{"id":122340,"date":"2010-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010"},"modified":"2014-09-19T06:40:38","modified_gmt":"2014-09-19T01:10:38","slug":"union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Ramesh Handa on 2 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Ramesh Handa on 2 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
1\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTIOE V.O.SAE1~LA1~11faf\"\"' 4  --. 5 \u00bb A\n\nAND\n\nTHE RONBLE MRSJUSTICE E;V.NAOARAT:11\\ux'   A  1'\n\nWRIT PETITION NO. 29292 OF'2O1o (s.c;a;Tj:4_ A'  ''\n\nBETWEEN\n\n1.\n\nA H \"   .{.E'\u00a5 SR1 B: RRAMOD, ADV. ,)\n\nUNION OF INDIA\nBY SECRETARY,  '--  .\nDEPARTMENT OF POSTS,\" _ 5 '\nDAK BHAVM,  _ \nNEW DHELHL4 1.1.0 00.1.. g \n\nOHIEE POST \nKARNA,TAKA\u00bbO1RO-L_E,\u00bb. '   '\nBANGALORE --' 5(_30._GO '1'-;.. ' \" v \n\nPOST.,MASTER GI\\.IERA}L- A\nSJOREOEON, ~\n\n V'  . BANGALORE -- 5\"6O\"'00'1.\n\nSOPERm?1*END'ENT OF POST OFFICES,\n\n\" .UDOPI\"D1v1S1;ON,\n\nUOUPI ;\u00a2.5S7-S101.\n\n.. PETITIONERS\n\n EAI\\.D\n\n ' ''RAEVIESH FUKNDA\n  'HS\/O SHEENA HANDA, 9}\n\n\" \" AGED 34 YEARS,\nVVORKING AS GDS BPM.\n\n\n\nHANEHALLI B.O.\nA\/W BARKUR SO ~ 576 210.\n\n[BY SR1 A.R. HOLLA, A\u00a3}V.,}\n\n...REsPo1\\ioE,1:w:_:'s..,_\n\nTHIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226  2.2? '\nCONSTITUTION or INDIA PRAYING \"PO sET~hs1'DE'--~.\ufb01rHE \n\nIMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CENTRAL\"'ANDIM.ISTR\ufb01TIVE\n\nTRIBUNAL, BANGLAORE IN o.h.No..2.1v5;<to9._' '--Dii'ri\u00ab;_Dw.,.h'\n\n11.06.2010 VIDE ANNEX--C.\n\nTHIS WP COMING ON HEARING\nNAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLQW1NG:--  $1" ' \n\ni  0Q_;:2_@_1:7h    i\n\nThe Union of A India  have filed\nthis writ petition;0A'fshallehgingigtheAdiiorderfiated 11-5-2010\npassed by    "Tribunal, Bangalore\nBench   0 it\n\n2.   had filed an application\n\nchallenging the o_:Vrd'e.r.Pdated"'23-4-2009 by which he was re-\n\nitvdposteel.dass\ufb01rarneenadDaii Sevak (GDS BPM} and had sought\n\n'for  't1r:1e:..said order and for consequential benefits.\n\nThe"Ifribunal's:a11owed the application of the respondent and<\/pre>\n
‘directed’~reinstatement of the respondent as Postal Assistant<\/p>\n
   consequentiai bene\ufb01ts and to treat the intervening<\/p>\n
 Idiaeriiod from 24-2-2009 till the date of his reinstatement as<\/p>\n
 _u””pez’iod on duty and granted three mont?hs time for<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
compliance. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners<\/p>\n
have preferred this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
3. The respondent was appointed as GDS   <\/p>\n
42001. By notification dated 14-2-2007′ examin_aftionl.:’wasll <\/p>\n
noti\ufb01ed for selection to the post of  <\/p>\n
GDS category. The respondpent wasA_appoinpteE}. tij\u00e9”, ‘<\/p>\n
provisional selection order  15-6-2002? :.’.=gis.’:’;\u00a713Vostal
\nAssistant. He cornpletec’l..p_   and
\nthereafter was posted as  :{;obn’sequent1y, he
\ntendered his resignation   $19M on 30-11-<\/p>\n
2007. T’11ere\u00e9i.fteiT.\u00a7”* show catfse””n.ovtiicev.;dated 27-12-2007 was<\/p>\n
issued to hirn” to  selection as Postal Assistant<\/p>\n
cancei1_ed;.  After considering his<\/p>\n
should not ” be’ <\/p>\n
representationf _:Vord.er  passed holding that his<\/p>\n
‘ ‘appointment ‘as Postal”‘Assistant was irregular and the same<\/p>\n
 to the respondent by noti\ufb01cation dated<\/p>\n
23–‘\u00e9i=__2l009v_  ‘consequently, he was posted back as GDS<\/p>\n
BMP. Under these circumstances, the respondent filed the<\/p>\n
  “application before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
4. In the reply statement. the petitioners herein stated<\/p>\n
uulxthat the un\ufb01lled quota of vacancies (for promotion) of 2003,<\/p>\n
2004 and 2006 was offered to the GDS of the recruitment<\/p>\n
divisions and for the year 2003, there were two Vacancies in<\/p>\n
the open category and one for the OBC category and <\/p>\n
respondent was a candidate for OBC category.    _<\/p>\n
the recruitment Rules, GDS securing rnarks _not\u00bbthe 0′<\/p>\n
marks secured by the last direct  .0<\/p>\n
selected in the same year is eligible to b’e.V.selecte,d’ll’in <\/p>\n
of Udupi Division, since there  direct-recruitnient in
\nthe examination year  looked
\nat the results of nearby :Vre–i”erence point
\nand prescribed  as  percentage of
\nmarks to be catididates under 0130
\ncategory  the respondent
\nhad secured_: 730.53!)\/6;.\u00bb was made with the<\/p>\n
Ud1_1piA.~D,iV}’SiO’f1,,_ show “cause notice was issued as per<\/p>\n
 l.Ai1neL:\u00ab:Lire3+;A1l.to the\ufb01etition. The Tribunal, on considering<\/p>\n
the”  and the fact that the respondent had<\/p>\n
satisfied theleligizbility criteria, since he had secured 73.53%<\/p>\n
 .  and the “last direct recruit of Puttur Division in the year 2005<\/p>\n
   and set aside the order dated 234-2009 and<\/p>\n
 [Mordered reinstatement of the respondent with all<\/p>\n
it ‘ ‘ consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n
,5 1,<\/p>\n
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners and t.he respondent and perused the material. on _p<\/p>\n
record.\n<\/p>\n
6. It is contended on behalf of the petitionersf th,-he ‘ <\/p>\n
Tribunal was not right in ordering’ rein4statcm’ent._ <\/p>\n
respondent with all consequential .’penelf’1*t_slland  since 1″:”:i\u00a7\\,.<\/p>\n
appointment was irregular, sho\\rf’cau_se noti_c:@;4\u00a7’~.’,?{rasll’;\u00a7issued
\nand consequential   “passed
\nterminating his services as re–posting
\nhim as GDS   sarne isAl:ini_”aC_coVrdance with law.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the the’-:bfI’ribunal is to be set<\/p>\n
aside.\n<\/p>\n
7. Per 4’f.:p0I1’l’\/17.*’_’-.1′;l\/:’l\u20acftii”1f1eIZ’.\u00ab””C()u1’1Sel appearing for the<\/p>\n
respondent  th’atll”‘although the respondent had<\/p>\n
. secured’ 7i;3′:_53% withV”regVard to the recruitment for the year<\/p>\n
 in _r’e.,spect._of Udupi Division, comparison was made<\/p>\n
againslt the.lldiretctiy recruited candidate of Puttur Division<\/p>\n
 .  and it wasierroneously held that he was not entitled to hold<\/p>\n
   of Postal Assistant and the Tribunal was justified in<\/p>\n
 _.__l”lgra;nting the order of reinstatement with all consequential<\/p>\n
lrbenefits and the same does not call for interference.<\/p>\n
…\u00bb<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
8. When the matter was heard on the last occasion,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to fi1’1dgC-Lglil<\/p>\n
whether there was any vacancy of Postal Assistant ,,<\/p>\n
Udupi Division and he submits that there is a   0<\/p>\n
in the circumstances, the respondent” has ‘\ufb01led _a~ j;m\u00a5;~1nio <\/p>\n
stating that he would forego the pay ;indi1.;:11\u00a7xv.\u00a7i;\u00a2es for <\/p>\n
period from 24-2-2009 till the  his .1feinstatei\u00a7fiei’it as
\nPostal Assistant, as orderedggby  h i<\/p>\n
9. Having regard  the case and
\nconsidering that Vthie   compared
\nthe marks of     since there<\/p>\n
was no ciirect _Arec1fiiitrl31eritjvinstlie said year, we find that the
\nTribunal  “righ’t.sVinisholsding’.that the reason assigned for<\/p>\n
issuing. the order dated.”-23-:4-2009 was not in accordance<\/p>\n
 sswith  i.,_rfICiwgever, while granting relief to the respondent,<\/p>\n
fei\ufb01sgt\u00e9tetivientv  been ordered with all consequential<\/p>\n
benefits and treat the intervening period from 24-2-2009<\/p>\n
 the date of his reinstatement as if he was on duty. We<\/p>\n
   jthat, portion of the order with regard to consequential<\/p>\n
 …\ufb01hers1ggfits could not have been granted by the Tribunal since<\/p>\n
‘lathe respondent had not been in the service in the said post<\/p>\n
53<\/span>
\nand had not worked as Postal Assistant.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Union Of India vs Ramesh Handa on 2 November, 2010 Author: V.G.Sabhahit & B.V.Nagarathna 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRJUSTIOE V.O.SAE1~LA1~11faf””‘ 4 –. 5 \u00bb A AND THE RONBLE MRSJUSTICE E;V.NAOARAT:11\\ux’ A 1′ WRIT PETITION NO. 29292 […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122340","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Ramesh Handa on 2 November, 2010 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Ramesh Handa on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-19T01:10:38+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Ramesh Handa on 2 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-19T01:10:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":779,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Ramesh Handa on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-19T01:10:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Ramesh Handa on 2 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India vs Ramesh Handa on 2 November, 2010 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Ramesh Handa on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-19T01:10:38+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Ramesh Handa on 2 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-19T01:10:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010"},"wordCount":779,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010","name":"Union Of India vs Ramesh Handa on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-19T01:10:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-ramesh-handa-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Ramesh Handa on 2 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/122340","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=122340"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122340\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122340"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122340"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}