{"id":129817,"date":"2000-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000"},"modified":"2018-10-05T16:57:11","modified_gmt":"2018-10-05T11:27:11","slug":"prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000","title":{"rendered":"Prakashchand Jogaram Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Prakashchand Jogaram Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Keshote<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S Keshote<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> S.K. Keshote, J. <\/p>\n<p>       1. These are two sets of petitions.  In fact one set<br \/>\n      is counter to the other.  The parties are also common and<br \/>\n      the  matters  relate  to the same controversy and as such<br \/>\n      these are taken up for hearing together and are  disposed<br \/>\n      of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>       2. Learned  counsel  for  the parties made arguments<br \/>\n      with reference to the special civil application  No.10594<br \/>\n      of  1999  and  for  deciding these matters, the facts are<br \/>\n      also taken from this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>       3. The petitioners challenge by  this  petition  the<br \/>\n      action   of   the   respondents  of  not  allocating  the<br \/>\n      petitioners to the category of Unarmed  Police  Constable<br \/>\n      in  spite  of  the  fact that the petitioners are, in all<br \/>\n      respects, satisfying all the criteria for being allocated<br \/>\n      to the category of Unarmed Police Constable and are ahead<br \/>\n      in the merit list  prepared  for  recruitment  to  Police<br \/>\n      Constables  ,  of  some  of  the  persons  who  have been<br \/>\n      allocated in the Unarmed Police Constable category.   Out<br \/>\n      of  these  four  matters,  three  arise  from Banaskantha<br \/>\n      District and one from Kutch District.    In  the  special<br \/>\n      civil   applications   No.10594\/99   and   special  civil<br \/>\n      application No.3061\/98, the petitioners are  praying  for<br \/>\n      their  allocation on the post of Unarmed Police Constable<br \/>\n      whereas in other petitions, the petitioners therein  have<br \/>\n      come  up  before  this Court with the grievance that they<br \/>\n      may not be sent as Armed Police Constable.   In  view  of<br \/>\n      the  admitted  facts it is not necessary to digest on the<br \/>\n      facts of these cases in detail.\n<\/p>\n<p>       4. It  is not in dispute between the learned counsel<br \/>\n      for the parties that recruitment to the post of Armed and<br \/>\n      Unarmed Police Constables is to  be  made  in  accordance<br \/>\n      with  the  recruitment  rules  by  a  common recruitment.<br \/>\n      However these two i.e.Unarmed and Armed Police Constables<br \/>\n      are separate and distinct categories.  It is also not  in<br \/>\n      dispute   that   these  posts  are  not  interchangeable.<br \/>\n      Learned counsel for the parties are further in  agreement<br \/>\n      that  the  training  programme  for  these  two  posts is<br \/>\n      different.  The  syllabus  for  written  examination  for<br \/>\n      confirmation on these two posts during training period is<br \/>\n      also to  certain extent different.  So it is a case where<br \/>\n      these   two   are   separate   posts   which   are    not<br \/>\n      interchangeable.    So  also  avenues  of  promotion  are<br \/>\n      separately provided.  However, the recruitment has to  be<br \/>\n      made by  a  common  selection.    Learned counsel for the<br \/>\n      parties are in agreement that the candidates have to give<br \/>\n      option whether they want to go to the category of Unarmed<br \/>\n      constable  or  Armed  Constable  and  they  have  to   be<br \/>\n      allocated  to the Armed or Unarmed Constable category, as<br \/>\n      far as possible, as per their option  but  as  per  their<br \/>\n      merit.   It is to be made clear that if a candidate gives<br \/>\n      option for Unarmed Police Constable but another candidate<br \/>\n      who is higher in merits has also opted for this  category<br \/>\n      then  the  person  at  lower  in merits will not get this<br \/>\n      category and he has to go to  Armed  Constable  category.<br \/>\n      In  the  first  set  of petitions, the petitioners, 12 in<br \/>\n      number, who have come up  before  this  Court  for  their<br \/>\n      allocation  to  Unarmed  Police  Constable  category  are<br \/>\n      represented by Shri Y.N.  Oza, Sr.  Advocate assisted  by<br \/>\n      Shri Nirzar S.   Desai, advocate.  The 17 persons who are<br \/>\n      the petitioners in other set are represented by Shri I.S.<br \/>\n      Supehia, advocate who are  allocated  as  Unarmed  Police<br \/>\n      Constables  and  when  they are sought to be allocated as<br \/>\n      Armed Constables have filed the petitions.   It  is  also<br \/>\n      not in  dispute  that  all the petitioners, i.e.  12 have<br \/>\n      been confirmed as Armed Police  Constables  and  17  have<br \/>\n      been confirmed  as  Unarmed  Police  Constable.  There is<br \/>\n      consensus amongst the advocates appearing for the parties<br \/>\n      that these petitions have been filed by  the  petitioners<br \/>\n      only  after  they  have  been  confirmed  on  the post of<br \/>\n      Unarmed or  Armed  category,  as  the  case  may  be,  on<br \/>\n      completion  of  their  training  and  on  passing  of the<br \/>\n      examination.\n<\/p>\n<p>       5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in  one  set<br \/>\n      of petitions, Shri  Y.N.    Oza, Sr.  Advocate, contended<br \/>\n      that  in  this  case  while  making  allocation  of   the<br \/>\n      candidates  for  Unarmed  Police  Constable,  merits  and<br \/>\n      options given by the  meritorious  candidates  have  been<br \/>\n      given total  go-bye.   The petitioners, 12 in number, are<br \/>\n      placed at higher in number than  17  petitioners  in  the<br \/>\n      other set  of  petitions in common select list.  These 12<br \/>\n      petitioners have given option for  their  appointment  as<br \/>\n      Unarmed  Police Constables but ignoring their options and<br \/>\n      merits, 17 petitioners in other  set  of  petitions  were<br \/>\n      posted as   Unarmed   Police   Constables.      These  12<br \/>\n      petitioners were posted as Armed Police Constables.  This<br \/>\n      is  what,  Shri  Oza  contended,  is  contrary   to   the<br \/>\n      provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>       6. Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents, State of<br \/>\n      Gujarat, Home Department and Police Department, and  Shri<br \/>\n      I.S.  Supehia, appearing for the petitioners in other set<br \/>\n      of  petitions,  in  contra  contended that the 17 persons<br \/>\n      were given posting as Unarmed Police Constables  as  they<br \/>\n      were  Graduates  as  Unarmed Police Constables have to do<br \/>\n      written work where more qualified  persons  are  required<br \/>\n      and  though  they were lower in merits in the merit list,<br \/>\n      have been preferred and  allocated  to  the  category  of<br \/>\n      Unarmed Police Constables.\n<\/p>\n<p>       7. I have given my thoughtful consideration  to  the<br \/>\n      submissions  made by the learned counsel for the parties.<br \/>\n      The weightage to educational qualifications may be  given<br \/>\n      while preparing  the  merit  list.  It is not the case of<br \/>\n      the learned counsel Shri I.S.  Supehia that  his  clients<br \/>\n      (17  petitioners  in the petitions filed by him) acquired<br \/>\n      this higher qualification after their  selection.    They<br \/>\n      were  possessing  this  qualification on the day on which<br \/>\n      they applied  for  the  post  and  merit  list  has  been<br \/>\n      prepared.  It is difficult to accept that while preparing<br \/>\n      the  merit  list,  the Selection Committee would not have<br \/>\n      been known of and taken note of this higher qualification<br \/>\n      possessed by  these  persons.    The  petitioner,  17  in<br \/>\n      number, represented  by  Shri I.S.  Supehia, were despite<br \/>\n      of possessing this qualification were placed at lower  in<br \/>\n      number  than  the  petitioners,  12  in  number,  who are<br \/>\n      represented by Shri Y.N.  Oza,  Sr.    Advocate,  and  so<br \/>\n      whatever  weightage could have been given for this higher<br \/>\n      qualification would have been  given  at  that  point  of<br \/>\n      time.   After  preparation  of  the  selection  list,  no<br \/>\n      weightage can  be  given  of  this  higher  qualification<br \/>\n      possessed by these  persons.    That stage has gone.  The<br \/>\n      allocation of the selected candidates has to be  made  in<br \/>\n      order of  their  merits  as  per  their  options.   If 12<br \/>\n      petitioners who stand at  higher  merits  than  these  17<br \/>\n      petitioners  in  second  set  of  petitions and opted for<br \/>\n      Unarmed Constables, should  have  been  given  the  posts<br \/>\n      accordingly.   The action of the State of Gujarat and its<br \/>\n      Officers in Police Department to give  weightage  to  the<br \/>\n      qualification possessed  by the petitioners, i.e.  the 17<br \/>\n      petitioners, ignoring the  merits  and  posting  them  as<br \/>\n      Unarmed   Police   constable   is  wholly  arbitrary  and<br \/>\n      unjustified and violative of Articles 14 and  16  of  the<br \/>\n      Constitution.    There  is  all  possibility  that  these<br \/>\n      persons  are  favoured  by  the   Department   for   some<br \/>\n      consideration or  for  undisclosed  reasons.  The grounds<br \/>\n      given for  favouring  these  persons  in  the  matter  of<br \/>\n      allocation   to  them  on  the  post  of  Unarmed  Police<br \/>\n      Constables is  not  tenable  in  the  eye  of  law.    No<br \/>\n      weightage   could   have   been  given  for  this  higher<br \/>\n      qualification  in  the   matter   of   allocation   after<br \/>\n      preparation of  the  final panel\/merit list.  This action<br \/>\n      of the State of Gujarat  and  its  officers  to  allocate<br \/>\n      these  17 petitioners as Unarmed Police Constables cannot<br \/>\n      be allowed to stand.\n<\/p>\n<p>       8. Shri I.S.  Supehia,  learned  counsel  for  these<br \/>\n      petitioners  contended that these petitions deserve to be<br \/>\n      dismissed only on the ground of delay  and  laches.    In<br \/>\n      support  of  this  contention,  he placed reliance on the<br \/>\n      decision of the Apex Court  in  the  case  of  <a href=\"\/doc\/20762\/\">Ramchandra<br \/>\n      Shankar Deodhar and  Ors.  vs.  State of Maharashtra and Ors.<\/a><br \/>\n      reported in AIR 1974  SC  259.    He  contended  that  by<br \/>\n      allocation   of   these  petitioners  as  Unarmed  Police<br \/>\n      Constable they acquired a right to continue on the  post.<br \/>\n      It  is  further  stated  that  by  this reshuffling their<br \/>\n      accrued rights on the post of  Unarmed  Police  Constable<br \/>\n      will be  disturbed.  In his submission, it will result in<br \/>\n      causing serious prejudice to these petitioners  and  they<br \/>\n      will  be  put  to  risk  of termination of their services<br \/>\n      because  they  have  to   undergo   training   and   pass<br \/>\n      examination   during   the   training  for  Armed  Police<br \/>\n      Constable for which a separate syllabus is there.  In his<br \/>\n      submission, the petitioners have  already  undergone  the<br \/>\n      training  and  passed  the examination for Unarmed Police<br \/>\n      Constable and by virtue  of  that  they  have  also  been<br \/>\n      confirmed in  that  category.    By  their  transfer this<br \/>\n      confirmation shall go.\n<\/p>\n<p>       9. I  find  merits  in some of the grievance made by<br \/>\n      the learned counsel for  these  17  petitioners  but  the<br \/>\n      contention  raised  for dismissal of the petitions on the<br \/>\n      ground of delay and laches is difficult to accept.  It is<br \/>\n      not in dispute that both set of the petitioners  are  now<br \/>\n      Armed Constables.    They  have come up before this Court<br \/>\n      after considerable  delay.    It  is  a   modus-operandi,<br \/>\n      particularly,  in  the  Police Department where employees<br \/>\n      and officers first take all their  service  benefits  and<br \/>\n      then they  make  the  claim for other benefits.  They are<br \/>\n      very calculated in their approach and that is  what  they<br \/>\n      did in  the  present  case  also.    Both  these  sets of<br \/>\n      petitioners have not raised any voice till they completed<br \/>\n      their training, passed  the  examination  and  have  been<br \/>\n      confirmed on  the post.  Thereafter they started to raise<br \/>\n      their claim for their appointments as  Unarmed  or  Armed<br \/>\n      Constables, as  the  case  may be.  Otherwise also, these<br \/>\n      matters have been admitted.  Both  the  counsel  for  the<br \/>\n      parties made  arguments  on  merits.   It is a case where<br \/>\n      grievance has been made that the appointing authority has<br \/>\n      given total go-bye to the merits  of  the  candidates  in<br \/>\n      selection  and  on  their whims and wishes they have made<br \/>\n      the appointments.  Delay in  every  case  may  not  be  a<br \/>\n      ground for  dismissal of the petition.  These two matters<br \/>\n      cannot be dismissed only on the ground of delay.   It  is<br \/>\n      also  important  to consider by the Court while examining<br \/>\n      the plea taken by the other side  for  dismissal  of  the<br \/>\n      petition  on  the  ground of delay and laches whether the<br \/>\n      petitioners have any case on merits  or  not.    In  this<br \/>\n      case,   the   petitioners  who  are  claiming  for  their<br \/>\n      appointment as Unarmed Police Constables have strong case<br \/>\n      on merits and in case this delay is taken to be fatal and<br \/>\n      the petitions are dismissed it will certainly  result  in<br \/>\n      not  only  causing prejudice to them but a seal to be put<br \/>\n      on unconstitutional and illegal action of the respondents<br \/>\n      to give total go-bye to the merits of the candidates.\n<\/p>\n<p>        As stated earlier,  the  training  programme  and<br \/>\n      syllabus   for   the  examination  for  these  posts  are<br \/>\n      different.  These persons  have  already  been  confirmed<br \/>\n      after  successfully  undergoing  the training and passing<br \/>\n      the examination in the cadre of Unarmed Police Constable.<br \/>\n      Now by their transfer to the  category  of  Armed  Police<br \/>\n      Constable  they have to undergo the training and pass the<br \/>\n      examination and there may be possibility of their failure<br \/>\n      in the training or the examination and  as  a  result  of<br \/>\n      which, their  termination of the services.  However, Shri<br \/>\n      S.P.  Hasurkar,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents,<br \/>\n      State  of Gujarat and its Officers, very fairly submitted<br \/>\n      that this Court may give direction that these persons  on<br \/>\n      their  allocation  to Armed Police Constable category, be<br \/>\n      exempted from undergoing the training and passing of  the<br \/>\n      examination.\n<\/p>\n<p>       10. Shri Supehia then made  another  contention  that<br \/>\n      these  petitioners, 17 in number, will suffer the loss of<br \/>\n      seniority.  Shri Hasurkar  made  a  statement  that  this<br \/>\n      Court may also give direction to protect their seniority.\n<\/p>\n<p>       11. Shri Supehia, learned counsel then submitted that<br \/>\n      in L.P.A.   filed against the interlocutory orders passed<br \/>\n      in these matters, the Division Bench has given  out  that<br \/>\n      some  solution  may  be found out by the State of Gujarat<br \/>\n      and its Officers so that all the petitioners 12 + 17  may<br \/>\n      continue as  Unarmed  Police  Constables.    The separate<br \/>\n      cadres are there of  Unarmed  and  Armed  Constables  and<br \/>\n      accordingly   the  merits  have  been  determined  though<br \/>\n      combined recruitment is made but allocation of candidates<br \/>\n      is to be made to the extent of posts available  in  these<br \/>\n      two categories.    In  case  what it is suggested by Shri<br \/>\n      Supehia is accepted then the posts exceeding  the  number<br \/>\n      of posts available of Unarmed Police Constables are to be<br \/>\n      filled in, meaning thereby, there will be excess posts in<br \/>\n      Armed  Police Constable category and then that posts will<br \/>\n      have to be filled in by giving  fresh  advertisement  and<br \/>\n      merely  because  these  two category persons are fighting<br \/>\n      these posts  cannot  be  permitted  to  be  exhausted  by<br \/>\n      adjusting these persons.  This is an illegality committed<br \/>\n      by   the   respondent   &#8211;   State   of  Gujarat  and  its<br \/>\n      functionaries and for which it cannot come as a  gift  or<br \/>\n      lottery  to  these  persons  and they cannot be permitted<br \/>\n      more  so  when  their  services  are  not  likely  to  be<br \/>\n      terminated  and  whatever  apprehension  which  has  been<br \/>\n      shown, will no more be there as this Court  will  protect<br \/>\n      all of their service conditions.  Secondly, in case, such<br \/>\n      a  course  is  adopted then it will give licence and free<br \/>\n      hand and liberty to the Officers of the Police Department<br \/>\n      to act contrary to  the  recruitment  rules  as  well  as<br \/>\n      constitutional  provisions and make appointment in excess<br \/>\n      of posts  available  of  one  category.    There  is   an<br \/>\n      attraction  amongst  the  candidates  to  go  for Unarmed<br \/>\n      Police  Constable   in   preference   to   Armed   Police<br \/>\n      Constables.   The  incentives and attraction for the post<br \/>\n      of Unarmed Police Constable is a  matter  of  realisation<br \/>\n      and not  for  discussion.    However,  any  action of the<br \/>\n      respondents which is contrary  to  recruitment  rules  as<br \/>\n      well  as the constitutional provisions and which has also<br \/>\n      been done in total ignorance of merits of the candidates,<br \/>\n      cannot be allowed to stand, otherwise it will  result  in<br \/>\n      perpetuating illegality.    Delay  is  certainly there in<br \/>\n      approaching to this Court by these 12 constables  but  if<br \/>\n      we  go  by  this  delay  and  illegality committed by the<br \/>\n      authorities and the benefit which these 17 candidates got<br \/>\n      and more so there may not be any endanger to any of their<br \/>\n      service conditions which the Court is going  to  protect,<br \/>\n      only on this ground, this petition cannot be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>       12. In  the  result,  the  special civil applications<br \/>\n      No.10594\/99 and 3061\/98 succeed and the same are allowed.<br \/>\n      It is hereby declared that the petitioners therein are to<br \/>\n      be posted as Unarmed Police Constables.  As a  result  of<br \/>\n      this   declaration,   the   special   civil  applications<br \/>\n      No.6432\/2000 and 7403\/2000 are dismissed.  However, it is<br \/>\n      made clear that the 12 petitioners in the  first  set  of<br \/>\n      petitions  and  17  petitioners  in  the  second  set  of<br \/>\n      petitions who are  to  be  posted  now  as  Armed  Police<br \/>\n      Constables and Unarmed Police Constables respectively are<br \/>\n      not required to undergo training and pass the examination<br \/>\n      for the cadre for which they are now to be posted in case<br \/>\n      they  have  already undergone the training and passed the<br \/>\n      examination for the category in which they were initially<br \/>\n      appointed.  It is also made clear that the  seniority  in<br \/>\n      the   respective  cadres  of  Armed  and  Unarmed  Police<br \/>\n      Constables where they have to be posted  now  has  to  be<br \/>\n      counted from  their initial date of appointment.  Rule in<br \/>\n      the special civil application Nos.  10594\/99 and  3061\/98<br \/>\n      is  made  absolute  accordingly  and  in  the  two  other<br \/>\n      petitions it is discharged.   The  parties  are  to  bear<br \/>\n      their own costs.  The respondent-State of Gujarat and its<br \/>\n      Officers  are  directed  to  pass consequential orders of<br \/>\n      posting of these petitioners i.e.  17 petitioners in  the<br \/>\n      first  set  of petitions as Unarmed Police Constables and<br \/>\n      12 petitioners in  second  set  of  petitioner  as  Armed<br \/>\n      Police  Constables  within a period of one month from the<br \/>\n      date of receipt of writ of this order.  Further orders as<br \/>\n      to exempting these persons from undergoing  training  and<br \/>\n      passing   of   the   examination   may   also  be  passed<br \/>\n      simultaneously.  Next order to protect their seniority is<br \/>\n      also to be made.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Prakashchand Jogaram Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000 Author: S Keshote Bench: S Keshote JUDGMENT S.K. Keshote, J. 1. These are two sets of petitions. In fact one set is counter to the other. The parties are also common and the matters relate to the same controversy and as [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129817","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Prakashchand Jogaram Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000 - 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\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prakashchand Jogaram Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-05T11:27:11+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prakashchand Jogaram Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-05T11:27:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2653,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000\",\"name\":\"Prakashchand Jogaram Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-05T11:27:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prakashchand Jogaram Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Prakashchand Jogaram Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000 - 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\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prakashchand Jogaram Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-05T11:27:11+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prakashchand Jogaram Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000","datePublished":"2000-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-05T11:27:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000"},"wordCount":2653,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000","name":"Prakashchand Jogaram Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-05T11:27:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakashchand-jogaram-prajapati-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-19-october-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prakashchand Jogaram Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2000"}]},{"@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\/129817","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=129817"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129817\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}