terms of<br \/>\nRule  9\t  read\twith   Rules  23   and\t24-A,  as  mentioned<br \/>\nhereinbefore? This Court has considered the similar question<br \/>\nin paragraph  9 of  the judgment above cited. This Court has<br \/>\nspecifically laid that the vacancies which occurred prior to<br \/>\nthe amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original<br \/>\nRules and  not by the amended Rules. Accordingly, this Court<br \/>\nhad held  that the  posts which\t fell vacant  prior  to\t the<br \/>\namendment of  the Rules\t would be  governed by\tthe original<br \/>\nRules and  not the  amended Rules. As a necessary corollary,<br \/>\nthe vacancies  that arose subsequent to the amendment of the<br \/>\nRules are  required to\tbe filled  in in accordance with the<br \/>\nlaw existing  as on  the  date\twhen  the  vacancies  arose.<br \/>\nUndoubtedly, the  selection came  to be\t made prior  to\t the<br \/>\namendment of  the Rules in accordance with law then existing<br \/>\nsince the  anticipated vacancies  also must  have been taken<br \/>\ninto consideration in the light of Rules 9 of the Rules. But<br \/>\nafter the  amended Rules  came into  force, necessarily\t the<br \/>\namended Rules came into force, necessarily the amended Rules<br \/>\nwould be  required to  be applied  for and given effect to .<br \/>\nBut, unfortunately,  that has  not been\t done in the present<br \/>\ncase. The  two courses\tare open  to he\t Government  or\t the<br \/>\nappointing  authority,\t viz.,\teither\t to  make  temporary<br \/>\npromotions for\tthe ensuing  financial year  until  the\t DPC<br \/>\nmeets or  in exercise  of the  power under Rule 24-A (11-B),<br \/>\nthey can  revise the  panel already  prepared in  accordance<br \/>\nwith the Rule and make appointments in accordance therewith.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  contended by  Shri Das  that one of the persons,<br \/>\nnamely, H.L.  Meena was\t appointed against a carried forward<br \/>\npost  as   per\tthe   existing\tRules  and,  therefore,\t his<br \/>\nappointment cannot  be challenged.  We find  it difficult to<br \/>\ngive acceptance\t to the\t contention. Even  a carried forward<br \/>\nvacancy is  required to be considered in accordance with the<br \/>\nlaw existing  unless suitable  relaxation  is  made  by\t the<br \/>\nGovernment. As on that date, when the appointment came to be<br \/>\nmade, the  selection was required to be made on the basis of<br \/>\nthe Rules  as existing on the date the vacancy arose. Since,<br \/>\nadmittedly, that  has not been done, the appointment of Shri<br \/>\nBhatnagar  and\tH.L.  Meena  must  be  treated\tto  be\tonly<br \/>\ntemporary appointments\tpending consideration  of the claims<br \/>\nof  all\t the  eligible\tpersons\t belonging  to\tGeneral\t and<br \/>\nReserved quota separately as per Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Equally,  one   B.L.  Kankas   (Scheduled\tTribe)\t was<br \/>\nappointed by  promotion on  July 28, 1995, after the amended<br \/>\nRules came  into force, and retired from service on July 31,<br \/>\n1995, Since  he has already retired, his appointment has not<br \/>\nbeen challenged, though direction to the contra was given by<br \/>\nthe Division Bench. To that extent, the judgment of the High<br \/>\nCourt stands  set aside\t and his  promotion  is\t ordered  to<br \/>\nremain undisturbed.  As regards\t others, the  Government  is<br \/>\nrequired to  constitute the  DPC which\twould  consider\t the<br \/>\nclaims of  eligible candidates\tas per\tRules. It would make<br \/>\nfresh selection\t and appointments  in accordance  with\tlaw.<br \/>\nWhatever benefits  have been  given under the impugned order<br \/>\ncannot be  taken away  although the  orders are being hereby<br \/>\nquashed. But  seniority and  other criteria would be subject<br \/>\nto the\tdecision that  would be taken by the Government. The<br \/>\nGovernment is directed to constitute the DPC within a period<br \/>\nof eight  weeks from  the date\tof the receipts of the order<br \/>\nand take speedy action accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997 Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: R. DAYAL &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/02\/1997 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D E R Leave granted. This appeal by special leave [&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-117389","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 Rajasthan vs R. Dayal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997 - 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-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-24T04:29:13+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=\"8 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-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-24T04:29:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997\"},\"wordCount\":1554,\"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-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-24T04:29:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997\"}]},{\"@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 Rajasthan vs R. Dayal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997 - 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-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-24T04:29:13+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997","datePublished":"1997-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-24T04:29:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997"},"wordCount":1554,"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-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997","name":"State Of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-24T04:29:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-r-dayal-ors-on-17-february-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997"}]},{"@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\/117389","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=117389"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117389\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117389"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117389"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117389"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}