{"id":119827,"date":"1990-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990"},"modified":"2017-02-13T17:30:59","modified_gmt":"2017-02-13T12:00:59","slug":"j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990","title":{"rendered":"J.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
J.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 857, \t\t 1990 SCR (2) 470<\/div>\n
Author: K Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Singh, K.N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nJ.C. YADAV & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/02\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\nTHOMMEN, T.K. (J)\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR  857\t\t  1990 SCR  (2) 470\n 1990 SCC  (2) 189\t  JT 1990 (1)\t278\n 1990 SCALE  (1)229\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1990 SC1069\t (5,6,7)\n\n\nACT:\n    Haryana Service of Engineers Class I PWD (Public  Health\nBranch)\t Rules, 1961: Rule 22--Power of Government to  relax\nrequirement  of\t any of the Rules-Scope\t and  interpretation\nof--Meaning of expression \"in any particular case\"---Whether\npower  to  grant relaxation may be exercised in case  of  an\n:individual to remove hardship caused to him or to a  number\nof individuals who all may be similarly placed-Relaxation of\nrequirement  of Rule 6(b) granted to a group of\t individuals\nto meet a particular situation--Validity of.\nWords and Phrases--'In particular case'--Meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appointment  and promotion to Class  I\t Engineering\nService in the State of Haryana are regulated by the Haryana\nService\t of  Engineers Class I PWD  (Public  Health  Branch)\nRules,\t1961.  Rule 5 provides for appointment\tto  Class  I\nService,  inter\t alia, by promotion from Class\tII  Service.\nRule 6(b) prescribed that no person shall be promoted unless\nhe  has\t completed eight years service in Class II  and\t has\npassed\tprofessional examination to the department. Rule  22\nconfers power on the Government to relax any of the Rules it\nmay consider necessary.\n    The\t appellants and the contesting respondent were\tmem-\nbers  of  the Haryana Service of Engineers Class II  in\t the\nPublic\tHealth Branch. In 1971 the appellants were  promoted\nto  the post of Executive Engineers in the cadre of Class  I\nservice on ad hoc basis while the respondent was not consid-\nered  for  promotion. Later, a Committee  constituted  under\nRule  8 for selecting suitable candidates for  promotion  to\nClass I post, considered the names of the appellants and the\nrespondent  but did not find the respondent suitable.  Hence\nit  included the appellant's|ant's names only in the  select\nlist.  The appellants did not possess the requisite  minimum\nperiod\tof service of 8 years in Class II service but  since\nno  other suitable candidates were available, the  Committee\nrecommended  to\t the Govt. for granting\t relaxation  to\t the\nappellants. The State Public Service Commission approved the\nrecommendations.   The\t State\t Government   accepted\t the\nrecommendations\t and  appointed the appellants\tto  Class  I\nservice by a Notification dated May 3, 1973.\n471\n    The\t contesting respondent filed a Writ Petition  before\nthe  High Court challenging the validity of the\t appellants'\npromotion  on the ground that since the appellants  did\t not\npossess the requisite qualification for promotion to Class I\nService their promotions were contrary to rules.\n    A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the  petition\nholding\t that since the Government had relaxed Rule 6(b)  in\nappellants'  favour,  their promotions were  sustainable  in\nlaw.  On appeal, the Division Bench quashed the\t appellants'\npromotion  on  the ground that the State Government  had  no\nauthority in law to grant relaxation to the appellants under\nRule 22 in a general manner as the power of relaxation could\nbe  exercised only in individual cases to mitigate  hardship\ncaused to an individual. Hence the appeal by special leave.\nAllowing the Appeal, this Court,\n    HELD:  1. Power to grant relaxation may be exercised  in\ncase of an individual to remove hardship being caused to him\nor  to\ta  number of individuals who all  may  be  similarly\nplaced. This power may also be exercised to meet a  particu-\nlar situation where on account of the operation of the rules\nhardship  is being caused to a set of  individual  officers.\n[477G-H]\n    2. I Rule 22 of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class I\nPWD  (Public Health Branch) Rules 1961 confers power on\t the\nGovernment  to dispense with or to relax the requirement  of\nany  of the Rules to the extent and with such conditions  as\nit may consider necessary for dealing with the case in\tjust\nand  equitable manner. The object and purpose of  conferring\nthis  power on the Government is to mitigate undue  hardship\nin any particular case. If the Rules cause undue hardship or\noperate\t in an inequitable manner, the State Government\t has\npower to dispense with or to relax the requirement of Rules.\nThe Rule does not restrict the exercise of power to individ-\nual cases. The Government may in certain circumstances relax\nthe  requirement  of Rules to meet a  particular  situation.\n[477A-B]\n    2.2.  The expression \"in any particular case\"  does\t not\nmean  that  the\t relaxation should be confined\tonly  to  an\nindividual  case.  One\tof the meanings\t of  the  expression\n\"particular\"  means \"peculiar or pertaining to\ta  specified\nperson--thing--time  or place--not common or  general\".\t The\nmeaning\t of the word 'particular' in relation to  law  means\nseparate or special, limited or specific. The word 'case' in\nordinary usage means\n472\n'event',  'happenings',\t 'situation',  'circumstances'.\t The\nexpression  'case' in legal sense means 'a case'. 'suit'  or\n'proceeding  in Court or Tribunal'. Having regard  to  these\nmeanings the expression 'in any particular case' would\tmean\nin  a  particular or pertaining to an  event,  situation  or\ncircumstance. [477C-D]\n    2.3.  Rule 22 postulates relaxation of Rules to  meet  a\nparticular event or situation, if the operation of the Rules\ncauses hardship. '[he Scope of the said Rule is wide  enough\nto  confer  power on the State Government to relax  the\t re-\nquirement  of Rules in respect of an individual or class  of\nindividuals to the extent it may consider necessary  dealing\nwith the case in a just and equitable manner. [477E-F]\n    2.4\t The power of relaxation is generally  contained  in\nthe rules with a view to mitigate undue hardship or to\tmeet\na  particular situation. Many a time strict  application  of\nservice rules create a situation where a particular individ-\nual  or a set of individuals may suffer undue  hardship\t and\nfurther\t there may be a situation where requisite  qualified\npersons may not be available for appointment to the service.\nIn  such  a  situation, the Government has  power  to  relax\nrequirement of rules.The state Government may in exercise of\nits  powers  issue a general order relaxing  any  particular\nrule with a view to avail the service of requisite officers.\nThe  relaxation\t even if granted in a general  manner  would\nenure to the benefit of individual officers. [477F-G]\n    2.5 Rule 22 is a beneficial one. It must be construed in\na  liberal manner and should not be interpreted in a  manner\nto  defeat  the\t very object and purpose of  such  power.  A\nnarrow\tconstruction  would nullify  Government's  power  of\nrelaxing rules of meet a particular situation. [480C]\n    Jit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.,<\/a> [1979] 3 SCR\n194 differed;\nAshok Gulati v. B.S. Jain, AIR<\/a> 1987 SC 424 referred to.\n    In\tthe instant case, the non-availability of  Class  II\nofficers in Engineering Department possessing the  necessary\nand prescribed qualifications for promotion to Class I posed\na  problem  for the State Government, as on account  of\t the\nlarge scale expansion of Engineering Department a number  of\nposts in Class I service were lying vacant. A similar situa-\ntion  prevailed\t in the Building and Road Branch  of  Public\nWorks Department. In the circumstances, the State Government\nwith a\n473\nview  to meet the particular situation decided to relax\t the\nqualifying  length of service to such officers who had\tcom-\npleted\tfour  years of service in Class 1I.  It,  therefore,\nrelaxed\t the  requirement of Rule (b) to the extent  that  a\nmember\tof  Class II service having four years\tservice\t was\nqualified  for\tbeing considered for promotion\tin  Class  I\nservice. These facts would clearly show that the  relaxation\nhad  been granted to particular individuals with a  view  to\nmeet the situation which was in public interest. There is no\nlegal infirmity in the order of' relaxation. [478D-F]\n    3.\tI If power of relaxation is exercised on  extraneous\nconsideration  for oblique purposes or mala fide, the  Court\nhas power to strike down the same, but bona fide exercise of\npower of relaxation to meet a particular situation cannot be\nheld to be arbitrary or illegal. [479A]\n    3.2 Since the appellants were found suitable for  promo-\ntion  by  the screening committee, the\tCommission  and\t the\nState  Government, and as the contesting respondent was\t not\nfound  suitable\t even  otherwise for  promotion,  the  State\nGovernment  granted relaxation of Rule (b) in favour of\t the\nappellants. In such a situation, it cannot be said that\t the\npower of relaxation under Rule 22 was exercised\t arbitrarily\nor  that  it caused hardship to any one. In the\t absence  of\nrelaxation,  there  could  be no promotion to  the  post  of\nExecutive Engineer and the officers who were found  suitable\nwould  have  suffered great hardship. Therefore,  the  State\nGovernment  with  a view to meet  the  particular  situation\nexercised  its\tpower of relaxation in\tappellants'  favour.\nHaving\tregard to the facts and circumstances of  the  case,\nthere is no illegality in the appellants' promotion,  pursu-\nant  to\t the  relaxation granted by  the  State\t Government.\n[480D-E; G-H]\n    Ashok  Gulati  v. B.S. Jain, AIR<\/a> 1987 424; Jit  Singh  &\nOrs.  v.  State of Punjab & Ors.,<\/a> [1979] 3 SCR 194  and\t Ram\nSarup v. State of Punjab, [1979] 1 SCC 168 referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1009  of
\n1980.\n<\/p>\n
    From the Judgment and Order dated 15.1.80 of the  Punjab
\nand Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 592 of 1975.
\nP.P. Rao and Jitender Sharma for the appellants.
\nRajinder Sachhar, Govind Mukhoty, Dr. Shankar Ghosh, S.C.\n<\/p>\n
474<\/span><\/p>\n
Mohanta, Mahabir Singh, T.C. Sharma, P.P. Singh, S.K. Verma,
\nC.M. Nayyar and C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    SINGH,  J.\tThis  appeal by special\t leave\tis  directed
\nagainst\t the order of the High Court of Punjab\tand  Haryana
\ndated 15th January, 1980 quashing the Notification dated 3rd
\nMay, 1973 issued by the State Government of Haryana  promot-
\ning the appellants to the Haryana Service of Engineers Class
\nI post (Public Health Branch).\n<\/p>\n
    The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appel-
\nlants  S\/Sh. J.C. Yadav, B.R. Batra, O.P. Juneja, S.L.\tCho-
\npra, M.S. Miglani, C.P. Taneja, Surjit Singh and V.P. Gulati
\nand respondents Vyas Dev were members of the Haryana Service
\nof  Engineers Class II in the Public Health Branch.  Members
\nof the Class II service are eligible for promotion of  Class
\nI  posts  in accordance with the provisions of\tthe  Haryana
\nService of Engineers Class 1 Public Works Department (Public
\nHealth\tBranch) Rules 1961 (hereinafter referred to as\t‘the
\nRules’). In 1971 the appellants were promoted to the post of
\nExecutive Engineers in the cadre of Class 1 on ad-hoc  basis
\nwhile Vyas Dev respondent was not considered for  promotion.
\nHe  made representation but nothing came out in his  favour.
\nLater a Committee was constituted under Rule 8 for selecting
\nsuitable  members of Class 12 service promotion to  Class  I
\npost.  The Committee considered the case of  appellants\t and
\nVyas  Dev  respondent, but it did not  find  the  respondent
\nsuitable  for  promotion, his name was not included  in\t the
\nselect list prepared by the Committee while the names of the
\nappellants were included therein. The Selection\t Committee’s
\nrecommendation was approved by the Public Service Commission
\nand  it\t was forwarded to the State  Government.  Since\t the
\nappellants  did not possess the requisite minimum period  of
\nservice\t of eight years’ in Class II service as required  by
\nRule  6(b) and as no other suitable candidates\twere  avail-
\nable,  the  Selection Committee made recommendation  to\t the
\nState Government for granting relaxation to the\t appellants.
\nThe Committee’s recommendation was reiterated by the  Public
\nService Commission. The State Government accepted the recom-
\nmendations  and appointed the appellants to Class I  service
\nby the Notification dated May 3, 1973.\n<\/p>\n
    Vyas  Dev, respondent challenged validity of the  appel-
\nlants’ promotion by means for a writ petition under  Article
\n226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Punjab\t and
\nHaryana\t on the ground that the appellants did\tnot  possess
\nrequisite qualification for promo-\n<\/p>\n
475<\/span><\/p>\n
tion  to  Class I service, therefore their  promotions\twere
\ncontrary to Rules. His further grievance was that he was not
\nconsidered  along with the appellants for promotion  and  he
\nwas not afforded opportunity of hearing before he was super-
\nseded.\tA learned single Judge of the High  Court  dismissed
\nthe petition on the finding that the Selection Committee had
\nconsidered  the case of Vyas Dev along with  the  appellants
\nfor promotion but he was not found suitable. As regards\t the
\nappellants’ promotions the learned Judge held that since the
\nState Government had relaxed Rule 6(b) in their favour their
\npromotions  were sustainable in law. The learned Judge\tfur-
\nther  held  that  no personal hearing was  necessary  to  be
\nafforded  to Ved Vyas before his supersession. On appeal  by
\nthe respondent a Division Bench of the High Court set  aside
\nthe  order  of the single Judge and quashed  the  appellants
\npromotions on the sole ground that the State Government\t had
\nno  authority in law to grant relaxation to  the  appellants
\nunder  Rule 22 in a general manner, as the power of  relaxa-
\ntion could be exercised only in individual cases to mitigate
\nhardship  caused  to an individual. On\tthese  findings\t the
\nDivision Bench set aside the appellants’ promotions.
\n    The\t appointment  and promotion to Class  I\t Engineering
\nService in the State of Haryana are regulated by the Haryana
\nService\t of  Engineers Class I PWD  (Public  Health  Branch)
\nRules  1961.  Initially these Rules had been framed  by\t the
\nGovernor  of  Punjab  before the formation  of\tthe  Haryana
\nState.\tThere is no dispute that subsequently the  State  of
\nHaryana had adopted these Rules and the recruitment to Class
\nI  service  of Engineers in PWD (Public\t Health\t Branch)  is
\nregulated  by the Haryana Service of Engineers Class  I\t PWD
\n(Public\t Health Branch) Rules, 1961 as amended from time  to
\ntime. Rule 5 provides for appointment to Class I service  by
\ndirect\tappointment,  by transfer of an officer\t already  in
\nservice of the State Government or of the Union\t Government,
\nor  by\tpromotion from Class II Service. Rule  6  prescribes
\nqualifications\tfor  appointment  to Class  I  service.\t The
\nrelevant provisions of the Rule are as under:
\n“6.  Qualifications:  No person shall be  appointed  to\t the
\nservice, unless he:\n<\/p>\n
(a) possesses one of the University Degree or other qualifi-
\ncations prescribed in Appendix 8 of these rules:
\nProvided that Government may waive this qualification in the
\ncase of particular officer belonging to Class II Service:\n<\/p>\n
476<\/span><\/p>\n
(b) in the case of an appointment by promotion from Class II
\nService,  has eight years completed Class II and has  passed
\nthe professional examination of the department
\nRule 8 provides for constitution of the Committee for making
\nselection  for appointment to Class I service by  promotion.
\nThe  Committee\tis required to prepare a  list\tof  officers
\nsuitable for promotion on the basis of the criteria of merit
\nand  suitability with due regard to seniority. Rule  9\tlays
\ndown, field of eligibility as well as criteria for promotion
\nto  the post of Executive Engineer, Superintending  Engineer
\nand Chief Engineer. Rule 15 provides for departmental exami-
\nnations,  according to this Rule the officers  appointed  to
\nthe  Service, Unless they have already done so,\t shall\tpass
\nsuch departmental examination and within such period as\t may
\nbe  prescribed by the Government. The Rule confers power  on
\nthe  Government to prescribe for any other test in  addition
\nto the departmental examination for promotion or appointment
\nto  any\t rank in the service. Rule 22 confers power  on\t the
\nGovernment  to\trelax any of the Rules as  it  may  consider
\nnecessary.  There is no dispute that none of the  appellants
\nhad  completed eight years’ service in Class II\t service  as
\nrequired by Rule 6(b) and as such they were not eligible for
\npromotion  to the post of Executive Engineer. On the  recom-
\nmendation  of the Selection Committee and with the  approval
\nof  the Public Service Commission the State  Government\t re-
\nlaxed the requirement of eight years’ service so far as\t the
\nappellants were concerned. Consequently, the appellants were
\npromoted  and  appointed as Executive  Engineers  under\t the
\nNotification dated 3rd May, 1973.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t sole  question\t for consideration  is\twhether\t the
\nrelaxation granted by the State Government in favour of\t the
\nappellants  is\tvalid. Rule 22 which confers  power  on\t the
\nGovernment to relax requirement of Rules, is as under:
\n“Rule 22. Power to relax  …………\tWhere Government  is
\nsatisfied  that the operation of any of these  Rules  causes
\nundue  hardship\t to  any particular case, it  may  by  order
\ndispense with or relax the requirements of that Rule to such
\nextent,\t and subject to such conditions, as it may  consider
\nnecessary for dealing with the case in a just and  equitable
\nmanner.\n<\/p>\n
477<\/span><\/p>\n
    The\t Rule  confers power on the Government\tto  dispense
\nwith or to relax the requirement of any of the Rules to\t the
\nextent and with such conditions as it may consider necessary
\nfor  dealing with the case in a just and  equitable  manner.
\nThe  object  and  purpose of conferring this  power  on\t the
\nGovernment  is to mitigate undue hardship in any  particular
\ncase,  and to deal with a case in a just and equitable\tman-
\nner.  If the Rules cause undue hardship or Rules operate  in
\nan inequitable manner in that event the State Government has
\npower to dispense with or to relax the requirement of Rules.
\nThe Rule does not restrict the exercise of power to individ-
\nual cases. The Government may in certain circumstances relax
\nthe requirement of Rules to meet a particular situation. The
\nexpression  “in any particular case” does not mean that\t the
\nrelaxation  should be confined only to an  individual  case.
\nOne  of\t the meanings of the expression\t “particular”  means
\n“peculiar  or pertaining to a specified\t person–thing–time
\nor  place–not common or general”. The meaning of  the\tword
\nparticular  in\trelation to law means separate\tor  special,
\nlimited or specific. The word ‘case’ in ordinary usage means
\n‘event’,  ‘happening’,\t‘situation’,  ‘circumstances’.\t The
\nexpression  ‘case’ in legal sense means ‘a case’, ‘suit’  or
\n‘proceeding  in Court or Tribunal’. Having regard  to  these
\nmeanings the expression ‘in any particular case’ would mean;
\nin  a  particular or pertaining to an  event,  situation  or
\ncircumstance. Rule 22 postulates relaxation of Rules to meet
\na  particular  event or situation, if the operation  of\t the
\nRules causes hardship. The relaxation of the Rules may be to
\nthe  extent the State Government may consider necessary\t for
\ndealing with a particular situation in a just and  equitable
\nmanner. The scope of Rule is wide enough to confer power  on
\nthe  State Government to relax the requirement of  Rules  in
\nrespect\t of  an individual or class of\tindividuals  to\t the
\nextent\tit may consider necessary for dealing with the\tcase
\nin  a just and equitable manner. The power of relaxation  is
\ngenerally  contained  in the Rules with a view\tto  mitigate
\nundue  hardship\t or to meet a particular situation.  Many  a
\ntimes strict application of service rules create a situation
\nwhere  a particular individual or a set of  individuals\t may
\nsuffer\tundue hardship and further there may be a  situation
\nwhere  requisite qualified persons may not be available\t for
\nappointment to the service. In such a situation the  Govern-
\nment  has  power to relax requirement of  Rules.  The  State
\nGovernment  may\t in exercise of its powers issue  a  general
\norder relaxing any particular Rule with a view to avail\t the
\nservices  of  requisite\t officers. The\trelaxation  even  if
\ngranted\t in a general manner would enure to the\t benefit  of
\nindividual officers.\n<\/p>\n
    The State of Haryana was formed in March, 1966 prior  to
\nthat  it was part of the State of Punjab. The service  rules
\nrelating to Public
\n478<\/span>
\nWorks  Department as applicable to the State of Punjab\twere
\nmade  applicable  to  Haryana. Rule  6(b)  which  prescribed
\nqualification  for appointment to Class I service lays\tdown
\nthat  no person shall be appointed to the service by  promo-
\ntion  from  Class II service unless he has  completed  eight
\nyears’\tservice\t in  Class II and  has\tpassed\tdepartmental
\nexamination prescribed under Rule 15. None of the appellants
\nhad  completed eight years’ service in Class II. In fact  no
\nother  member of Class II service possessing  the  requisite
\nqualifications was available for selection to Class I  post.
\nThe  respondent no doubt possessed the requisite  qualifica-
\ntion  with  regard to the eight years length of\t service  in
\nClass II but he did not possess requisite educational quali-
\nfication. Thus no qualified officer of Class II service\t was
\navailable for promotion to Class I service although a number
\nof vacancies were existing in Class I service. Having regard
\nto  these facts the Selection Committee made  recommendation
\nfor the relaxation of Rule 6(b) in favour of the appellants,
\nwho  were found otherwise suitable. The Public Service\tCom-
\nmission\t also  agreed with the recommendation  made  by\t the
\nSelection Committee. The non-availability of suitable  Class
\nII officers in Engineering Department possessing the  neces-
\nsary and prescribed qualifications for promotion to Class  I
\nposed  a problem for the State Government, as on account  of
\nthe large scale expansion of Engineering Department a number
\nof  posts  in Class I service were lying vacant.  A  similar
\nsituation  prevailed  in  the Building and  Road  Branch  of
\nPublic\tWorks  Department. In the circumstances,  the  State
\nGovernment  with  a view to meet  the  particular  situation
\ndecided\t to relax the qualifying length of service  to\tsuch
\nofficers  who had completed four years of service  in  Class
\nII, it therefore relaxed the requirement of Rule 6(b) to the
\nextent that a member of Class II service having four  years’
\nservice was qualified for being considered for promotion  to
\nClass  I  service. These facts would clearly show  that\t the
\nrelaxation had been granted to particular individuals with a
\nview to meet the situation, which was in public interest. We
\nfind no legal infirmity in the order of relaxation.
\n    In B.S. Bansal v. State of Punjab and Ors., [1978] 2 SLR
\n553  a Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held\tthat
\nif  the power of relaxation could be exercised in  order  to
\nmeet a general situation, then the whole purpose of the Rule
\nwould  be frustrated and the Government would be armed\twith
\nan arbitrary power which could cause great hardship to\tsome
\nofficers.  We  have already referred to the  relevant  facts
\nwhich show that in the instant case, power of relaxation was
\nexercised  by  the  State Government to\t meet  a  particular
\nsituation,  it\tdid not result into any injustice  or  cause
\nhardship to any one. If power of
\n479<\/span>
\nrelaxation  is\texercised on  extraneous  consideration\t for
\noblique purposes or mala fide, the court has power to strike
\ndown the same but exercise of power of relaxation to meet  a
\nparticular  situation  cannot  be held to  be  arbitrary  or
\nillegal. In B.S. Jain v. State of Haryana, [1981] 1 SLR\t 233
\nthe High Court set aside the promotions made in pursuance of
\nthe relaxation granted under Rule 22 placing reliance on the
\ndecision  of  the Division Bench in B.S. Bansal’s  case.  On
\nappeal, this Court in Ashok Gulati v. B.S. Jain, AIR<\/a> 1987 SC
\n424  observed that the findings of the High Court  that\t the
\nState  Government  could not have relaxed the  condition  of
\npassing the departmental professional examination by  taking
\nrecourse  to Rule 22 which conferred power of relaxation  on
\nthe State Government could hardly be sustained.
\n    In Jit Singh & Ors. v. State of Pubjab & Ors., [1979]  3
\nSCR  194  the State Government’s order\tgranting  relaxation
\nunder  Rule  14 of the Punjab Police Service Rules  1959  in
\nrespect\t of the period of service, was questioned.  Rule  14
\nwas  almost  identical in terms as Rule 22  of\tthe  instant
\ncase. In Jit Singh’s case (supra) promotion of Inspectors to
\nthe  post of Deputy Superintendent of Police  was  involved.
\nUnder  the  Police  Service Rules 1959\ta  Police  Inspector
\nhaving six years’ continuous service was eligible for promo-
\ntion  to  the post of Deputy Superintendent of\tPolice.\t The
\nState  Government  in exercise of its power  under  Rule  14
\ngranting relaxation to Inspectors who had been found fit for
\npromotion,  as a large number of vacancies had\toccurred  in
\nthe cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police and no suitable
\npersons\t having the requisite period of service were  avail-
\nable. Promotions made pursuant to the relaxation were  chal-
\nlenged\tbefore the High Court. The High Court dismissed\t the
\nwrit  petition on the ground that the petitioners before  it
\nwere  not  qualified for promotion. On\tappeal\tbefore\tthis
\nCourt, the High Court’s judgment was upheld. This Court took
\nthe view that since the appellants before it were not eligi-
\nble  for promotion as their names were not included  in\t the
\nSelect\tList prepared by the Public Service  Commission\t and
\nfurther\t as they had not completed six years’ of  continuous
\nservice prior to the respondents, they were not entitled  to
\nany  relief.  The appeal was accordingly dismissed  by\tthis
\nCourt. While considering the question of validity of relaxa-
\ntion, the Court made observation that Rule 14 did not permit
\nany  general relaxation of the nature ordered by  the  State
\nGovernment.  The Court, however, did not examine the  matter
\nin detail as it was of the view that since the appellants in
\nthat  case  were not eligible for promotion they  could\t not
\nquestion  the validity of the appointment of those  who\t had
\nbeen  promoted on the basis of relaxation being\t granted  by
\nthe  State  Government. The Court upheld the  promotions  in
\nview of the extra
\n480<\/span>
\nordinary  situation in which the State Government  made\t ap-
\npointments iv derogation of requirement of Rules.
\n    On\ta careful scrutiny of the Rules in its\tvarious\t as-
\npects  we  do not agree with the observations  made  in\t Jit
\nSingh’s case (supra). Though Rule 22 is not happily  worded,
\nas apparently it gives an impression that no general relaxa-
\ntion can be granted by the State Government, out on a  close
\nscrutiny  of  the scope of the power we find that  a  narrow
\nconstruction  of  the Rules would nullify  the\tGovernment’s
\npower of relaxing Rules to meet a particular situation. Rule
\n22 is beneficial in nature it must be construed in a liberal
\nmanner\tand  it\t should not be interpreted in  a  manner  to
\ndefeat\tthe very object and purpose of such power. Power  to
\ngrant  relaxation may be exercised in case of an  individual
\nto  remove  hardship being caused to him or to a  number  of
\nindividuals who all may be similarly placed. This power\t may
\nalso  be exercised to meet a particular situation  where  on
\naccount\t of  the operation of the Rules\t hardship  is  being
\ncaused to a set of individual officers. In the instant\tcase
\nthe  appellants\t were found suitable for  promotion  by\t the
\nscreening  committee, the Commission and the  State  Govern-
\nment,  and the contesting respondent Yvas Dev was not  found
\nsuitable even otherwise for promotion, the State  Government
\ngranted relaxation of Rule 6(b) in favour of the appellants.
\nIn  such  a situation, it is beyond comprehension  that\t the
\npower of relaxation under Rule 22 was exercised\t arbitrarily
\nor  that it caused hardship or injustice to any one. On\t the
\nformation  of  the new State of Haryana\t no  promotion\tfrom
\nClass  II officers could be made to Class I service  without
\ngranting  any  relaxation  since 1966 to  1978.\t In  1971-72
\neleven\tvacancies  in the post of Executive  Engineers\twere
\nfilled by promotion from Class II officers although none  of
\nthem had completed requisite period of service prescribed by
\nthe Rules for promotion. In 1976-77 and 1977-78 sixteen\t and
\nnine  vacancies respectively in the post of Executive  Engi-
\nneers were filled by promotion by granting relaxation as  no
\nofficer\t of Class II service possessing requisite number  of
\nyears  of  service was available for promotion.\t In  1978-79
\nseven officers of Class II service were promoted to the post
\nof  Executive  Engineer but only one of them  possessed\t the
\nrequisite  period  of service and all  others  were  granted
\nrelaxation. These facts clearly show that in the absence  of
\nrelaxation there could be no promotion to the post of Execu-
\ntive Engineer and the officers who were found suitable would
\nhave suffered great hardship. In 1973 also the State Govern-
\nment with a view to meet the particular situation  exercised
\nits power of relaxation in appellants’ favour. Having regard
\nto  these facts and circumstances, we find no illegality  in
\nthe  appellants’  promotions,  pursuant\t to  the  relaxation
\ngranted by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
481<\/span><\/p>\n
    In Bansal’s case (supra) the High Court, and even in Jit
\nSingh’s case (supra) this Court did not set aside the promo-
\ntions made by the Government pursuant to relaxation of Rules
\non the ground that the petitioner who challenged the  promo-
\ntions  was himself not qualified, and he had no legal  right
\nto  hold the post in dispute, although in both\tthese  cases
\nGovernment’s  order granting general relaxation was held  to
\nbe  outside the scope of Rule 22 and Rule 14 of\t the  Punjab
\nPolice\tService\t Rules 1959. In the instant  case  the\tHigh
\nCourt  has  set aside the appellants’  promotions  following
\nBansal’s  case interpreting Rule 22 but it failed to  notice
\nthat  in  that\tcase the High Court did not  set  aside\t the
\npromotions  instead it dismissed the petition on the  ground
\nthat  the petitioner therein was not qualified and  none  of
\nhis  rights were affected. The High Court failed  to  notice
\nthat Vyas Dev respondent was considered for promotion but he
\nwas not found suitable, therefore he was not entitled to any
\nrelief. Since no legal right of the respondent was adversely
\naffected  the High Court should not have quashed the  appel-
\nlants’ promotions.\n<\/p>\n
    On\tbehalf of the appellants an  alternative  submission
\nwas  made  that since the appellants had  already  completed
\neight years’ of service in Class H service during the  pend-
\nency  of the writ petition their appointment  stood  regula-
\nrised. To support this submission reliance was placed on the
\ndecision  of  this Court in Ram Sarup v.  State\t of  Punjab,
\n[1979]\t1 SCC 168. In that case appointment to the  post  of
\nLabour-cum-Conciliation Officer was made in breach of Rule 4
\nClause (I) of the Punjab Labour Service Class I and II Rules
\n1955  as Ram Sarup did not possess five\t years’\t experience,
\nrequired  by sub-clause (I) of Rule 4, In spite of  that  he
\nhad  been appointed to the post\t of  Labour-cum-Conciliation
\nOfficer. Subsequently, Ram Sarup was reverted on the  ground
\nthat  he was not qualified to be appointed as a\t Labour-cum-
\nConciliation  Officer  as  he did not  possess\tthe  minimum
\nqualification of length of service. This Court held that the
\nappointment of Ram Sarup made in breach of Rules was irregu-
\nlar,  but not wholly void and since Ram Sarup had  completed
\nfive  years of experience of working of labour\tlaws  before
\nhis  reversion, his appointment to the post  of\t Labour-cum-
\nConciliation Officer stood regularised with effect from\t the
\ndate  he completed five years of service. On these  findings
\norder  of reversion was set aside by this Court.  Undisputa-
\nbly, the appellants completed eight years of service  before
\nJanuary\t 15, 1980, the date on which the Division  Bench  of
\nthe  High Court set aside their promotions. In view  of\t the
\nprinciples laid down in Ram Sarup’s case (supra) the  appel-
\nlants’ appointment, even if irregular, stood regularised  on
\nthe
\n482<\/span>
\ndate they completed eight years of their service and  there-
\nafter their promotions could not be set aside.
\n    We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the  judgment
\nand order of the Division Bench dated 15.1.1980 and  restore
\nthe  order  of the learned single Judge dismissing  the\t re-
\nspondents’  writ  petition.  There will be no  order  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
N.P.V.\t\t\t\t\t\tAppeal\t al-\nlowed.\n483<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India J.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 857, 1990 SCR (2) 470 Author: K Singh Bench: Singh, K.N. (J) PETITIONER: J.C. YADAV & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/02\/1990 BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, […]<\/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-119827","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJ.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1990-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-13T12:00:59+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"J.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-13T12:00:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990\"},\"wordCount\":3727,\"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\\\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990\",\"name\":\"J.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-13T12:00:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990\"}]},{\"@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":"J.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-13T12:00:59+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"J.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990","datePublished":"1990-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-13T12:00:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990"},"wordCount":3727,"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\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990","name":"J.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-13T12:00:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-c-yadav-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-20-february-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990"}]},{"@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\/119827","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=119827"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119827\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119827"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119827"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119827"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}