{"id":125440,"date":"1963-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1963-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963"},"modified":"2018-12-18T06:58:13","modified_gmt":"2018-12-18T01:28:13","slug":"the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Saran on 10 April, 1963"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Saran on 10 April, 1963<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1361, \t\t 1964 SCR (2) 982<\/div>\n
Author: N R Ayyangar<\/div>\n
Bench: Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAM SARAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n10\/04\/1963\n\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1964 AIR 1361\t\t  1964 SCR  (2) 982\n\n\nACT:\nPublic Servant-Officiating Sub-Inspector of Police in Ajmer-\nReorganisation\t of   States-Appointed\tto  same   post\t  in\nRajasthan-Reversion-Legality  of-Police\t Act,  1861  (V\t  of\n1861),\tss.  2 , 12-States Reorganisation Act, 1956  (37  of\n1956), ss. 115, 116, 117,\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent was an officiating Sub-inspector of Police in\nAjmer.\tAfter the merger of Ajmer in the State of  Rajasthan\nunder  the States Reorganisation Act, 1956,  the  respondent\nwas   appointed\t officiating  Sub-Inspector  of\t Police\t  in\nRajasthan.   On\t April\t6,  1957, he  was  reverted  to\t his\nsubstantive  post  of  Head Constable.\t He  challenged\t his\nreversion  on the ground that under the standing  Orders  of\nthe  Police  Force  in\tAjmer  which  formed  part  of\t his\nconditions  of service he had a guaranteed right not  to  be\nreverted  except  in  strict order of  juniority,  that\t the\nreversion was an alteration in the conditions of his service\nwhich  the  State  Government was not  competent  to  effect\nwithout the sanction of the Central Government under s. 1 15\n(7) of the Act and that there was a direction by the Central\nGovernment  under s. 117 of the Act which made the right  to\nretain an officiating post without reversion a condition  of\nservice.\nHeld  that  the\t Standing Orders  were\tmere  administrative\ninstructions issued by the Inspector-General of Police under\ns.  12 of the Police Act and were not conditions of  service\nwhich  could  only be framed by the  State  Government.\t  As\nsuch,  even if the order of reversion violated the  Standing\nOrder  there was no violation of the conditions of  service.\nIt  is\tnot  a condition of service that the  holder  of  an\nofficiating  post shall not be reverted to  his\t substantive\npost  and  there  was no alteration  of\t the  conditions  of\nservice by the order of reversion as contemplated by s.\t 115\n(7) of the Reorganisation Act, 1956.  Nor was any  direction\ngiven by the Central Government under s.     117 of the\t Act\ncurtailing  the\t powers\t of the\t State\tGovernment  in\tthis\nrespect.   On  the  other  hand\t the  powers  of  the  State\nGovernment to pass in relation to such a person \"any order\n 983\naffecting his continuance in such post or office\" have\tbeen\nspecifically preserved by s. II 6 (2) of the Act.  There  is\nno legal right in an officer to hold an officiating post and\nhe cannot claim that he cannot be reverted except for proper\nreasons.  Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India,<\/a> (1958) S.\nC. R. 828, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 453 of 1962.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated November 18,  1960,
\nof the Rajasthan High Court in D.  B. Civil Writ No. 264  of
\n1959.\n<\/p>\n
S. K. Kapur, K. K. Jain and P. D. Menon, for the appellant.
\nB. D. Sharma, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
1963.  April 10.  The judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nAYYANGAR.J.-The State of Rajasthan is the appellant in\tthis
\nappeal\twhich  has been filed pursuant to a  certificate  of
\nfitness\t granted by the High Court of Rajasthan\t under\tArt.
\n133  (1)  (c)  of the constitution  and\t it  challenges\t the
\ncorrectness  of\t a  judgment of the High  Court\t allowing  a
\npetition  under\t Art. 226 of the Constitution filed  by\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent, Ram Saran, was appointed a Constable in 1947
\nin the Ajmer district police force.  Two years thereafter he
\nwas promoted to the rank of Head Constable and was confirmed
\nin  that  post.\t  On  June 29,\t1956  he  was  appointed  to
\nofficiate  as  a  SubInspector.\t At that  stage\t the  states
\nReorganisation Act (XXXVII of 1956), hereinafter referred to
\nas  the\t Act,  was  enacted  -which  became  operative\tfrom
\nNovember  1, 1956, referred to in the Act as  the  appointed
\ndate,, and by virtue of its provisions the
\n984<\/span>
\nformer State, of Ajmer was merged in the State of  Rajasthan
\nand under its terms again the respondent was absorbed in the
\nPolice\tService of the Rajasthan State.\t To give  effect  to
\nthis  provision a formal order appointing the respondent  as
\nan  officiating Sub-Inspector in the Rajasthan State  police
\nforce was also passed dated the same day.\n<\/p>\n
Subsequent  thereto, on April 6, 1957 the  Deputy  Inspector
\nGeneral of Police, Ajmer Range ordered the reversion of\t the
\nrespondent to his substantive post of Head Constable in\t the
\nDistrict Police Force.\tThe respondent was dissatisfied with
\nthis order and his complaint was that it was not one  passed
\nin  the normal course of posting since there were,  on\tthat
\ndate,  officiating Sub-Inspectors in the State police  force
\nwho  were  junior  to him but who continued  to\t hold  their
\nofficiating   posts  and  that\tsuch  a\t reversion  to\t his
\nsubstantive post was in effect an order of supersession.  He
\nmade  representations to the authorities to set\t the  matter
\nright.\tWhen he did not succeed in his efforts, he filed, on
\nJuly 22, 1959, a petition under Art. 226 of the constitution
\nfor quashing the order of reversion dated April 6, 1957, and
\nfor  a direction to restore him to the rank of\tofficiating.
\nSub-Inspector according to his seniority.  The State as well
\nas the Inspector-General of Police and the Deputy Inspector-
\nGeneral of Police were impleaded as parties to the  petition
\nand  the  learned  judges  of  the  High  Court\t allowed  it
\nprincipally  on the ground that this order of reversion\t was
\nin violation of the provisions of s. 115 of the Act.  It  is
\nthe  correctness  of this order that is challenged  in\tthis
\nappeal before us.\n<\/p>\n
In  order  to  appreciate  the\tcontentions  raised  it\t  is
\nnecessary  briefly to advert to the statutory provisions  on
\nwhich  the  judgment of the High Court in  the\tmain  rests.
\nThose material in this;\n<\/p>\n
985<\/span><\/p>\n
context\t are ss. 115 to 117 of the Act occurring in  Part  X
\nheaded ‘Provisions as to Services’:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “115.  (1).   Every  person  who\t immediately
\n\t      before   the  appointed  day  is\tserving\t  in
\n\t      connection with the affairs of the Union under
\n\t      the  administrative control of the  Lieutenant
\n\t      Governor\tor Chief Commissioner in any of\t the
\n\t      existing States of Ajmer, Bhopal, Coorg, Kutch
\n\t      and   Vindhya  Pradesh,  or  is\tserving\t  in
\n\t      connection  with\tthe affairs of\tany  of\t the
\n\t      existing States of Mysore, Punjab, Patiala and
\n\t      East Punjab States Union and Saurashtra shall,
\n\t      as  from\tthat -day, be deemed  to  have\tbeen
\n\t      allotted\tto  serve  in  connection  with\t the
\n\t      affairs\tof  the\t successor  State  to\tthat
\n\t      existing State.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (2)<\/span>
\n\t       (3)<\/span>
\n\t       (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (5)   The\t Central  Government  may  by  order
\n\t      establish one or more Advisory Committees\t for
\n\t      the purpose of assisting it in regard to-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   the\t division  and\tintegration  of\t the
\n\t      services\tamong the new States and the  States
\n\t      of Andhra Pradesh and Madras; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   the\t ensuring  of  fair  and   equitable
\n\t      treatment\t to  all  persons  affected  by\t the
\n\t      provisions  of  this section  and\t the  proper
\n\t      consideration  of any representations made  by
\n\t      such persons.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      986<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (6)   The for going provisions of this section
\n\t      shall  not apply in relation to any person  to
\n\t      whom the provisions of section 114 apply-
\n\t      (7)   Nothing in this section shall be  deemed
\n\t      to   affect  after  the  appointed   day\t the
\n\t      operation\t of the provisions of Chapter  I  of
\n\t      Part  XIV of the Constitution in\trelation  to
\n\t      the determination of the conditions of service
\n\t      of  persons  serving in  connection  with\t the
\n\t      affairs of the Union or any State :
\n\t      Provided\t that  the  conditions\tof   service
\n\t      applicable  immediately before  the  appointed
\n\t      day  to the case of any person referred to  in
\n\t      sub-section (1) or sub–Section (2) shall\t not
\n\t      be varied to his disadvantage except with\t the
\n\t      previous approval of the Central Govern.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      116.  (1).    Every  person  who\t immediately
\n\t      before   the  appointed  day  is\tholding\t  or
\n\t      discharging  the duties of any post or  office
\n\t      in  connection with the affairs….. . …  of
\n\t      an  existing State in any area………  shall
\n\t      be  deemed as from that day to have been\tduly
\n\t      appointed\t to  such  post\t or  office  by\t the
\n\t      Government of, or other appropriate  authority
\n\t      in,  such State, or by the Central  Government
\n\t      or other appropriate authority in such Part  C
\n\t      State, as the case may be.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2).   Nothing in this section shall be  deemed
\n\t      to  prevent a competent authority,  after\t the
\n\t      appointed day, from passing in relation to any
\n\t      such   person   any   order   affecting\t his
\n\t      continuance in such post or office.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       117.   The Central Government may at  anytime
\n\t      before or after the appointed day give such
\n\t       987<\/span>
\n\t      directions  to  any State\t Government  as\t may
\n\t      appear  to it to be necessary for the  purpose
\n\t      of  giving effect to the foregoing  provisions
\n\t      of  this part and the State  Government  shall
\n\t      comply with such directions.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Before\tproceeding to consider these provisions it would  be
\nconvenient  to put aside one matter and that is that it\t was
\nnot suggested that the order of reversion was one by way  of
\npunishment constituting a reduction in rank so as to attract
\nArt. 311 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The  grievances\t of the respondent as formulated  before  us
\nwere threefold : (1) that for the purpose of promotions\t and
\nfor determining reversions the seniority in the police force
\nwas  not  computed  on\tthe basis of  a\t list  of  seniority
\nprepared for the entire State of Rajasthan but that the same
\nwas  done  on a regional basis i.e., there  was\t a  separate
\nseniority list for Ajmer and another for other areas in\t the
\nState  and  that this had resulted in police  officers\tlike
\nhimself\t being\tsuperseded by others junior to\tthem  merely
\nbecause they happened to be serving in a particular  region.
\nIn  the\t petition  there  was  a  vague\t reference  to\t the
\nmaintenance  of\t such  regional lists as  violative  of\t the
\nequality guaranteed by Art. 14, (2) It was further contended
\nby  the respondent that the reversion from  the\t officiating
\npost  of  Sub-Inspector\t to  the  substantive  one  of\tHead
\nConstable  was\t“an  alteration in  the\t conditions  of\t his
\nservice”  which\t the State Government was not  competent  to
\neffect without the sanction of the Central Government  under
\ns.  II 5 (7) of the Act, and that, in any event,  there\t had
\nbeen  a direction by the Central Government under s. 117  of
\nthe  Act which rendered the right to retain  an\t officiating
\npost  without reversion as such a condition, (3) Even if  s.
\n115  were insufficient by itself to constitute the right  to
\nretain an officiating post without
\n988<\/span>
\nbeing  reverted\t to a substantive post as  “a  condition  of
\nservice,”  still  there\t was a guaranteed right\t not  to  be
\nreverted  except in the strict order of juniority under\t the
\nprovisions of the Standing Orders of the Police Force  which
\nwere part of his conditions of service and that by reason of
\nthese  Standing Orders the reversion was in violation of  s.
\n115 (7) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
We consider it would be convenient to deal with these in the
\nreverse\t order,\t and take up first  the\t interpretation\t and
\neffect\tof  the Standing Order on which\t reliance  has\tbeen
\nplaced both by the learned judges of the High Court as\twell
\nas  by\tlearned Counsel for the respondent  before  us.\t  In
\nregard\tto them there are two distinct questions: (1)  their
\nproper\tinterpretation,\t (2)  whether  they  ‘would  in\t law
\nconstitute  a  condition  of service and these\thave  to  be
\nconsidered separately.\tThe Standing Order relied on is\t one
\nnumbered 46 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Ajmer
\nand  is dated October 20, 1949.\t The relevant portion of  it
\nrelied on is the paragraph numbered 4 (b) which reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “An  officer who has secured officiating\tpro-
\n\t      motion  on  the  basis of\t his  place  on\t the
\n\t      approved\tlist should normally  be  considered
\n\t      for  promotion earlier provided that he  main-
\n\t      tains an appropriate standard.  If he fails to
\n\t      do  so he may be reverted or his\tconfirmation
\n\t      postponed.  He should not, however, be  denied
\n\t      his  claim  to  confirmation  merely   because
\n\t      although\tlie  has  maintained  his   standard
\n\t      someone  else promoted later is considered  to
\n\t      have done even better.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is clear from this provision that it deals not with\t the
\norder in which holders of officiating posts may be  reverted
\nbut  with  that\t in  which  they  could\t be  considered\t for
\nconfirmation,  so  that in strictness on  its  language\t the
\nclause would not constitute the
\n 989<\/span>
\nimpugned  reversion  as\t one in breach of  its\tterms.\t But
\nassuming that what might be called the spirit of the rule or
\nthe  reason behind it be taken into consideration and it  be
\nheld  that it laid down also the order in  which  reversions
\nshould take place, still we have next to consider whether it
\nhas  any legal efficacy as a service condition.\t This  would
\ndepend\tupon  the Standing Orders having been  issued  by  a
\ncompetent authority under the provisions of a statute  which
\nempowered   that  authority  to\t prescribe  “conditions\t  of
\nservice.”  For\tundoubtedly if it were not so  it  would  be
\nmerely an administrative instruction issued by the Inspector
\nGeneral of Police for the guidance of his officers but could
\nnot  determine\tservice\t conditions  fixed  by\tstatute\t  or
\nstatutory rules by competent authorities or confer any legal
\nrights\twhich  in the event of non-observance could  be\t the
\nsubject\t of complaint in a Court.  Learned Counsel  for\t the
\nrespondent  was, therefore, at pains to make out that  these
\nStanding  Orders  had a statutory basis.  For  this  purpose
\nreliance  was placed upon ss. 12 and 2 of the Police Act  (V
\nof  1861) as empowering the Inspector-General of  Police  to
\nissue  these Standing Orders.  Section 12 of the Police\t Act
\nreads, to quote only the material words :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “12.   The  Inspector-General of\tPolice\tmay,
\n\t      from time to time, subject to the approval  of
\n\t      the  State Government, frame such\t orders
\n\t      and rules as he shall deem expedient  relative
\n\t      to   the\tOrganisation,\tclassification\t and
\n\t      distribution of the police-force, the place at
\n\t      which  the members of the force shall  reside,
\n\t      and the particular services to be performed by
\n\t      them……\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is clear that the orders and rules referred to  in\tthis
\nsection\t have  nothing to do with the determination  of\t the
\nservice\t conditions of the officers recruited to the  Police
\nforce..\t  The  expression  “Organisation”  cannot,  in\t our
\nopinion, include within its fold the
\n990<\/span>
\nconditions of service of those in the police force.  Turning
\nnext to s. 2 to which our attention was drawn, the  material
\nportion is its second paragraph which reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Subject to the provisions of this Act-the pay
\n\t      and all other conditions of service of members
\n\t      of  the subordinate ranks of any police  force
\n\t      shall  be\t such as may be\t determined  by\t the
\n\t      State Government.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Under this section, however, it is not the Inspector General
\nof  Police  but the State Government that  is  empowered  to
\nframe rules regulating the conditions of service of  members
\nof the police force.  It was not suggested that the Standing
\nOrders\ton which reliance was placed were those made by\t the
\nState  Government  as  they purport to\tbe  only  under\t the
\nauthority  of  the Inspector General of\t Police.   A  feeble
\nargument was attempted to suggest that the State  Government
\nmight  have delegated their power to the Inspector  General,
\nbut  nothing  is better settled than that a  power  to\tmake
\nrules  could  not  be delegated\t without  express  statutory
\nprovision therefore.\n<\/p>\n
Some  point  was sought to be made of the  fact\t that  these
\nstanding  Orders were issued in October, 1949, when not\t the
\nConstitution but s. 243 of the Government of India Act, 1935
\nwas  in force.\tBut the respondent gets no advantage out  of
\nthis  circumstance, because s. 243 referred to, enacts\tthat
\nthe  conditions\t of  service of\t the  subordinate  ranks  of
\nvarious\t police\t forces in India “would be such\t as  may  be
\ndetermined  by or under the Acts relating to  those  forces”
\nand  we are again thrown back on the provisions of s.  2  of
\nthe Police Act by which it is the State Government, not\t the
\nInspector General of Police, that -is vested with  authority
\nto frame conditions of service.\t We therefore consider, with
\ngreat
\n 991<\/span>
\nrespect\t to the learned judges of the High Court, that\tthey
\nwere  in error in treating Standing Order 46 as a  condition
\nof  service  which was violatcd by the\torder  of  reversion
\nimpugned by the respondent in his Writ Petition.
\nStanding  Order 46 being put aside, we next turn to ss.\t 115
\nto 117 of the Act.  The respondent was in the service of the
\nAjmer State as an officiating Sub-Inspector of Police on the
\nappointed  day i. e., November 1, 1956 and by virtue  of  s.
\n115 (1) of the Act he would be deemed to have been  allotted
\nto  serve  in connection with the affairs of  the  Rajasthan
\nState, and, in fact, as noticed earlier, there was a  formal
\norder of appointment dated November 1, 1956, by which he was
\nappointed as an officiating Sub-Inspector of Police.  We  do
\nnot consider it necessary to deal with -sub-s. (5) of s. 115
\nas,  in\t our  opinion, nothing turns on it,  though  it\t was
\nreferred to by learned Counsel for the respondent.  What  is
\nreally\tcrucial for the determination of this appeal is\t the
\nproviso\t to sub-s. (7) by which there was a  guarantee\tthat
\nthe  conditions of service applicable before  the  appointed
\nday  would not be varied to the disadvantage of\t persons  in
\nthe  position  of the respondent except\t with  the  previous
\napproval  of the-Central Government.  The  question  arising
\nunder  this proviso would be whether it is any condition  of
\nservice applicable to the holder of an officiating post that
\nhe  shall  not\tbe reverted to his  substantive\t post.\t But
\nbefore\tdealing\t with it, the effect of\t two  other  visions
\nviz.,  s. 117 and s. 116 (2) may be noticed. We first  refer
\nto  s.\t117 because if there is a direction of\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  in\trelation  to a class of\t officers  and\tsuch
\ndirection  is necessary for giving effect to the  provisions
\nof this part, it is the duty of the State Government to give
\neffect to it and in such a case the question whether such  a
\ndirection  is strictly a condition of service or  not  might
\nnot fall for determination.  The learned judges of the\tHigh
\nCourt
\n992<\/span>
\nconsidered  that there was such a direction by\tthe  Central
\nGovernment and that was part of the reasoning on which\tthey
\ngranted\t relief to the respondent.  Learned Counsel for\t the
\nrespondent  strenuously\t sought to  sup-port  this  argument
\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n
 The direction was claimed to be contained in a letter\tfrom
\nthe Deputy secretary to the Government of India Ministry  of
\nHome  Affairs  to the Chief Secretary to the  Government  of
\nRajasthan,   Jaipur   dated  March  27,\t 1957\tand   headed
\n‘protection  of service\t    conditions\tto  be\tafforded  to
\nstate service personnel.’ In this letter, after referring to
\nthe  proviso to sub-s. (7) of s. 115 of the Act\t which\tlaid
\ndown  that  conditions\tof  service  applicable\t to  persons
\nreferred  to  in  sub-s. (1) shall not be  varied  to  their
\ndisadvantage  except  with  the\t previous  approval  of\t the
\nCentral Government, there was a paragraph reading as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “2. (ii) officiating Pay
\n\t      When an officer had officiated continuously on
\n\t      a\t particular  scale  of\tpay  or\t would\thave
\n\t      officiated   on\tthat  scale  but   for\t his
\n\t      officiating appointment to a post on a  higher
\n\t      scale or proceeding on leave or deputation
\n\t      for   a\tminimum\t period\t  of   three   years
\n\t      immediately  before November 1, 1956, the\t pay
\n\t      on  which\t he  had  so  officiated  should  be
\n\t\t\t    protected as if it were pay and scale
\ndrawn  in
\n\t      a substantive capacity.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The letter divides the subject-matter dealt with in it\tinto
\nseveral parts and the above paragraph occurs under the\tpart
\nheaded\t‘Pay’.\t It  was  not suggested\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nrespondent that the clause had as such any relevance to\t the
\nquestion of reversion to a substantive post of an officer in
\nan
\n 993<\/span>
\nofficiating post, or that even otherwise the respondent\t had
\nqualified  for the benefit of the provision contained in  it
\nas  regards  pay  since\t he had\t not  officiated  as  a\t Sub
\nInspector for a period of three years prior to the appointed
\ndate  i. e., November 1, 1956.\tThe argument,  however,\t was
\nthat  since  officers holding merely officiating  posts\t had
\nbeen  mentioned in this directive, the right to continue  in
\nthat  post became a service condition and that no  reversion
\ncould be ordered without the sanction of the Central Govern-
\nment.\tWe  do not find it possible to\tread  the  direction
\ncontained  in  the clause extracted earlier as,\t having\t any
\nsuch  effect.  No doubt, to the extent to which it  protects
\nthe pay of certain officers it might have effect under s.  1
\n17 of the Act but beyond it, subject to the proviso to subS.
\n(7)  of s. 115 the powers of the, State Government  are\t not
\nintended  to be curtailed and, in fact, they  are  expressly
\nsaved  by  sub-s. (2) of s. 116 which  permits\ta  competent
\nauthority  to pass in relation to such persons\t“‘any  order
\naffecting his continuance in such post or office.”
\nThe contention that survives is merely whether the right  to
\nhold  an  officiating post is a legal right and\t whether  it
\ncould  be stated to be a condition of service that  such  an
\nofficer shall not be reverted except for proper reasons.  In
\nour opinion, the matter is concluded by the decision of this
\nCourt  in  Parshotam  Lal Dhingra v.  Union  of\t India<\/a>\t(1).
\nThere, as here, an officer who was appointed to officiate in
\nClass  It  Service as an Assistant  Superintendent,  Railway
\nTelegraphs  was\t reverted  to  his  substantive\t Class\t III
\nappointment.   No doubt, the question there  considered\t was
\nwhether\t on the facts of that case, this order of  reversion
\nwas   passed   as  a  punishment  so  as  to   attract\t the
\nconstitutional\tprotection  guaranteed by Art. 311  (2)\t but
\nthis Court had also to consider whether an officer appointed
\nto an officiating post had any legal right to continue
\n(1)  [1958] S. C. R. 828
\n994<\/span>
\nin  that  post.\t  As to that Das, C.  J.  speaking  for\t the
\nmajority observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“The petitioner before us was appointed to a
\n\t      higher\t post\t  on\t an\t officiating
\n\t      basis……………   He\t had  no  right\t  to
\n\t      continue\tin that post and under\tthe  general
\n\t      law the implied term of such ‘appointment\t was
\n\t      that   it\t was  terminable  at  any  time\t  on
\n\t      reasonable notice by Government and  therefore
\n\t      his reduction did not operate as a  forfeiture
\n\t      of  any  right  and  cannot  be  described  as
\n\t      reduction in rank by way of punishment.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (Vide also the judgment of this Court in State
\n\t      of Bombay V. P. A. Abraham
\n If<\/a> he had no legal right to continue in that post it  would
\nrather\tappear\tthat it was one of the\tConditions  lot\t his
\n‘service  that\the  could, for\tadministrative\treasons,  be
\nreverted  to  his  substantive\tappointment.  ,It  therefore
\nappears to us that there is no basis for argument that\tmere
\nreversion  to  a  substantive  post  is\t a  breach  of\t the
\nconditions of service.\tThat is why we said that the proviso
\nto sub-s. (7) of s. 115 on which stress is laid by the\tHigh
\nCourt  really affords no assistance to the respondent.\t The
\nabove was, in general, the reasoning upon which the  learned
\njudges of the High Court allowed the petition.\tWe  consider
\nthat  they  were  in error in so doing and  the\t appeal\t has
\naccordingly to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
 It is necessary, now, to mention the first of the points we
\nhave   set  out\t earlier  which\t learned  Counsel  for\t the
\nrespondent  strenuously pressed upon us.  He submitted\tthat
\nthe  respondent had alleged in his petition a  violation  of
\nArt.  14  of  the Constitution, in  that  the  selection  of
\nofficers for promotion. was determined not on ‘the basis  of
\nthe seniority of the
\n(2)  Civil Appeal 59 of 1961 (Not yet reported) decided on
\nDecember 12, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
 995<\/span><\/p>\n
officers considering the State as a whole but regionwise and
\nthis was the gravamen of the charge in this respect made  in
\nthe  petition.\tIn this connection he drew our attention  to
\nthe terms of s. 2 of the Police Act 5 of 1861 which reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “2.  The entire police-establishment  under  a
\n\t      State  Government shall, for the\tpurposes  of
\n\t      this  Act, be deemed to be  one  police-force,
\n\t      and  shall  be formally  enrolled;  and  shall
\n\t      consist  of such number of officers  and\tmen,
\n\t      and  shall  be constituted in such  manner  as
\n\t      shall  from  time to time be  ordered  by\t the
\n\t      State Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He  also pointed out that in the counter-affidavit filed  by
\nthe  State this splitting up of the State into\tregions\t and
\nthe   determination   of  seniority  and  promotion   on   a
\nregionwise,  as\t distinguished from a Statewise\t basis,\t was
\ndefended as dictated by administrative considerations.\t The
\nlearned\t judges,  in  their judgment  have  made  a  passing
\nreference  to this feature of the case and seem to  express,
\nthe  opinion  that (he system of  regionwise  promotion\t was
\nproductive  of inequality and hardship.\t The  difficulty  in
\nthe way of the respondent, however, is that the plea  raised
\ni  i regard to this matter is of the vaguest, character\t and
\nappears\t to  be designed as affording some support  for\t the
\nmain allegations and contentions we have dealt with, and not
\nas  an,\t independent and distinct ground for  impugning\t the
\nconstitutional\tvalidity  of the scheme\t of  promotion.\t  In
\nconsequence  of\t this state of the pleadings the  facts\t and
\ndetails\t  necessary   for  sustaining  or   repelling\tthis
\ncontention  were  not  brought\tinto  the  record,  so\tthat
\nadmittedly  the point could not be decided on the record  as
\nit   stands.   Realising  this\tlearned\t Counsel   for\t the
\nrespondent  urged that the matter should be remitted to\t the
\nHigh Court for consideration of this issue
\n996<\/span>
\nabout  the  breach of Art. 14 of the  Constitution  and\t the
\nconstitutional\tvalidity of the regionwise  seniority  lists
\nprepared  for promotion, reversion etc. allowing liberty  to
\nthe parties to lead further evidence on the matter.  Having-
\nconsidered  the suggestion carefully we have arrived at\t the
\nconclusion  that  on  the pleadings,  as  they\tstand,\tthis
\nquestion  could\t not be determined satisfactorily.   If\t the
\nissue as to discrimination and a violation of Art. 14 has to
\nbe satisfactorily investigated and decided both the  parties
\nwould  have  to\t file amended pleadings in  order  to  focus
\nattention  on  several details, with the  result  that\tthis
\nwould virtually amount to the filing of a new petition.\t  We
\nconsider  therefore that if the respondent is so advised  he
\nshould be at liberty to challenge the order now impugned  on
\nthese  other  grounds  and that for that  purpose  it  would
\nreally\tbe  in his interest that he should be  permitted  to
\nfile  a\t fresh\tpetition making\t necessary  allegations\t and
\nsetting forth the requisite facts when the State, also would
\nhave an opportunity to make its answers to such a plea.\t  It
\nis in the light of this consideration that we have refrained
\nfrom  remanding\t the  case  to*\t the  High  Court,  for\t the
\nconsideration of this point.\n<\/p>\n
The  result is that the appeal is allowed and the  order  of
\nthe  High  Court  set aside and the Writs  Petition  of\t the
\nrespondent  dismissed.\t We have to add that this  would  be
\nwithout\t prejudice to his right to file a fresh petition  in
\nregard\tto  the matter we, have indicated earlier.   In\t the
\ncircumstances  of  this case there would be no order  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Saran on 10 April, 1963 Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1361, 1964 SCR (2) 982 Author: N R Ayyangar Bench: Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala PETITIONER: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM SARAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/04\/1963 BENCH: AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA BENCH: AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR […]<\/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-125440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Saran on 10 April, 1963 - 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\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Saran on 10 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963\" \/>\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=\"1963-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-18T01:28:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Saran on 10 April, 1963\",\"datePublished\":\"1963-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-18T01:28:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963\"},\"wordCount\":3999,\"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\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963\",\"name\":\"The State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Saran on 10 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1963-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-18T01:28:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Saran on 10 April, 1963\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"The State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Saran on 10 April, 1963 - 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\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Saran on 10 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1963-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-18T01:28:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Saran on 10 April, 1963","datePublished":"1963-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-18T01:28:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963"},"wordCount":3999,"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\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963","name":"The State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Saran on 10 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1963-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-18T01:28:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-rajasthan-vs-ram-saran-on-10-april-1963#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Saran on 10 April, 1963"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/125440","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=125440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}