{"id":134816,"date":"2005-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005"},"modified":"2016-06-15T03:23:06","modified_gmt":"2016-06-14T21:53:06","slug":"mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005","title":{"rendered":"! Mr. B.D. Guru vs (Trainee) In The Reply Of The on 11 August, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
! Mr. B.D. Guru vs (Trainee) In The Reply Of The on 11 August, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR            \n                   (DIVISION BENCH)\n\n     WRIT PETITION NO. 2424 OF 2005   \n\n     Bailadila Berozgar Sangh\n                                      ....Petioner\n                        Versus\n     National Mineral Development Corporation Limited\n                                       ....Respondent\n\n\n!     Mr.  B.D.  Guru,  learned counsel  for  the\n      Present :   petitioner.\n\n^     Mr.  P.S.  Koshy, learned counsel  for  the\n      respondents.\n\n     CORAM  :      Hon'ble Shri A.K. Patnaik, C.J.\n               &   Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J\n\n     Dated: 11\/08\/2005\n\n:     ORDER \n<\/pre>\n
      (Passed on 11th August, 2005)<\/p>\n
           The  following oral order of the  Court  was
\npassed by A.K. Patnaik, C.J :-\n<\/p>\n
      The  petitioner is an association  of  unemployed<\/p>\n
youth of Bailadila and has filed this writ petition  as<\/p>\n
a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).  The petitioner has<\/p>\n
stated  in the writ petition that the National  Mineral<\/p>\n
Development  Corporation (hereinafter  referred  to  as<\/p>\n
“Corporation”) \/ respondent No.1 is a Corporation owned<\/p>\n
by  the  Government  of  India  and  comes  within  the<\/p>\n
definition of “State” in Article 12 of the Constitution<\/p>\n
of  India.  The Corporation has an Iron Ore project  in<\/p>\n
Bailadila and for the said project the Corporation  has<\/p>\n
sent  a requisition to the Directorate of Employment  &<\/p>\n
Training, Chhattisgarh for recruitment to the  post  of<\/p>\n
Maintenance  Assistants (Trainee) and pursuant  to  the<\/p>\n
said  notification  the  Directorate  of  Employment  &<\/p>\n
Training,  Chhattisgarh has issued  a  notification  of<\/p>\n
vacancies   in  the  post  of  Maintenance   Assistants<\/p>\n
(Trainee)   under  the  Corporation.    In   the   said<\/p>\n
notification  of vacancies, the maximum  age  limit  of<\/p>\n
candidates for the recruitment is mentioned at 30 years<\/p>\n
with  a provision for relaxation up to 5 years in  case<\/p>\n
of  SC\/ST  candidates  and  3  years  in  case  of  OBC<\/p>\n
candidates.  In the said notification it is also stated<\/p>\n
that  women  candidates are ineligible  for  the  post.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ  petition<\/p>\n
under  Article  226  of  the Constitution  praying  for<\/p>\n
quashing  the  said notification and for directing  the<\/p>\n
Corporation  to  fix  the maximum  age  limit  for  the<\/p>\n
candidates  as  35\/40 years and to provide  reservation<\/p>\n
for  SC\/ST and other OBC candidates and to allow  women  <\/p>\n
candidates to submit their applications for recruitment<\/p>\n
to the vacancies.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     (2)   Mr.  B.D.  Guru,  learned  counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
petitioner submitted that the Corporation has not  made<\/p>\n
any  recruitment of the workmen for the last ten  years<\/p>\n
and  most  of  the  local unemployed youth  have  grown<\/p>\n
beyond  the  maximum  age limit 30 years stipulated  in<\/p>\n
the notification and for this reason the stipulation in<\/p>\n
the notification that the maximum age limit of 30 years<\/p>\n
for  recruitment to the post of Maintenance  Assistants<\/p>\n
(Trainee)  should  be struck down and  a  direction  be<\/p>\n
given  to  the Corporation to increase the maximum  age<\/p>\n
limit  of  the  candidates to  35\/40  years.   He  next<\/p>\n
submitted   that   there  is  no  provision   regarding<\/p>\n
reservation  for SC\/ST and OBC candidates  and  such  a<\/p>\n
provision  for reservation for SC\/ST and OBC candidates<\/p>\n
should  have  been  made under  Article  16(4)  of  the<\/p>\n
Constitution.    He   finally   submitted   that    the<\/p>\n
notification  in  so far as it prohibits  altogether  a<\/p>\n
woman  candidate to apply for the post  of  Maintenance<\/p>\n
Assistants (Trainee) is discriminatory and is violative<\/p>\n
of  Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the same<\/p>\n
should  be struck down and the Corporation be  directed<\/p>\n
to allow women candidates as well to apply for the said<\/p>\n
post.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     (3)   Mr.  P.S.  Koshy, learned  counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
respondents,  on the other hand, submitted  relying  on<\/p>\n
the   averments  in  the  reply  filed  on  behalf   of<\/p>\n
respondents  that the maximum age limit for recruitment<\/p>\n
to Group `C’ and Group `D’ posts in the Corporation has<\/p>\n
already  been increased from 25 years to 30  years  for<\/p>\n
the  general  category candidates and  the  respondents<\/p>\n
after  taking  into consideration all relevant  aspects<\/p>\n
have  determined the maximum age limit for  recruitment<\/p>\n
for  general  candidates as 30 years  as  a  matter  of<\/p>\n
policy.    He  further submitted that the  notification<\/p>\n
made  by  the  Directorate of  Employment  &  Training,<\/p>\n
Chhattisgarh  pursuant to the requisition would  itself<\/p>\n
show  that  out  of  30  vacant  posts  of  Maintenance<\/p>\n
Assistants  (Trainee) for which recruitment  is  to  be<\/p>\n
made,  4 posts have been reserved for SC, 6 posts  have<\/p>\n
been reserved for ST and 3 posts have been reserved for<\/p>\n
OBC  candidates and  the remaining 17 posts are for the<\/p>\n
general  candidates.  Regarding women  candidates,  Mr.<\/p>\n
Koshy  submitted, relying on the averments made in  the<\/p>\n
reply of the respondents, that under Section 46 of  the<\/p>\n
Mines Act, 1952 there is a prohibition for engaging the<\/p>\n
women workers in any part of the mines below the ground<\/p>\n
and  in  any part of the mines above the ground  except<\/p>\n
between 6 A.M. to 7 P.M.  He submitted in view  of  the<\/p>\n
said provision in Section 46 of the Mines Act, 1952 the<\/p>\n
respondents  had  in  the  requisition  sent   to   the<\/p>\n
Employment  Exchange  for  recruitment  of  Maintenance <\/p>\n
Assistants  (Trainee) specified that  women  candidates<\/p>\n
are  not eligible.  He further submitted that it is not<\/p>\n
as  if  the  Corporation  has a  discriminatory  policy<\/p>\n
towards women candidates and as a matter of fact  there<\/p>\n
are  about 150 women employees in the Bailadila complex <\/p>\n
of  the  Corporation.  He submitted  that  the  Supreme<\/p>\n
Court  has  in  P.U.  Joshi  &  Others  vs.  Accountant<\/p>\n
General,  Ahmedabad & Others<\/a> reported in (2003)  2  SCC <\/p>\n
632  held  that questions relating to the constitution,<\/p>\n
pattern,  nomenclature  of posts,  cadres,  categories,<\/p>\n
their   creation   and   abolition,   prescription   of<\/p>\n
qualifications and other conditions of service  pertain<\/p>\n
to  the  field  of policy and are within the  exclusive<\/p>\n
discretion  and jurisdiction of the State and  in  such<\/p>\n
matters  the Courts have limited powers of the judicial<\/p>\n
review.   He  also cited the decision  of  the  Supreme<\/p>\n
Court  in  Dhan Singh & Others vs. State of  Haryana  &<\/p>\n
Others reported in 1991 (2) SCC 190 for the proposition<\/p>\n
that  mere  differentiation or inequality of protection<\/p>\n
does  not  per se amount to discrimination  within  the<\/p>\n
inhibition of equal protection clause under Article  14<\/p>\n
of the Constitution and to attract the attention of the<\/p>\n
clause,  it is necessary to show that the selection  or<\/p>\n
differentiation is unreasonable or arbitrary  and  that<\/p>\n
it does not rest on any rational basis having regard to<\/p>\n
the  object  which the legislature  has  in  view.   He<\/p>\n
submitted  that  in  the  present  case  there  was   a<\/p>\n
justification  for  not allowing  women  candidates  to<\/p>\n
apply  for  recruitment to the vacancies of Maintenance<\/p>\n
Assistants  (Trainee) inasmuch as there was prohibition<\/p>\n
under Section 46 of the Mines Act, 1952 to employ women  <\/p>\n
in  mines below the ground and also in mines above  the<\/p>\n
ground beyond certain hours of the day.  Mr. Koshy also<\/p>\n
cited  the  decision of the Supreme Court in Air  India<\/p>\n
vs.  Nergesh Meerza & Others and<\/a> other connected  cases  <\/p>\n
reported in (1981) 4 SCC 335 in which the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
has   held  that   Articles  15(1)  and  16(2)  of  the<\/p>\n
Constitution prohibit discrimination on the  ground  of<\/p>\n
sex  only  and  not  on grounds of coupled  with  other<\/p>\n
considerations and upheld the differences in conditions<\/p>\n
of  service, allowances and other types of remuneration<\/p>\n
for women and men employed under the Air India. <\/p>\n
     (4)   Mr.  Koshy  is right in his submission  that<\/p>\n
recruitment   and   the   eligibility   criteria    for<\/p>\n
recruitment to any post is a matter within  the  domain<\/p>\n
of   the  State  and  that  Courts  will  not  normally<\/p>\n
interfere  in  exercise  of their  powers  in  judicial<\/p>\n
review  with the decisions of the State in such matters<\/p>\n
regarding  eligibility for recruitment.  But the  power<\/p>\n
of  the  State  even  with regard  to  recruitment  and<\/p>\n
eligibility for recruitment is to be exercised  subject<\/p>\n
to  the  limitations  of the law and  the  Constitution<\/p>\n
including the provisions relating to fundamental rights<\/p>\n
enshrined  in  Part  III the Constitution.   In    P.U.<\/p>\n
Joshi  &  Others  vs. Accountant General,  Ahmedabad  & <\/p>\n
Others<\/a>  (supra)  on  which  Mr.  Koshy  has  placed   a<\/p>\n
reliance,  the  Supreme Court has  clarified  that  the<\/p>\n
discretion  and  jurisdiction  of  the  State  in  such<\/p>\n
matters  is  of  course subject to the  limitations  or<\/p>\n
restrictions  envisaged  in the  Constitution.   Hence,<\/p>\n
even  though  recruitment and eligibility criteria  for<\/p>\n
recruitment  are  matters of policy for  the  State  to<\/p>\n
determine,  the  Courts can always interfere  with  the<\/p>\n
decisions  of  the State in such matters of  policy  if<\/p>\n
Constitutional and Statutory limitations  are  violated<\/p>\n
by the State.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     (5)  As to what should be the maximum age limit of<\/p>\n
a  candidate  for  the  post of Maintenance  Assistants<\/p>\n
(Trainee)  under the Corporation is purely a matter  of<\/p>\n
policy for the Corporation to decide.  No provision  of<\/p>\n
the  Constitution and no provision of any law has  been<\/p>\n
brought to our notice by Mr. Guru, learned counsel  for<\/p>\n
the petitioner to show that the Corporation was obliged<\/p>\n
to  fix the maximum age limit of the candidate for  the<\/p>\n
post  of  Maintenance  Assistants  (Trainee)  at  35\/40<\/p>\n
years.  The only ground indicated by the petitioner  in<\/p>\n
the  writ petition is that for several years there  has<\/p>\n
been no recruitment and for this reason the Corporation<\/p>\n
should have fixed the maximum age limit for recruitment<\/p>\n
to  the  post  of Maintenance Assistants  (Trainee)  at<\/p>\n
35\/40  years.  It was for the Corporation to  take  all<\/p>\n
relevant facts into account and decide as to what would<\/p>\n
be  maximum  age limit for candidates for the  post  of<\/p>\n
Maintenance  Assistants (Trainee) and it  appears  that<\/p>\n
the  Corporation  has already considered  the  relevant<\/p>\n
facts and taken a decision to enhance the age limit for<\/p>\n
the  candidates for recruitment to different Group  `C’<\/p>\n
and  Group  `D’ posts including the post of Maintenance<\/p>\n
Assistants (Trainee)  from 25 years to 30 years.  We do<\/p>\n
not  think  we can, in exercise of powers  of  judicial<\/p>\n
review, interfere with this decision of the Corporation<\/p>\n
in a purely policy matter with regard to recruitment.<\/p>\n
     (6)   Regarding  reservation  for  SC\/ST  and  OBC<\/p>\n
candidates,   we  find  on  a  bare  perusal   of   the<\/p>\n
notification  of vacancies made by the  Directorate  of<\/p>\n
Employment  &  Training, Chhattisgarh pursuant  to  the<\/p>\n
requisition  of  the Corporation that  out  of  30  the<\/p>\n
vacancies   in  the  post  of  Maintenance   Assistants<\/p>\n
(Trainee) notified, 4 posts have been reserved  for  SC<\/p>\n
candidates,   6  posts  have  been  reserved   for   ST<\/p>\n
candidates, 3 posts have been reserved for OBC  and  17<\/p>\n
posts  are  meant for general candidates.   Hence,  the<\/p>\n
ground  taken  in the writ petition that  there  is  no<\/p>\n
reservation  made for the SC\/ST and OBC  candidates  is<\/p>\n
factually misconceived.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     (7)   The notification of vacancies issued by  the<\/p>\n
Directorate  of  Employment &  Training,  Chhattisgarh,<\/p>\n
however, states that women candidates are ineligible to<\/p>\n
apply for the post of Maintenance Assistants (Trainee).<\/p>\n
The  justification given for excluding women candidates<\/p>\n
for  recruitment for the post of Maintenance Assistants<\/p>\n
(Trainee) in the reply of the respondents is that under<\/p>\n
Section  46  of  the  Mines Act, 1952  there  are  some<\/p>\n
restrictions put with regard to employment of women  in<\/p>\n
mines.   Section  46 of the Mines Act, 1952  is  quoted<\/p>\n
herein below:\n<\/p>\n
          “46.  Employment of women.- (1)  No
\n     woman  shall,  notwithstanding  anything
\n     contained in any other law, be employed-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (a)  in any part of mine which is below ground;<\/p>\n
(b)  in any mine above ground except between the hours
\nof 6. a.m. and 7 p.m.
\n          (2)  Every woman employed in a mine
\n     above   ground  shall  be   allowed   an
\n     interval  of not less than eleven  hours
\n     between the termination of employment on
\n     any  one day and the commencement of the
\n     next period of employment.\n<\/p>\n
          (3)     Notwithstanding    anything
\n     contained   in  sub-section   (1),   the
\n     Central  Government may, by notification
\n     in  the Official Gazette, vary the hours
\n     of  employment above ground of women  in
\n     respect   of  any  mine  or   class   or
\n     description of mine, so however that  no
\n     employment  of  any  woman  between  the
\n     hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. is permitted
\n     thereby.”\n<\/p>\n
\nIt  be clear from Section 46 quoted above that the said<\/p>\n
Section  does  not  altogether prohibit  employment  of<\/p>\n
women  in  the  mines  above  the  ground  thought   it<\/p>\n
prohibits employment of women in any part of  the  mine<\/p>\n
below   the  ground.   The  Section  however   puts   a<\/p>\n
restriction  on  employment of women above  the  ground<\/p>\n
saying  that they can be employed only  between 6  a.m.<\/p>\n
and  7 p.m. Sub-section (3) of Section 46 quoted above,<\/p>\n
however,  states  that the Central Government  may,  by<\/p>\n
notification in the Official Gazette, vary the hours of<\/p>\n
employment above the ground of women in respect of  any <\/p>\n
mine  or class or description of mine, so however, that<\/p>\n
no  employment of any women between the ours of 10 p.m.  <\/p>\n
and  5  a.m.  is  permitted  thereby.   This  provision<\/p>\n
putting restrictions with regard to employment of women<\/p>\n
above  the  ground and putting a total  prohibition  on<\/p>\n
employment  of  women in mines below the  ground  is  a<\/p>\n
special provision made for women.  Such a provision, in<\/p>\n
our  considered  opinion, cannot be relied  on  by  the<\/p>\n
Corporation to prohibit recruitment of women altogether<\/p>\n
for the post of Maintenance Assistants (Trainee) in the<\/p>\n
Corporation to the disadvantage of the women.<\/p>\n
     (8)  In Dhan Singh & Others vs. State of Haryana &<\/p>\n
Others  (supra) cited by Mr. Koshy, the  Supreme  Court<\/p>\n
has  held that to attract the mandate of Article 14  of<\/p>\n
the  Constitution, it is necessary  to  show  that  the<\/p>\n
selection   or   differentiation  is  unreasonable   or<\/p>\n
arbitrary  and  that it does not rest on  any  rational<\/p>\n
basis having regard to the object which the legislature<\/p>\n
has  in  view.     It is not stated in the notification<\/p>\n
nor  in the reply filed by the respondents that all the<\/p>\n
30  Maintenance  Assistants  (Trainee)  for  which  the<\/p>\n
notification  has  been  issued  are  to  be   employed<\/p>\n
exclusively in mines below the ground.  Section  46  of<\/p>\n
the  Mines Act, 1952 permits employment of women in the <\/p>\n
mines above the ground during 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. and sub-<\/p>\n
Section  (3)  of Section 46 further provides  that  the<\/p>\n
Central Government may, by notification in the Official<\/p>\n
Gazette,  permit such employment of women  even  beyond  <\/p>\n
the  hours  from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., but not  between  10<\/p>\n
p.m.  and 5 a.m. To deny women the opportunity to apply<\/p>\n
for  and to be considered for employment as Maintenance<\/p>\n
Assistants  (Trainee)  under  the  Corporation  on  the<\/p>\n
ground  that Section 46 of the Mines Act, 1952  imposed<\/p>\n
some restrictions would be discriminatory towards women <\/p>\n
on the ground of sex and violative of the provisions of<\/p>\n
Articles 14,16 (1) and 16 (2) of the Constitution.  The<\/p>\n
justification  for exclusion, in the language  used  by<\/p>\n
the  Supreme Court in Dhan Singh & Others vs. State  of<\/p>\n
Haryana  &  Others would be unreasonable and  arbitrary<\/p>\n
and does not rest on any rational basis.<\/p>\n
      (9)  In Air India vs. Nergesh Meerza & Others and<\/a><\/p>\n
other  connected cases (supra), the Supreme  Court  has<\/p>\n
held  that  in  matters  of allowances,  conditions  of<\/p>\n
service  and  other  remuneration  of  women  and   men<\/p>\n
employees  under  the Air India, no  discrimination  is<\/p>\n
made  on the ground of sex only.  But the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
has  also taken note of the views of Mr. Krishna  Iyer,<\/p>\n
J. in Miss C.B. Muthamma vs. Union of India,<\/a>  (1979)  4<\/p>\n
SCC  260 to the effect that unless sensitivities of sex<\/p>\n
or the peculiarities of social sectors or the handicaps<\/p>\n
of  either  sex may compel selectivity and a  case  for<\/p>\n
differentiation is demonstrably made out, the  rule  of<\/p>\n
equality  must govern.  In the language of Mr.  Krishna<\/p>\n
Iyer, J.\n<\/p>\n
           “We do not mean to universalize or
\n     dogmatise  that men and women are  equal
\n     in  all  occupations and all  situations
\n     and   do   not  exclude  the   need   to
\n     pragmatise  where  the  requirements  of
\n     particular employment, the sensitivities
\n     of  sex or the peculiarities of societal
\n     sectors  or the handicaps of either  sex
\n     may  compel selectivity.  But save where
\n     the differentiation is demonstrable, the
\n     rule of equality must govern.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In the present case, the respondents have not been able<\/p>\n
to  show  demonstrably  in  their  pleadings  that  the<\/p>\n
handicaps  or  other  sensitivities  of  sex   or   the<\/p>\n
peculiarities  of  social  sectors  had  compelled  the<\/p>\n
Corporation  to  prohibit  the  women  altogether  from<\/p>\n
applying   for  the  post  of  Maintenance   Assistants<\/p>\n
(Trainee).   On  the other hand, as we  have  indicated<\/p>\n
above, they have justified the exclusion of women  from<\/p>\n
employment   under  the  Corporation   as   Maintenance<\/p>\n
Assistants (Trainee) only on the basis of provisions in<\/p>\n
Section 46 of the Mines Act, 1952, which we have  seen,<\/p>\n
do  not  altogether exclude the employment of women  in<\/p>\n
mines above the ground.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (10)  For the aforesaid reasons, while we decline<\/p>\n
to  interfere with the provisions regarding maximum age<\/p>\n
for  candidates for the post of Maintenance  Assistants<\/p>\n
(Trainee)   under  the  Corporation,  we  declare   the<\/p>\n
provision   in   the  notification  prohibiting   women<\/p>\n
candidates  altogether to apply for the  said  post  of<\/p>\n
Maintenance   Assistants  (Trainee)  as   ultra   vires<\/p>\n
Articles  14 and 16 of the Constitution and direct  the<\/p>\n
Corporation to allow women candidates also to apply for<\/p>\n
the said posts and the recruitment process to the posts<\/p>\n
of   Maintenance  Assistants  (Trainee)  be   initiated<\/p>\n
afresh after inviting fresh applications, in accordance<\/p>\n
with  law.  The writ petition is disposed of  with  the<\/p>\n
aforesaid  directions, but considering  the  facts  and<\/p>\n
circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.<\/p>\n
     Chief Justice                      Judge\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court ! Mr. B.D. Guru vs (Trainee) In The Reply Of The on 11 August, 2005 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (DIVISION BENCH) WRIT PETITION NO. 2424 OF 2005 Bailadila Berozgar Sangh ….Petioner Versus National Mineral Development Corporation Limited ….Respondent ! Mr. B.D. Guru, learned counsel for the Present : petitioner. […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-134816","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n! Mr. B.D. Guru vs (Trainee) In The Reply Of The on 11 August, 2005 - 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\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"! Mr. B.D. Guru vs (Trainee) In The Reply Of The on 11 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-14T21:53:06+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"! Mr. B.D. Guru vs (Trainee) In The Reply Of The on 11 August, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-14T21:53:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2672,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005\",\"name\":\"! Mr. B.D. Guru vs (Trainee) In The Reply Of The on 11 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-14T21:53:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"! Mr. B.D. Guru vs (Trainee) In The Reply Of The on 11 August, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"! Mr. B.D. Guru vs (Trainee) In The Reply Of The on 11 August, 2005 - 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\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"! Mr. B.D. Guru vs (Trainee) In The Reply Of The on 11 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-14T21:53:06+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"! Mr. B.D. Guru vs (Trainee) In The Reply Of The on 11 August, 2005","datePublished":"2005-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-14T21:53:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005"},"wordCount":2672,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005","name":"! Mr. B.D. Guru vs (Trainee) In The Reply Of The on 11 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-14T21:53:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-b-d-guru-vs-trainee-in-the-reply-of-the-on-11-august-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"! Mr. B.D. Guru vs (Trainee) In The Reply Of The on 11 August, 2005"}]},{"@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\/134816","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=134816"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134816\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134816"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134816"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134816"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}