{"id":138826,"date":"2010-02-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-27T11:15:54","modified_gmt":"2016-03-27T05:45:54","slug":"dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dinesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thr. Secy Animal &#8230; on 1 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dinesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thr. Secy Animal &#8230; on 1 February, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                   1\n\n\n                                                     Court No. 24\n\n             Writ Petition No. 6714 (SS) of 2007\nDinesh Kumar and others           Vs   State of U. P. and others\n\n                         Connected with\n\n             Writ Petition No. 5192 (SS) of 2007\nAshok Kumar and others            Vs   State of U. P. and others\n\n                                  and\n\n              Writ Petition No. 4721 (SS) of 2007\nSmt. Sunita Devi and others        Vs   State of U. P. and others\n\n                              ---------\n\nHon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>      As the similar controversy is involved in all the above<br \/>\nmentioned writ petitions, same are being disposed of by the<br \/>\ncommon order.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned<br \/>\nStanding Counsel.\n<\/p>\n<p>      By the impugned orders dated 29.1.2007, 17.7.2007,<br \/>\n20.7.2007 and 21.7.2007 selection on Class IV post in Animal<br \/>\nHusbandry Department was cancelled, which is under challenge in<br \/>\nall the writ petitions by which appointment and selection of<br \/>\npetitioners, who were selected and some of them were also<br \/>\nappointed   as   Class   IV   employees   in    Animal     Husbandry<br \/>\nDepartment.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that on 2.6.2005,<br \/>\nan advertisement was issued by the Deputy Director, Animal<br \/>\nHusbandry\/opposite party No.3 for filling fifteen posts of Class IV<br \/>\nemployees in Animal Husbandry Department in Lucknow Division,<br \/>\nLucknow.    Subsequently,     a   corrigendum   of   the    aforesaid<br \/>\nadvertisement was issued indicating the last date of submission of<br \/>\napplication forms as 27.6.2005. Thereafter, on 17.9.2005, another<br \/>\nadvertisement was issued by the respondent No.3 for filling fifteen<br \/>\nposts of Class IV employees in the said department. Petitioners<br \/>\nbeing qualified also applied against the said posts advertised in<br \/>\nthe aforesaid two advertisements so their application forms were<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>found in order and they were called for interview. As eighty one<br \/>\nvacancies were existing in the department, appointments were<br \/>\nmade against all the existing vacancies. Thereafter, on 22nd\/23rd<br \/>\nNovember,      2006,       appointment         letters   were    issued     to    the<br \/>\npetitioners.     In    pursuance     of       the   appointment        letters,   the<br \/>\npetitioners joined on their respective posts. After joining on their<br \/>\nrespective posts, the petitioners were performing their duties to<br \/>\nthe utmost satisfaction of the higher authorities and there is no<br \/>\ncompliant against them from any quarter. In the meantime, on a<br \/>\ncomplaint, an enquiry was made in the matter of appointment of<br \/>\nthe petitioners and the Enquiry Officer submitted its report on<br \/>\n29.1.2007. Even though no fraud and misrepresentation was<br \/>\nfound on the part of the petitioners in the said enquiry report, yet<br \/>\nthe impugned order dated 7.6.2007 was passed by the State<br \/>\nGovernment       directing     the   respondent          No.2\/Director,      Animal<br \/>\nHusbandry to cancel all 81 appointments made on Class IV posts.<br \/>\nIn pursuance of the order dated 7.6.2007, the impugned<br \/>\ncancellation orders dated 20.7.2007 and 21.7.2007 have been<br \/>\npassed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the<br \/>\nimpugned orders passed by the respondents cancelling the<br \/>\nselection\/terminating the services of the petitioners are absolutely<br \/>\nillegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and the same cannot be allowed to<br \/>\nbe sustained in the eyes of law. The appointments of the<br \/>\npetitioners have been made against the sanctioned vacancies and<br \/>\nthere was a condition in the advertisements that number of<br \/>\nvacancies may increase or decrease as such by no stretch of<br \/>\nimagination can it be said that the appointments of the petitioners<br \/>\nhave been made in excess of vacancies. The impugned orders<br \/>\nhave been passed by the respondents without affording them an<br \/>\nopportunity of hearing, as such, the same are violative of<br \/>\nprinciples of natural justice. Even if assuming that the allegations<br \/>\nmade by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 29.1.2007 are<br \/>\nbelieved    to        be   true,   no     allegation      of     any     fraud     or<br \/>\nmisrepresentation against the petitioners has been alleged in the<br \/>\nsaid enquiry      report or        in the impugned order as before<br \/>\ncancellation     of    appointment\/termination            of    services    of    the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>petitioners, principles of natural justice should have been adhered<br \/>\nto. The selection of the petitioners has been cancelled without<br \/>\naffording them any opportunity of hearing or to show cause in<br \/>\ngross violation of principles of natural justice as they have worked<br \/>\ncontinuously for almost seven months and have drawn their<br \/>\nsalaries and as such, a substantive legal right has accrued in their<br \/>\nfavour and the said right cannot be taken away without affording<br \/>\nthem opportunity of hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Rebutting the arguments of the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioners, learned Standing Counsel submits that the State<br \/>\nGovernment accorded permission and in pursuance of that, an<br \/>\nadvertisement was issued on 13.6.2005 to fill-up 360 posts in<br \/>\nwhich 15 posts were allocated for Lucknow Division. After<br \/>\ncompletion of process of the interview, the Deputy Director issued<br \/>\nappointment letters to 81 candidates, whereas only 30 posts were<br \/>\nallocated to the Lucknow Division. Thereafter, one Ram Awadh<br \/>\nYadav made a complaint regarding the aforesaid illegality. On the<br \/>\nbasis of the complaint, the State Government directed the<br \/>\nDirector to conduct an enquiry and submit report within ten days.<br \/>\nIn pursuance of the directions issued by the State Government,<br \/>\nthe Director started enquiry ascertaining the facts from the<br \/>\nDeputy   Director,   Animal   Husbandry   Division,   Lucknow   and<br \/>\ninspected the records of his office as well as examined the<br \/>\nmembers of selection committee and after completion of enquiry,<br \/>\nhe submitted his enquiry report dated 29.1.2007 to the State<br \/>\nGovernment. From a perusal of the enquiry report, it reveals that<br \/>\naccording to the permission granted by the State Government,<br \/>\nonly 30 posts were allocated to the Lucknow Division, whereas the<br \/>\nDeputy Director had issued a merit list containing 61 selected<br \/>\ncandidates. In addition to above, he issued a waiting list of 16<br \/>\ncandidates, whereas according to Uttar Pradesh Pashu Palan<br \/>\nVibhas Samoogh &#8216;Gha&#8217; Seva Niyamawali, 1993, the provision of<br \/>\nmaking the waiting list in Group &#8216;D&#8217; has been repealed, which was<br \/>\nissued by the Personnel Department of State Government. In the<br \/>\nsaid Rules, it has also been mentioned that if there is any<br \/>\ncontradiction between the departmental Service Rules and the<br \/>\nService Rules of the Karmic Department, then the Services Rules<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>of the Karmic Department will prevail.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Refuting the submissions made by the learned Standing<br \/>\nCounsel, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer in its enquiry report made one of the allegations<br \/>\nthat as per the service rules of the department maximum seven<br \/>\npersons could have been kept in waiting list, whereas 16 persons<br \/>\nhave been kept in waiting list. The respondents have not produced<br \/>\nthe rules issued by the Karmik Division of the State Government<br \/>\nby means of which, the provisions of making waiting list in Group<br \/>\n&#8216;D&#8217; have been repealed. Further, the impugned order cancelling<br \/>\nthe selection\/termination of the petitioners&#8217; service has been<br \/>\npassed in an absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable manner<br \/>\nand in utter violation of principles of natural justice as no<br \/>\nopportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners and the<br \/>\npetitioners after being appointed and worked for about seven<br \/>\nmonths   and   being   paid   salary   of   their   respective   posts,<br \/>\nsubstantive and legal right had accrued in their favour of being<br \/>\nheard prior to passing of the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Petitioners&#8217; counsel further contended that entire exercise<br \/>\nwas initiated on the basis of some frivolous complaint made by<br \/>\nsome persons who the petitioners believe to be a non-selectee<br \/>\nwho have no sanctity or basis and on account of said frivolous<br \/>\ncomplaint, the petitioners have been made victim. In the<br \/>\nadvertisement, specific clause was provided mentioning that<br \/>\nnumber of vacancies may increase or decrease, keeping in mind<br \/>\nthat after the initiation of process of selection there can be<br \/>\npossibility of increasing or decreasing in the number of vacancies<br \/>\nwhich have been advertised.\n<\/p>\n<p>      I have carefully considered the arguments of learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel and also<br \/>\nperused the materials on record. It transpire from the record that<br \/>\nthe impugned orders were passed on the basis of the enquiry<br \/>\nreport submitted to the State Government. Undisputedly, the<br \/>\nselection of the petitioners has been cancelled without affording<br \/>\nthem any opportunity of hearing or to show cause which is in<br \/>\ngross violation of principles of natural justice as they have worked<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>continuously for almost seven months and have drawn their<br \/>\nsalaries and as such, a substantive legal right has accrued in their<br \/>\nfavour and the said right cannot be taken away without affording<br \/>\nthem opportunity of hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The above view is supported by a decision of the Apex court<br \/>\nin   Union    of   India   and    others    Vs.    Rajesh    P.   U.\n<\/p>\n<p>Puthuvalnikathu and another reported in (2003) 7 SCC 285.<br \/>\nRelevant paragraphs read as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>             &#8220;In the light of the above and in the absence of<br \/>\n      any specific or categorical finding supported by any<br \/>\n      concrete and relevant material that widespread<br \/>\n      infirmities of all pervasive nature, which could be<br \/>\n      really said to have undermined the very process itself<br \/>\n      in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to<br \/>\n      weed out the beneficiaries of one or the other<br \/>\n      irregularities or illegalities, if any, there was hardly<br \/>\n      and justification in law to deny appointment to the<br \/>\n      other selected candidate whose selections were not<br \/>\n      found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or<br \/>\n      other other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and<br \/>\n      arbitrary stand to cancel the entirety of the selections<br \/>\n      despite the firm and positive information that except<br \/>\n      31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be<br \/>\n      found with reference to others, is nothing but total<br \/>\n      disregard of relevancies giving a complete go-by to<br \/>\n      contextual consideration throwing to the winds the<br \/>\n      principle of proportionality in going farther than what<br \/>\n      was strictly and reasonably to meet the situated. In<br \/>\n      short the competent authority completely misdirected<br \/>\n      itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable<br \/>\n      decision of cancelling the entire selection, wholly<br \/>\n      unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual<br \/>\n      situation too, and totally in excess of the nature and<br \/>\n      gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually<br \/>\n      rendering such Dikinson to be irrational.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      A number of persons have already been joined service in<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>pursuance of the appointment letters issued to them. By the<br \/>\nimpugned orders, their appointments were cancelled after joining<br \/>\nwithout opportunity of being heard and as such, the orders are<br \/>\nunsustainable in law also.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In this connection, it would be useful to refer the<br \/>\nobservations of the Apex Court in Sridhar Vs. Nagar Palika,<br \/>\nJunpur reported in AIR 1990 SC 307. In this case, the Apex Court<br \/>\nheld as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;It is an elementary principle of natural justice<br \/>\n      that no person should be condemned without hearing.<br \/>\n      The order of appointment conferred a vested right in<br \/>\n      the appellant to hold the post of Tax Inspector, that<br \/>\n      right could not be taken away without affording<br \/>\n      opportunity of hearing to him.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      While terminating the services of an appointee who has<br \/>\nbeen selected in the selection process, the compliance with the<br \/>\nthree principles as enumerated in Indrajeet Singh Kahlon<br \/>\nVersus State of Punjab [2005 (11) SCC 356] is imperative at<br \/>\nthe hands of the state. These principles are (1) to establish<br \/>\nsatisfaction in regard to the sufficiency of the materials collected<br \/>\nso as to enable the State to arrive at its satisfaction that the<br \/>\nselection process was tainted; (2) to determine the question that<br \/>\nthe allegations committed go to the root of the matter which<br \/>\nvitiate the entire selection process. Such satisfaction as also the<br \/>\nsufficiency of materials were required to be gathered by reason of<br \/>\na thorough investigation in a fair and transparent manner; (3)<br \/>\nwhether the sufficient material present enabled the State go<br \/>\narrive at a satisfaction that the officers in majority have been<br \/>\nfound to be part of the fraudulent purpose or the system itself<br \/>\nwas corrupt.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It is also relevant to mention that the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\nCourt in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/37407\/\">Union of India and others v. Rajesh P. U.<br \/>\nPuthuvalinkathu and<\/a> another (supra), observed that where<br \/>\nfrom out of selectees, it was possible to read out the beneficiaries<br \/>\nof the irregularities or illegalities there was no justification in law<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>to deny appointment to the selected candidates whose selection<br \/>\nwas not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for anyone or other<br \/>\nreasons. The en bloc cancellation is not permissible.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In the case of Suvida Yadav and others Versus State of<br \/>\nHaryana and others [(2002) 10 SCC 269], the Apex Court<br \/>\nheld that the recommendations of the names by Public Service<br \/>\nCommission pursuant to the requisition, in excess of the number<br \/>\nof   posts   advertised   are   valid   and   all   the   persons,   so<br \/>\nrecommended, are entitled to be appointed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In the instant case, from the material on record, it is<br \/>\nabundantly clear that no such exercise was conducted by the<br \/>\nopposite parties and by a single pen of stroke, entire selection<br \/>\nprocess has been cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In view of the discussions made above, impugned orders in<br \/>\nall three writ petitions, are liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Accordingly, all the three writ petitions succeed and are<br \/>\nallowed. The impugned orders dated 7.6.2007, 17.7.2007 and<br \/>\n20.7.2007 in Writ Petition No.4721 (SS) of 2007, 21.7.2007,<br \/>\n6.7.2007 and 29.6.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 6714 (SS) of<br \/>\n2004 and 7.6.2007 and 20.7.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.<br \/>\n5192 (SS) of 2007 are hereby quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dt.1.2.2010<br \/>\nLakshman\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Dinesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thr. Secy Animal &#8230; on 1 February, 2010 1 Court No. 24 Writ Petition No. 6714 (SS) of 2007 Dinesh Kumar and others Vs State of U. P. and others Connected with Writ Petition No. 5192 (SS) of 2007 Ashok Kumar and others Vs State of U. [&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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138826","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dinesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thr. Secy Animal ... on 1 February, 2010 - 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\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dinesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thr. Secy Animal ... on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-27T05:45:54+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dinesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thr. Secy Animal &#8230; on 1 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-27T05:45:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2055,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Dinesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thr. Secy Animal ... on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-27T05:45:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dinesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thr. Secy Animal &#8230; on 1 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Dinesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thr. Secy Animal ... on 1 February, 2010 - 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\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dinesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thr. Secy Animal ... on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-27T05:45:54+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dinesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thr. Secy Animal &#8230; on 1 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-27T05:45:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010"},"wordCount":2055,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010","name":"Dinesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thr. Secy Animal ... on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-27T05:45:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dinesh-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-thr-secy-animal-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dinesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thr. Secy Animal &#8230; on 1 February, 2010"}]},{"@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\/138826","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=138826"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138826\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138826"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138826"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138826"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}