{"id":13414,"date":"2008-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-09-19T00:46:02","modified_gmt":"2015-09-18T19:16:02","slug":"gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gordhan Meghwal vs State & Ors on 8 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Gordhan Meghwal vs State & Ors on 8 July, 2008<\/div>\n
                                   1\n\n   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                       AT JODHPUR\n\n\n\n                            O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
        S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1127\/2006
\n  (Gordhan Meghwal & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)<\/p>\n
                   Date of order        :      8.7.2008<\/p>\n
      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS<\/p>\n
Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. N.M. Lodha, Addl. Advocate General.
\nMr. Sanjeev Johri, for respondent No.2.<\/p>\n
            Heard learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
            In     this    case,   the      petitioners      low    paid<\/p>\n
employees     of     respondent        Urban     Improvement       Trust,<\/p>\n
Jodhpur are challenging the order of reversion dated<\/p>\n
23.2.2006, which is said to be a resolution passed by<\/p>\n
the Departmental Promotion Committee in which it was<\/p>\n
decided to revert the petitioners from the post of<\/p>\n
electrician\/wiremen to the post of Gang-man.<\/p>\n
            It is contended by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners        that    the     petitioners        were     granted<\/p>\n
promotion     on     the   post    of       electrician\/wiremen       on
\n                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
regular     basis      vide        order       dated      13.5.1997.          Upon<\/p>\n
perusal of promotion order, it is nowhere stated that<\/p>\n
the    posts    upon       which    the       petitioners      were    promoted<\/p>\n
were   temporary       in     nature       and     required     any    sanction<\/p>\n
from the Government.                More so, these promotion were<\/p>\n
made    after     financial         sanction        as    evident     from     the<\/p>\n
order itself.         Thus, the petitioners were promoted and<\/p>\n
granted     the       pay     scale           of   promotional        post      of<\/p>\n
electrician\/wireman.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently<\/p>\n
argued that earlier for grant of permanent and semi<\/p>\n
permanent status, an industries dispute was raised by<\/p>\n
the petitioner and that dispute was decided in favour<\/p>\n
of the petitioners vide award dated 25.9.2000 by the<\/p>\n
Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur.                      In pursuance of that,<\/p>\n
the    petitioners          were     granted         semi      permanent       and<\/p>\n
permanent status.            The case of the petitioners is that<\/p>\n
they    were    eligible       for     promotion          on   the    posts     of<\/p>\n
electrician          and    wiremen.               Therefore,        after     due<\/p>\n
consideration of their qualification and experience,<\/p>\n
they were granted promotion on their respective posts<\/p>\n
in the year 1997 and they are holding the posts since<\/p>\n
13.5.1997.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               It is also contended that Urban Improvement<\/p>\n
Trust, Jodhpur is an autonomous body and creation and<\/p>\n
abolition       of    posts    is     within        the    domain     of     Urban<\/p>\n
Improvement Trust and there is no requirement of any
\n                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
rule to get any sanction from the Government prior to<\/p>\n
granting promotion and for creating any vacancy by the<\/p>\n
autonomous        body,        therefore,          on      13.5.1997,         the<\/p>\n
promotion    order       was    issued       in    which    it    is    nowhere<\/p>\n
stated     that     the        petitioners          have       been     granted<\/p>\n
promotion     on    temporary        basis         or    any     sanction     is<\/p>\n
required for promotion from the Government.                             Meaning<\/p>\n
thereby, the service conditions of the petitioners are<\/p>\n
required to be governed by the terms and conditions of<\/p>\n
the appointment order and in the order of promotion of<\/p>\n
the   petitioners         there     is      no     such    restriction         or<\/p>\n
condition mentioned for obtaining any sanction.<\/p>\n
            According          to   the     learned       counsel       for   the<\/p>\n
petitioners       though       promotions         were    made    on    regular<\/p>\n
basis as per requirement of U.I.T. but one Sher Khan<\/p>\n
preferred a writ petition before Hon’ble High Court<\/p>\n
against    the     award       passed       by    Judge,       Labour    Court,<\/p>\n
Jodhpur wherein this Hon’ble High Court has passed an<\/p>\n
order on 20.4.2005 whereby direction was issued that<\/p>\n
the case of Sher Khan may be considered for promotion<\/p>\n
w.e.f. 13.5.1997 and his suitability on the post of<\/p>\n
electrician and wireman may be adjudged.                         According to<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioners, for compliance of<\/p>\n
the said directions issued by this Hon’ble High Court,<\/p>\n
the case of Sher Khan was considered and on illegal<\/p>\n
grounds,    it     has     been     resolved        in     the    meeting      of<\/p>\n
Departmental       Promotion        Committee       that       the    order    of<\/p>\n
promotion     of    the     petitioners            dated       13.5.1997      was
\n                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
against      the          law.         Upon     perusal        of    the     resolution<\/p>\n
passed by D.P.C., it is obvious that the D.P.C. has<\/p>\n
illegally         observed             that        the     day       on     which        the<\/p>\n
petitioners were promoted, there was no sanction for<\/p>\n
creation         of        the        post     by    the         State     Government,<\/p>\n
therefore, the promotion were made contrary to law and<\/p>\n
without sanction of the State Government.<\/p>\n
                 In pursuance of the specific query made by<\/p>\n
this     Court,             learned          Additional          Advocate         General<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of State has placed on record the<\/p>\n
communication              dated       23.11.2006         in     which      a    specific<\/p>\n
assertion has been made by Dy. Secretary, which is as<\/p>\n
follows      :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                           \"\u0930 \u091c       \u0938\u0930\u0915 \u0930 \u0915 \u092a\u0938 \u0935 \u092a\u0937               \u0915\u0930\u0928 \u0938 \u092a\u0935 \u0907\u0928\n       \u0915\u0930\u091a \u0930\u0930          \u0915        \u0917     , \u092a \u0924 , \u0935\u0930\u0930\u0937         \u090f\u0935 \u092a\u0926 \u0928\u0928\u0924       \u091a\"\u0928\u0932 \u0915\n       \u0924\u0928 \u0930 \u0928$\u0938 \u0930 \u092a\u0930%\u0915\u0923 \u0915\u0915                   \u0937)\u0928    \u092a\u0926 \u0938*\u091c\u0928 \u0915 \u092a\u0938 \u0935 \u0930 \u091c\n       \u0938\u0930\u0915 \u0930 \u0915 \u092a\u0937                \u0915\u0915    \u0939\" \u091c \u0924\u0928 \u0930 \u0928$\u0938 \u0930 \u0909\u0924\u091a          \u0928\u0939% \u0939\" \u0930 \u0928\u0928.\n       \u0909\u091a\u091a \u0928           \u0932       \u0926 \u0930 \u092a\u0926\u0924 \u0906\u0926\u0936 \u0915 \u092a \u0932\u0928 \u0938\u0930                     \u092a\u0930 \u0938$\u0924\u0928\u09365\n       \u0915\u0930\u0928 \u0906\u0935\u0936 \u0915 \u0939\" \u0964\n\n\n                 \u0905 : \u0909\u0915 \u092a\u0915\u0930\u0923 \u0930: \u092a\u0926                   \u0915 \u0938*\u091c\u0928 \u0939 $ \u0924\u0928 \u0930 \u0928$\u0938 \u0930\n       \u092a\u0924 ,           \u0917         \u090f\u0935 \u0935\u0930\u0930\u0937       \u090f\u0935 \u092a\u0926 \u0928\u0928\u0924     \u091a\"\u0928\u0932 \u0915 \u092a\u0930\u0930\u0915\u0923 \u0915\u0930\n       \u0909\u0915 \u092a\u0915\u0930\u0923 \u0930: \u0917$\u0923 \u0935\u0917$\u0923 \u092a\u0930 \u0928 \u0938 \u0930\u0923=\u0932 \u0930: \u0924\u0928\u0923                             \u0905\u092a\u0928 \u0938 \u0930\n       \u092a\u0930 \u0932:          \u0924\u092a5        \u0906\u0935\u0936\u0915          \u0939         \u0938\u0935\u092a\u0930\u0930      \u092a\u0938 \u0935 \u0915 \u0938 \u0925\n       \u0938\u0935.\u0915* \u0924    \u0939 $ \u0930\u091c            \u0938\u0930\u0915 \u0930 \u0915 \u092a\u0937       \u0915\u0930 \u0935: \u0964\"\n\n\n\n                 It       is    observed       in   the     communication            dated\n\n23.11.2006            by       the    State     Government          that        U.I.T.    is\n                                        5<\/span>\n\ncompetent     and       having     jurisdiction            to     decide       the\n\n<\/pre>\n
suitability and eligibility of the persons concerned,<\/p>\n
therefore,    as    per        counsel     for     the    petitioners,         the<\/p>\n
reversion    order        of    the    petitioners         Annexure-10          is<\/p>\n
contrary     to     the    basic       principles          of     law.         The<\/p>\n
petitioners were promoted without any condition in the<\/p>\n
promotion order that their promotion is subject to any<\/p>\n
sanction by the State Government or till D.P.C. found<\/p>\n
them suitable for promotion, therefore, at the time of<\/p>\n
considering the case of Shri Sher Khan in compliance<\/p>\n
of order of this Court, the petitioners were illegally<\/p>\n
ordered      to      be        reverted          from      the         post    of<\/p>\n
Electrician\/wireman             upon       which        petitioner’s          were<\/p>\n
promoted in the year 1997.                 The directions were issued<\/p>\n
in Sher Khan’s case for considering his case w.e.f.<\/p>\n
13.5.1997 but at the time of considering case of Sher<\/p>\n
Khan by D.P.C., it is illegally resolved that there<\/p>\n
were no sanctioned post upon which petitioners were<\/p>\n
promoted in the year 1997.                 As per learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner, there was no direction of this Court<\/p>\n
in Sher Khan’s case that all those promotions made<\/p>\n
earlier    may     be     reviewed.          Therefore,          without       any<\/p>\n
jurisdiction, D.P.C. has held that the vacancies were<\/p>\n
not   in     existence          and      petitioners            were     wrongly<\/p>\n
promoted.     More so, the work of D.P.C. was to adjudge<\/p>\n
the suitability of Sher Khan but the D.P.C. reopened<\/p>\n
the promotion case of the petitioners also without any<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.       The D.P.C. was to consider the case of<\/p>\n
Sher Khan only and his suitability was to be adjudged
\n                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
but only to file reply in the contempt petition, all<\/p>\n
the cases of promotion made earlier were reviewed and<\/p>\n
after reviewing past case, it is decided by the D.P.C.<\/p>\n
that    the    promotions           were       not        given     after    getting<\/p>\n
sanction       from      the        State            Government,        therefore,<\/p>\n
promotions are illegal.                    As per learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the    petitioner,        the   case           of     Sher     Khan    was    to     be<\/p>\n
considered      but      illegally,            they        interfered       with    the<\/p>\n
case    of    the     petitioners              by    reviewing        the    earlier<\/p>\n
promotion orders, therefore, the decision of D.P.C.<\/p>\n
with   regard       to   reviewing             the        earlier    promotion       is<\/p>\n
illegal,       therefore,           the        reversion          order      of     the<\/p>\n
petitioners passed by U.I.T. is not in consonance with<\/p>\n
the law.       More so, the promotions were made in the<\/p>\n
year 1997 and in the month of February, 2006, the<\/p>\n
reversion      order      has       been        passed,       meaning       thereby,<\/p>\n
petitioners were allowed to work for more than eight<\/p>\n
years on the promotional posts and meeting of review<\/p>\n
D.P.C. was convened when the order was passed in Sher<\/p>\n
Khan’s writ petition by this Court before that there<\/p>\n
was    no     objection        by    the            U.I.T.     with     regard       to<\/p>\n
promotion of the petitioners, it is no where stated<\/p>\n
that   petitioners’        promotion                was    illegal    so     also    no<\/p>\n
documentary         evidence        has        been       produced     before       the<\/p>\n
Court or explained that the petitioners’ promotions<\/p>\n
were made on adhoc or temporary basis or any sanction<\/p>\n
was required for their promotion.                           For the first time,<\/p>\n
at the time of considering the case of Sher Khan, it<\/p>\n
was    observed       that      the        petitioners              promotion       was
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
illegal for want of sanction, therefore, the impugned<\/p>\n
order of reversion is illegal and there was no valid<\/p>\n
jurisdiction with respondents to review the promotion<\/p>\n
case of the petitioners which was made in the year<\/p>\n
1997.     According      to      petitioners,     the   order   of<\/p>\n
reversion is against the principles of natural justice<\/p>\n
because   it    has     been      passed      without    affording<\/p>\n
opportunity of hearing and without any provision of<\/p>\n
law to review the decision of D.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          Per    contra,      learned   counsel    appearing    on<\/p>\n
behalf of U.I.T. argued that although petitioners were<\/p>\n
reconsidered at the time of considering the case of<\/p>\n
Shri Sher Khan but in fact when the case of Sher Khan<\/p>\n
was considered it has come to the knowledge of D.P.C.<\/p>\n
that the promotions made earlier are not in consonance<\/p>\n
with the provisions of law because no sanction was<\/p>\n
obtained prior to granting promotion by the U.I.T.,<\/p>\n
Jodhpur, therefore, it was rightly resolved by D.P.C.<\/p>\n
that the petitioners were wrongly promoted without any<\/p>\n
sanction posts.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          Learned      counsel    for   the   U.I.T.    vehemently<\/p>\n
argued that the resolution passed by the D.P.C. is in<\/p>\n
consonance with the provisions of law, therefore, the<\/p>\n
petitioners     were    rightly       reverted    for    want   of<\/p>\n
sanction from the State Government.              Learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the respondents lastly argued that if promotion<\/p>\n
were made contrary to law then it is always open for
\n                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
the employer to rectify the mistake committed by the<\/p>\n
U.I.T.,       Jodhpur    by     way    of   taking    proper      decision,<\/p>\n
therefore,      the     order     impugned     does     not    require    any<\/p>\n
interference by this Court under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Learned         Additional      Advocate        General    upon<\/p>\n
query made by this Court has filed short reply and it<\/p>\n
is stated in the reply that “as per directions given<\/p>\n
by     this    Court,     the     communication         dated     29.7.2006<\/p>\n
addressed       by      the     Secretary,      U.I.T.,        Jodhpur     to<\/p>\n
Principal       Secretary,        Urban      Development        Department,<\/p>\n
Government of Rajasthan, has been considered and reply<\/p>\n
has also been given to the Secretary, U.I.T., Jodhpur<\/p>\n
making it clear that the suitability of the candidates<\/p>\n
must    be     examined,       and    since    the    posts      for    which<\/p>\n
sanction was sought comes under the control of U.I.T.<\/p>\n
itself hence, U.I.T. can take decision at its own.<\/p>\n
However, it has also been made clear that even if the<\/p>\n
U.I.T. feels that approval of the State Government is<\/p>\n
required,       then      send        the    same     with      appropriate<\/p>\n
proposal\/resolution.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              While       inviting          attention         towards    the<\/p>\n
aforesaid reply, it is submitted by learned Additional<\/p>\n
Advocate General that for adjudging suitability and<\/p>\n
eligibility of the candidates on promotional post, the<\/p>\n
U.I.T. itself is competent and having jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
promote any person on the promotional post.                        Here in
\n                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
this case, no sanction is required then proposal is to<\/p>\n
be made to the State Government.                         Meaning thereby, it<\/p>\n
is nowhere stated by the State Government that for<\/p>\n
creating        any     post,       the        sanction      of   the         State<\/p>\n
Government is mandatory.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               I have considered the rival submission made<\/p>\n
by the parties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               First        of   all,    it    is    required     to    be    seen<\/p>\n
whether in the promotion orders of the petitioners,<\/p>\n
any condition was imposed by the U.I.T.                                For this<\/p>\n
purpose, I have perused the promotion order Annexure-<\/p>\n
4.      Upon perusal of promotion order, it is obvious<\/p>\n
that     the     petitioners’            merit       and    experience         was<\/p>\n
considered as per their seniority, thereafter as per<\/p>\n
recommendations of the Committee, the petitioners were<\/p>\n
promoted on the posts of electrician and wireman and<\/p>\n
for the said purpose sanction was issued by U.I.T.,<\/p>\n
which is evident from the order itself.                                  Meaning<\/p>\n
thereby,        the     suitability           of    the     petitioners        was<\/p>\n
adjudged for promotion and sanction was also granted<\/p>\n
by the U.I.T.           Therefore, the promotions were made by<\/p>\n
the U.I.T. at their own and it is nowhere stated in<\/p>\n
the    promotion        order      that       for   these    promotions         any<\/p>\n
sanction        is     required         from       the    State   Government.<\/p>\n
Meaning thereby, the promotions were substantive in<\/p>\n
nature and there was no illegality in the promotion<\/p>\n
order      of         the        petitioners         on     the        post     of
\n                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
electrician\/wireman.                 Subsequently               one      Sher     Khan<\/p>\n
preferred industrial dispute and later on preferred a<\/p>\n
writ    petition       before       this       Court       in    which       specific<\/p>\n
direction was issued for considering his candidature<\/p>\n
on the post of wireman.                  Meaning thereby, the case of<\/p>\n
Sher Khan was to be considered but while considering<\/p>\n
the    case    of     Sher     Khan,      for        promotion        without        any<\/p>\n
jurisdiction the case of petitioners was reviewed and<\/p>\n
it     is    observed        by    the        D.P.C.       That       petitioners’<\/p>\n
promotions      were     made      without          any    sanction        from      the<\/p>\n
State       Government.           From    perusal         of     reply     filed      by<\/p>\n
State, it is clear that no sanction is required from<\/p>\n
the State Government for creation of the post and only<\/p>\n
assertion        is     made        in        the     communication             dated<\/p>\n
23.11.2006       that     if      U.I.T.        feels      that       sanction        is<\/p>\n
required,       then,     proposals            can    be       sent    but      it    is<\/p>\n
nowhere       stated    that       for    creation          of    any      post      any<\/p>\n
sanction       is     required       from           the    State       Government.<\/p>\n
Therefore,       in    absence       of        any    mandatory          provision,<\/p>\n
which is not brought to the notice of this Court, it<\/p>\n
cannot be presumed that for the propose of promotion<\/p>\n
any sanction is required by any autonomous body like<\/p>\n
U.I.T.        In my opinion, the decision taken by D.P.C.<\/p>\n
for     reversion         of       the         petitioners            is     totally<\/p>\n
unwarranted,           illegal           and         is     totally          without<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.          The D.P.C. was required to comply with<\/p>\n
the directions issued by this Court in Sher Khan’s<\/p>\n
case and if Sher Khan was entitled for promotion then<\/p>\n
he was to be given promotion as per his suitability
\n                                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
and merit as ordered by this Court.                                    The petitioners<\/p>\n
were promoted in the year 1997 and till filing writ<\/p>\n
petition in the year 2006 for the first time it has<\/p>\n
been    held    by        the    D.P.C.          that    promotions               were      made<\/p>\n
without any sanctioned post but in my opinion in the<\/p>\n
promotion       order,          it     is       nowhere        stated         that        these<\/p>\n
promotions are temporary or adhoc or any sanction is<\/p>\n
required       from        the       State           Government.                  Therefore,<\/p>\n
promotions       were           made       on        regular       post,          which      was<\/p>\n
substantive          in    nature,          therefore,             the       decision         of<\/p>\n
U.I.T.     for        reverting             the         petitioners               to      their<\/p>\n
respective          posts         is        contrary              to        law     and       in<\/p>\n
contravention         of        the    terms           and     conditions              of    the<\/p>\n
promotion       order.               Further,          there           is    no     document<\/p>\n
produced before this Court showing that any sanction<\/p>\n
is necessary from the State Government for creation of<\/p>\n
posts or abolition of post.                             Therefore, there is no<\/p>\n
substance       in    the        ground         taken        by    the       respondents,<\/p>\n
which is       totally baseless.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               With       the     aforesaid            discussions,               this      writ<\/p>\n
petition       is     allowed.                  The     reversion            order        dated<\/p>\n
23.2.2006 Annexure-10 is hereby quashed and set aside<\/p>\n
with all consequential benefits to the petitioners.<\/p>\n
The petitioners are hereby held entitled for promotion<\/p>\n
on their respective posts as per the earlier order<\/p>\n
dated    13.5.1997          (Annexure-4).                 However,            it    is      made<\/p>\n
clear that this Court is adjudicating the validity of<\/p>\n
the    promotion          order       of    the        petitioners            and      it    has
\n                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
       nothing to do with the consideration of the case of<\/p>\n
       Sher Khan in which order was passed by this Court in<\/p>\n
       the writ petition filed by Sher Khan.   No order as to<\/p>\n
       costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.\n<\/p>\n
arun\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Gordhan Meghwal vs State & Ors on 8 July, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1127\/2006 (Gordhan Meghwal & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 8.7.2008 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13414","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nGordhan Meghwal vs State & Ors on 8 July, 2008 - 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\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gordhan Meghwal vs State & Ors on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-18T19:16:02+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gordhan Meghwal vs State & Ors on 8 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-18T19:16:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2387,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Gordhan Meghwal vs State & Ors on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-18T19:16:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gordhan Meghwal vs State & Ors on 8 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Gordhan Meghwal vs State & Ors on 8 July, 2008 - 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\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gordhan Meghwal vs State & Ors on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-18T19:16:02+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gordhan Meghwal vs State & Ors on 8 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-18T19:16:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008"},"wordCount":2387,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008","name":"Gordhan Meghwal vs State & Ors on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-18T19:16:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gordhan-meghwal-vs-state-ors-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gordhan Meghwal vs State & Ors on 8 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/13414","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=13414"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13414\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13414"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13414"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13414"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}