{"id":131140,"date":"2009-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-22T08:50:12","modified_gmt":"2019-03-22T03:20:12","slug":"union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India Thr.Inder Mohan vs Ram Nandan Singh &amp; Anr on 21 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India Thr.Inder Mohan vs Ram Nandan Singh &amp; Anr on 21 August, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                              W.P.(S) No. 5908 of 2008\n                                        ----\n               Union of India through Inder Mohan      ...            Petitioner\n                                      -Versus-\n               Ram Nandan Singh &amp; another.             ...            Respondents\n                                        ----\n               CORAM :        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y.EQBAL\n                              HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY\n                                        ----\n               For the Petitioner   :     Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan\n               For the Respondents :      M\/s Rajiv Ranjan &amp; A.K.Tiwari.\n                                        ----\n\n               Date of CAV :17.8.2009      Date of pronouncement:21.8.2009\n                                          ----\n\nM.Y.Eqbal,J:         By this writ petition, the petitioner, Union of India, Central\n\n               Ground Water Board Division has challenged the order dated\n\n               15.5.2008<\/pre>\n<p> passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna<\/p>\n<p>               Bench (Circuit Court, Ranchi) in O.A.No.194\/2005, whereby the<\/p>\n<p>               Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondents and<\/p>\n<p>               issued direction to the petitioner to complete the process of<\/p>\n<p>               selection initiated under Notification dated 2\/8th January,1999 for<\/p>\n<p>               the post of Technical Operator and Cleaner and if the respondents<\/p>\n<p>               have been found suitable, they should further be considered for<\/p>\n<p>               appointment to the post in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>               2.    The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.\n<\/p>\n<p>                     The petitioner, by advertisement published in the year 1999,<\/p>\n<p>               invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the<\/p>\n<p>               post of technical operator and cleaner. After screening of the<\/p>\n<p>               applications   the   respondents   and   other   candidates    were<\/p>\n<p>               interviewed. However, in the meantime, by letter issued by the<\/p>\n<p>               Central Headquarter, Central Ground Water Board, Faridabad, the<\/p>\n<p>               recruitment of the above posts were withdrawn. Hence further<\/p>\n<p>               recruitment process was kept in abeyance. The respondents<\/p>\n<p>               approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.232\/2001, which was<\/p>\n<p>               disposed of on 18.9.2003 with a direction to the petitioner to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                             2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>reconsider their respective cases. By subsequent application filed<\/p>\n<p>by the respondents, liberty was given to approach the Tribunal by<\/p>\n<p>filing a fresh application. Therefore, the respondents moved the<\/p>\n<p>Tribunal again by filing the aforementioned O.A.No.194\/2005.<\/p>\n<p>3.    The case of the petitioner, Union of India is that the Central<\/p>\n<p>Authority put a ban on filling up all the vacant post without the<\/p>\n<p>approval of Ministry of Finance. Subsequently by letter dated<\/p>\n<p>16.4.2004 the Central Headquarter informed that all the vacant<\/p>\n<p>posts pertaining to the period prior to 16.5.2000 were abolished by<\/p>\n<p>the Ministry and formal order was issued on 1.4.2004. The<\/p>\n<p>respondents were accordingly informed in 2004 about abolition of<\/p>\n<p>the post. The Tribunal held that the petitioner simply stopped the<\/p>\n<p>further process of appointment, already initiated and persons were<\/p>\n<p>interviewed. Accordingly, the Tribunal issued direction by the<\/p>\n<p>impugned order to publish the result and to make appointment. For<\/p>\n<p>better appreciation concluding para 6 of the impugned order is<\/p>\n<p>reproduced herein below:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                     &#8220;6. Coming to the reliance place by the respondents<br \/>\n             on Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department<br \/>\n             of Expenditure, Office Memorandum dated 5.8.1999, we<br \/>\n             note that the ban was put on creation of Plan and Non-Plan<br \/>\n             Posts by Para 1 of the said OM. However, para 2 of the said<br \/>\n             OM, which stipulates with &#8220;Ban on filling up of vacant<br \/>\n             posts&#8221;, clarifies that till the review as desired under the said<br \/>\n             OM was completed, no vacant posts should be filled up<br \/>\n             except with the approval of the Ministry of Finance<br \/>\n             (Department of Expenditure). It is thus evident from the<br \/>\n             reading of the above said OM dated 5.8.1999 that the<br \/>\n             process of selection which was started by the respondents,<br \/>\n             on their own showing on 2\/8 January 1999, could have<br \/>\n             been very well continued with the approval of Ministry of<br \/>\n             Finance. Admittedly, this has not been done by the<br \/>\n             respondents in the present case and they have simply<br \/>\n             stopped the further process of appointment which was<br \/>\n             initiated under the said notification dated 2\/8 January 1999<br \/>\n             before the OM dated 5.8.1999 by the Ministry of Finance<br \/>\n             was issued. In the circumstances, we quash and set aside<br \/>\n             the impugned order dated 7.5.2004 which has been passed<br \/>\n             by the respondents pursuant to order dated 18.09.2003<br \/>\n             passed by this Tribunal in OA No.24\/2002 and 232\/2001<br \/>\n             filed by both the applicants respectively. We further direct<br \/>\n             the respondents to complete the process of selection<br \/>\n             initiated under the Notification dated 2\/8 January 1999 for<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>             the post of Technical Operator (M) and Cleaner, as far as,<br \/>\n             two posts meant for the general category are concerned by<br \/>\n             publishing the result and in case the applicants are found<br \/>\n             suitable and fit, they should be further considered for<br \/>\n             formal appointment to the post in question. This exercise<br \/>\n             shall be done within a period of three months from the date<br \/>\n             of receipt of certified copy of this order.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>4.    We have heard Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned Standing counsel<\/p>\n<p>Central Government, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv<\/p>\n<p>Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.    In the background of the aforesaid fact, the only question<\/p>\n<p>that falls for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was<\/p>\n<p>justified in issuing such direction upon the respondents for<\/p>\n<p>publishing the result and for making appointments.<\/p>\n<p>6.    The law with regard to the aforesaid question is no longer<\/p>\n<p>res intengra. A candidate, making application for a post pursuant to<\/p>\n<p>an advertisement, does not acquire any vested right of selection<\/p>\n<p>and a court or Tribunal cannot issue mandamus directing the<\/p>\n<p>authority to make appointment.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.    In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/284979\/\">Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh<\/p>\n<p>Singh,<\/a> [(1993) 1 SCC 154] the Supreme Court observed:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                 &#8221; 12. If we have regard to the above enunciation that a<br \/>\n             candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate<br \/>\n             selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an<br \/>\n             indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the<br \/>\n             absence of any specific rule entitling him for such<br \/>\n             appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-<br \/>\n             appointment only when the Administration does so either<br \/>\n             arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a<br \/>\n             necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a<br \/>\n             legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due<br \/>\n             to his name finding a place in the select list of candidates,<br \/>\n             cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select<br \/>\n             list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not<br \/>\n             arbitrarily. ..&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.    In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/736324\/\">All India SC and ST Employees Association vs.<\/p>\n<p>A.Arthur Jeen,<\/a> 2001 AIR SCW 1720, the Supreme Court observed :<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                              4<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>           &#8220;10. Merely because the names of the candidates were included<br \/>\n       in the panel indicating their provisional selection, they did not<br \/>\n       acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even against the<br \/>\n       existing vacancies and the State is under no legal duty to fill up all<br \/>\n       or any of the vacancies as laid down by the Constitution Bench of<br \/>\n       this Court, after referring to earlier cases in <a href=\"\/doc\/982107\/\">Shankarsan Dash v.<br \/>\n       Union of India<\/a> (1991) 3 SCC 47: (1991 AIR SCW 1583 : AIR<br \/>\n       1991 SC 1612 : 1991 Lab IC 1460). Para 7 of the said judgment<br \/>\n       reads thus: &#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are<br \/>\n           notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates<br \/>\n           are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible<br \/>\n           right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied.<br \/>\n           Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to<br \/>\n           qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their<br \/>\n           selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the<br \/>\n           relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no<br \/>\n           legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it<br \/>\n           does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an<br \/>\n           arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has<br \/>\n           to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the<br \/>\n           vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to<br \/>\n           respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at<br \/>\n           the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.<br \/>\n           This correct position has been consistently followed by this<br \/>\n           Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions<br \/>\n           in <a href=\"\/doc\/470118\/\">State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha<\/a> (1974) 3<br \/>\n           SCC220 : (AIR 1973 SC 2216 : 1974 Lab IC 1212; <a href=\"\/doc\/1049711\/\">Neelima<br \/>\n           Shangla v. State of Haryana<\/a> (1986)4 SCC 268: (AIR 1987 SC<br \/>\n           169 : 1987 Lab IC 34 or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab<br \/>\n           (1985) 1 SCC 122 : (AIR 1984 SC 1850).&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>9.     In the instant case, it appears that the Government of India,<\/p>\n<p>Ministry of Personnel Department, elaborately assigned reasons for<\/p>\n<p>putting ban on appointment to such post. It further appears that<\/p>\n<p>the petitioner earlier approached the Tribunal for the self same<\/p>\n<p>relief and the Tribunal in stead of issuing any direction for making<\/p>\n<p>appointment, simply directed the petitioner to look into the matter<\/p>\n<p>and take a decision by intimating the concerned local officers for<\/p>\n<p>communication to the candidates. In compliance of the aforesaid<\/p>\n<p>direction the petitioner, Union of India, by assigning reasons,<\/p>\n<p>informed    the   officers   of   the    concerned      Department      that<\/p>\n<p>appointment could not be made without the approval of the<\/p>\n<p>Finance Department. In such circumstances, we are of the view<\/p>\n<p>that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing direction to the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner, Union of India to complete the process of selection and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>         to make appointment. Hence, the said direction given in the<\/p>\n<p>         impugned order cannot be sustained in law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>         10.   For the reasons aforesaid, this application is allowed and the<\/p>\n<p>         impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. However, it is<\/p>\n<p>         observed that in the event any advertisement is made in future for<\/p>\n<p>         appointment to the said post, the cases of the respondents shall<\/p>\n<p>         also be considered along with others.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<pre>\n\n\n\n                                                        ( M.Y.Eqbal, J. )\n\n\n\n           (Jaya Roy,J:)                                   ( Jaya Roy, J. )\n\n\n\nPandey\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Union Of India Thr.Inder Mohan vs Ram Nandan Singh &amp; Anr on 21 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5908 of 2008 &#8212;- Union of India through Inder Mohan &#8230; Petitioner -Versus- Ram Nandan Singh &amp; another. &#8230; Respondents &#8212;- CORAM : HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y.EQBAL [&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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131140","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Union Of India Thr.Inder Mohan vs Ram Nandan Singh &amp; Anr on 21 August, 2009 - 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-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India Thr.Inder Mohan vs Ram Nandan Singh &amp; Anr on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-22T03:20:12+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=\"8 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-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India Thr.Inder Mohan vs Ram Nandan Singh &amp; Anr on 21 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-22T03:20:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1443,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Union Of India Thr.Inder Mohan vs Ram Nandan Singh &amp; Anr on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-22T03:20:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India Thr.Inder Mohan vs Ram Nandan Singh &amp; Anr on 21 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India Thr.Inder Mohan vs Ram Nandan Singh &amp; Anr on 21 August, 2009 - 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-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India Thr.Inder Mohan vs Ram Nandan Singh &amp; Anr on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-22T03:20:12+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India Thr.Inder Mohan vs Ram Nandan Singh &amp; Anr on 21 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-22T03:20:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009"},"wordCount":1443,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009","name":"Union Of India Thr.Inder Mohan vs Ram Nandan Singh &amp; Anr on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-22T03:20:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inder-mohan-vs-ram-nandan-singh-anr-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India Thr.Inder Mohan vs Ram Nandan Singh &amp; Anr on 21 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/131140","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=131140"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131140\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131140"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}