{"id":122608,"date":"1993-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993"},"modified":"2015-05-05T07:13:48","modified_gmt":"2015-05-05T01:43:48","slug":"union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Dr Gyan Prakesh Singh on 30 September, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India vs Dr Gyan Prakesh Singh on 30 September, 1993<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC,   Supl.  (1) 306 JT 1993 (5)\t681<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J S Verma<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDR GYAN PRAKESH SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT30\/09\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nBENCH:\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  Supl.  (1) 306 JT 1993 (5)\t681\n 1993 SCALE  (3)902\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nVERMA,\tJ.- Respondent Dr Gyan Prakash Singh was offered  on<br \/>\nSeptember 28, 1984 an appointment on ad hoc temporary  basis<br \/>\nto  a  post of Assistant Medical Officer (Class 11)  in\t the<br \/>\nNorth  Eastern Railway for the period of six months or\ttill<br \/>\nthe   candidates  selected  by\tthe  Union  Public   Service<br \/>\nCommission   (UPSC)  joined  the  railways,  whichever\t was<br \/>\nearlier.  Pursuant to that offer, the respondent was  issued<br \/>\nan  appointment order on October 1, 1984 and he joined\tduty<br \/>\non October 9, 1984.  While the respondent continued to\twork<br \/>\nas an ad hoc Assistant Medical Officer, the decision of this<br \/>\nCourt  in <a href=\"\/doc\/1707104\/\">A.K. Jain (Dr) v. Union of India&#8217;<\/a> was rendered  on<br \/>\nSeptember 24, 1987 directing regularisation of the  services<br \/>\nof  all\t doctors  appointed  either  as\t Assistant   Medical<br \/>\nOfficers  or as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers on  ad<br \/>\nhoc  basis  up to October 1, 1984, in the  manner  indicated<br \/>\ntherein.   The\trespondent was not treated to  be  a  doctor<br \/>\nfalling within the category indicated in Dr A.K. Jain&#8217; since<br \/>\nhis  appointment was effective from October 9, 1984 when  he<br \/>\nhad  joined duty.  The respondent claimed to be governed  by<br \/>\nthe direction given in Dr A.K. Jain, but his  representation<br \/>\nwas  rejected  by the Railway Board.  It  appears  that\t the<br \/>\nRailway\t Board\tdecided to regularise the services  even  of<br \/>\nthose doctors appointed between October 1, 1984 and November<br \/>\n1986 who were found suitable by the UPSC after an  interview<br \/>\nand  screening\tof their service record.  In  all  105\tsuch<br \/>\ndoctors\t  including  the  respondent  were  considered\t for<br \/>\nregularisation on this basis.  Out of them, 14 including the<br \/>\nrespondent  were  found unfit by the UPSC for  retention  in<br \/>\nservice and-, therefore, they were not regularised.  The  ad<br \/>\nhoc  service of the respondent was then terminated on  April<br \/>\n9, 1992.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.Aggrieved  by\t his non-regularisation,  the  respondent<br \/>\nfiled  an  application\tbefore\tthe  Central  Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal challenging the same.\tBy the<br \/>\n1  1987 Supp SCC 497<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">308<\/span><br \/>\nimpugned  order\t dated\tMarch 28,  1992,  the  Tribunal\t has<br \/>\nallowed\t the respondent&#8217;s application taking the  view\tthat<br \/>\nthe  respondent is entitled to regularisation of his ad\t hoc<br \/>\nappointment on the basis of the decision of this Court in Dr<br \/>\nA.K. Jain&#8217;.  It has been held that the ad hoc appointment of<br \/>\nthe respondent having been made by an order dated October 1,<br \/>\n1984, he is governed by the direction given by this Court in<br \/>\nDr A. K. Jain&#8217;.\t The Union of India, being aggrieved by that<br \/>\ndecision, has preferred this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.On  the  above  facts, the  question\tis:  Whether  the<br \/>\nTribunal has correctly read the decision of this Court in Dr<br \/>\nA.K.  Jain&#8217;  to\t hold that the\trespondent  is\tentitled  to<br \/>\nregularisation on the basis of the direction given therein?\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The contention of learned counsel for the appellant  is<br \/>\nthat  the respondent having joined duty on October  9,\t1984<br \/>\npursuant to the appointment order dated October 1, 1984, his<br \/>\nappointment  became effective on October 9, 1984 and not  on<br \/>\nOctober\t 1,  1984.   For  this\treason,\t it  is\t urged,\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  is not entitled to the benefit of the  direction<br \/>\ngiven  in Dr A.K. Jain&#8217; even on his own case.\tThe  further<br \/>\nsubmission of learned counsel for the appellant is that even<br \/>\nif the date of the appointment order be taken as the date of<br \/>\nthe respondent&#8217;s effective appointment, the order in Dr A.K.<br \/>\nJain1 read as a whole cannot apply to the appointments\tmade<br \/>\non  October 1, 1984 since it must be confined to only  those<br \/>\ndoctors\t who were in service on October 1, 1984 as a  result<br \/>\nof  their appointment on dates prior to, an,! not  inclusive<br \/>\nof, October 1, 1984.  It was also submitted on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellant that the respondent was found unfit by the UPSC in<br \/>\nthe  batch of ad hoc appointees between October 1, 1984\t and<br \/>\nNovember  1986\ton account of which  his  non-regularisation<br \/>\ncannot be challenged.  In reply, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent  contended that the respondent&#8217;s appointment\t was<br \/>\neffective from October 1, 1984, the date of the\t appointment<br \/>\norder and not from the subsequent date of his joining  duty.<br \/>\nHe  submitted that the direction of this Court in Dr  A.  K.<br \/>\nJain&#8217;  clearly\tapplies to such appointments  made  even  on<br \/>\nOctober\t 1, 1984.  He further submitted that the  respondent<br \/>\nbeing found unfit by the UPSC is of no consequence since the<br \/>\ntest applied by the UPSC included an interview and not\tmere<br \/>\nscreening  of  the service record as in the case of  ad\t hoc<br \/>\nappointees up to October 1, 1984.  Lastly, it was submitted,<br \/>\nthat it is a solitary case of appointment on October 1, 1984<br \/>\nwhich does not call for interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.It is unnecessary in the present case to decide whether<br \/>\nthe  respondent&#8217;s  appointment\tcan be treated\tas  made  on<br \/>\nOctober\t 1, 1984 by virtue of the date of appointment  order<br \/>\neven  though it became effective only from October  9,\t1984<br \/>\nwhen  he  joined  duty.\t Even on  the  assumption  that\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  can\t be  treated as\t having\t been  appointed  on<br \/>\nOctober\t 1, 1984 as claimed by him, the respondent does\t not<br \/>\nget the benefit of the decision in Dr A. K. Jain 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.The  decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/1707104\/\">A.K. Jain (Dr) v. Union of India<\/a>]  was<br \/>\nrendered   in  writ  petitions\tunder  Article\t32  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution challenging the action of the Union of India in<br \/>\nterminating the services of petitioners as ad hoc  Assistant<br \/>\nMedical\t Officers  and replacing them by  freshly  recruited<br \/>\nAssistant  Divisional Medical Officers.\t The petitioners  in<br \/>\nthose cases were appointed ad hoc Assistant Medical Officers<br \/>\n(Class 11) in the Zonal Railways.  The material part of\t the<br \/>\noperative  order  containing  the direction  therein  is  as<br \/>\nunder: (SCC p. 500)<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;The services of all doctors appointed  either<br \/>\n\t      as Assistant Medical Officers or as  Assistant<br \/>\n\t      Divisional Medical Officers on ad hoc basis up<br \/>\n\t      to  October  1, 1984 shall be  regularised  in<br \/>\n\t      consultation with the Union Public<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      309<\/span><br \/>\n\t      Service Commission on the evaluation of  their<br \/>\n\t      work  and\t conduct  on  the  basis  of   their<br \/>\n\t      confidential  reports in respect of  a  period<br \/>\n\t      subsequent   to\tOctober\t  1,   1982.\tSuch<br \/>\n\t      evaluation  shall be done by the Union  Public<br \/>\n\t      Service\t Commission.\tThe    doctors\t  so<br \/>\n\t      regularised  shall be appointed  as  Assistant<br \/>\n\t      Divisional  Medical Officers with effect\tfrom<br \/>\n\t      the   date   from\t  which\t  they\t have\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      continuously  working  as\t Assistant   Medical<br \/>\n\t      Officer\/Assistant Divisional Medical  Officer.<br \/>\n\t      The  Railway shall be at liberty to  terminate<br \/>\n\t      the   services  of  those\t who  are   not\t  so<br \/>\n\t      regularised.   If the services of any  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      petitioners appointed prior to October 1, 1984<br \/>\n\t      have been terminated except on resignation  or<br \/>\n\t      on  disciplinary\tgrounds, he  shall  be\talso<br \/>\n\t      considered for regularisation and if found fit<br \/>\n\t      his services shall be regularised as if  there<br \/>\n\t      was no break in the continuity of service\t but<br \/>\n\t      without any back wages.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n<p>7.The expression &#8220;up to October 1, 1984&#8221; in the direction<br \/>\nfor  regularisation obviously does not include\tappointments<br \/>\nmade on October 1, 1984.  This is clear from a further\tpart<br \/>\nof  the\t same direction in which the  expression  &#8220;prior  to<br \/>\nOctober 1, 1984&#8221; occurs.  After directing the regularisation<br \/>\nof the ad hoc appointees up to October 1, 1984, in the\tvery<br \/>\nsame  direction, it was said that those appointed &#8220;prior  to<br \/>\nOctober 1, 1984&#8221; would also be considered for regularisation<br \/>\nin  spite of termination of their services.  It is  apparent<br \/>\nthat this category of doctors required to be considered\t for<br \/>\nregularisation in spite of the termination of their services<br \/>\nare  those belonging to the same class of ad hoc  appointees<br \/>\n&#8220;up  to\t October  1,  1984&#8221;.  In other\twords,\tthe  ad\t hoc<br \/>\nappointees &#8220;up to October 1, 1984&#8221; means the same as the  ad<br \/>\nhoc   appointees  &#8220;prior  to  October  1,  1984&#8221;.    If\t  an<br \/>\nappointment  made  on October 1, 1984 is  included  in\tthat<br \/>\nclass,\tthen  it would be in conflict  with  the  expression<br \/>\n&#8220;prior\t to  October  1,  1984&#8221;\t used  later.\tBoth   these<br \/>\nexpressions occur in the same context and must have the same<br \/>\nmeaning.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.There\t are  other  indications  to  this  effect.   The<br \/>\ndirection requires regularisation to be made on the basis of<br \/>\nwork  and  conduct evaluated from  confidential\t reports  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  period subsequent to October  1,  1982.   Thus,<br \/>\navailability of confidential report for some period prior to<br \/>\nOctober 1, 1984 is contemplated in respect of the doctors to<br \/>\nbe  so\tregularised.   The direction  further  is  that\t the<br \/>\ndoctors\t so  regularised  shall be  appointed  as  Assistant<br \/>\nDivisional Medical Officers &#8220;with effect from the date\tfrom<br \/>\nwhich  they  have been continuously  working&#8221;  as  Assistant<br \/>\nMedical\t Officers\/Assistant  Divisional\t Medical   Officers.<br \/>\nThis  direction\t cannot\t relate to  anyone  who\t joined\t the<br \/>\nservice\t after October 1, 1984.\t This was meant\t to  benefit<br \/>\nonly  those  ad\t hoc appointees who  had  been\tcontinuously<br \/>\nworking\t from a date prior to October 1, 1984 and  not\tfrom<br \/>\nany date subsequent to it.  If the benefit of the  direction<br \/>\nin Dr A.K. Jain&#8217; be given to the respondent, his appointment<br \/>\nas  Assistant  Divisional Medical Officer can be  only\tfrom<br \/>\nOctober 9, 1984, the date from which he began working on the<br \/>\npost.  He can be regularised in this manner only with effect<br \/>\nfrom  October 9, 1984 and not from October 1,  1984.   There<br \/>\ncan  be no doubt that the direction for\t regularisation\t was<br \/>\nnot  meant  to\tbenefit any ad hoc  appointee  who  was\t not<br \/>\nworking\t on the post of Assistant Medical  Officer\/Assistant<br \/>\nDivisional Medical Officer on October 1, 1984.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.These are clear indications that the direction in Dr A.<br \/>\nK. Jain1 cannot be construed in the manner suggested by\t the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondent to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">310<\/span><br \/>\ngive  its benefit to the respondent.  The  Tribunal  misread<br \/>\nand  misconstrued the decision in Dr A.K. Jain&#8217; to give\t its<br \/>\nbenefit to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.For the same reason, the contention of learned  counsel<br \/>\nfor the respondent, that the respondent being found unfit by<br \/>\nthe  UPSC is immaterial, has no merit.\tThe  respondent\t not<br \/>\nbeing entitled to the benefit of the direction given by this<br \/>\nCourt  in Dr A.K. Jain&#8217; his claim for  regularisation  could<br \/>\nhave  been based only on the ground available to an  ad\t hoc<br \/>\nappointee  during  the period between October  1,  1984\t and<br \/>\nNovember 1986.\tFor that the respondent had to be found\t fit<br \/>\nby the UPSC.  Since the respondent was one of the 14 such ad<br \/>\nhoc  appointees found unfit in the category of\t105  doctors<br \/>\nappointed  between  October 1, 1984 and November  1986,\t the<br \/>\nrespondent can make no grievance against the termination  of<br \/>\nhis  service  in these circumstances.  No exception  can  be<br \/>\nmade for the respondent who was found unfit along with\tsome<br \/>\nmore of his class.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.Consequently,  the  appeal is  allowed.   The  impugned<br \/>\norder  passed by the Tribunal is set aside with\t the  result<br \/>\nthat  the  respondent&#8217;s\t application made  to  the  Tribunal<br \/>\nstands dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">312<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Dr Gyan Prakesh Singh on 30 September, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC, Supl. (1) 306 JT 1993 (5) 681 Author: J S Verma Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: DR GYAN PRAKESH SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT30\/09\/1993 BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122608","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>Union Of India vs Dr Gyan Prakesh Singh on 30 September, 1993 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993\" \/>\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 Dr Gyan Prakesh Singh on 30 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993\" \/>\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=\"1993-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-05T01:43:48+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=\"9 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-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Dr Gyan Prakesh Singh on 30 September, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-05T01:43:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993\"},\"wordCount\":1727,\"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\\\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Dr Gyan Prakesh Singh on 30 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-05T01:43:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Dr Gyan Prakesh Singh on 30 September, 1993\"}]},{\"@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 Dr Gyan Prakesh Singh on 30 September, 1993 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Dr Gyan Prakesh Singh on 30 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-05T01:43:48+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Dr Gyan Prakesh Singh on 30 September, 1993","datePublished":"1993-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-05T01:43:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993"},"wordCount":1727,"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\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993","name":"Union Of India vs Dr Gyan Prakesh Singh on 30 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-05T01:43:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-dr-gyan-prakesh-singh-on-30-september-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Dr Gyan Prakesh Singh on 30 September, 1993"}]},{"@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\/122608","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=122608"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122608\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}