{"id":14345,"date":"2009-08-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-03-20T15:32:18","modified_gmt":"2018-03-20T10:02:18","slug":"dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2009<\/div>\n
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003                              :{ 1 }:\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                    DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 03, 2009\n\nDr.Rajbir Singh Yadav and others\n\n                                                             .....Petitioners\n\n                                         VERSUS\n\nState of Haryana and others\n\n                                                              ....Respondents\n\n\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH\n\n1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?\n2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\n\n\nPRESENT:             Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate,\n                     for the petitioners.\n\n                    Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,\n                    for the State.\n\n                    Mr. H. N. Mehtani, Advocate,\n                    for HPSC.\n\n                    Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with\n                    Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate,\n                    for respondent Nos.13, 28, 37, 51 and 74.\n\n                    Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate\n                    for respondent No.9.\n                               ****\n\nRANJIT SINGH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.16651 of<\/p>\n
2003 (Dr.Rajbir Singh and others               Vs.    State of Haryana and<\/p>\n
others), 18025 of 2002 (Sudhir Kumar Kalra Vs. Haryana Public<\/p>\n
Service Commission and others), 2326 of 2003 (Dr.Rawat Singh
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003                         :{ 2 }:\n<\/p>\n
Vs.   Haryana Public Service Commission and others), 3986 of<\/p>\n
2003 (Jatinder Verma Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission<\/p>\n
and others), 4911 of 2003 (Naresh Kumar and others Vs. State<\/p>\n
of Haryana and others), and 14691 of 2004 (Dr.Anita Balain and<\/p>\n
others    Vs. State of Haryana and others). The facts are being<\/p>\n
taken from Civil Writ Petition No.16651 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
           The       petitioners   have   challenge    the    selection    of<\/p>\n
candidates appointed to the posts of Principal\/senior Specialists<\/p>\n
(H.E.S. Class II School Cadre) made pursuant to the advertisement<\/p>\n
dated 5.3.2002, Annexure P-2. On 5.3.2002, Haryana Public Service<\/p>\n
Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Commission”) invited<\/p>\n
applications   for    85   posts   of   Principals,   Government       Senior<\/p>\n
Secondary Schools\/Senior Specialists HES-II out of which 53 posts<\/p>\n
were meant for general category. The qualification prescribed for<\/p>\n
these posts were M.A\/M.Sc.\/M.Com. IInd Division and B.T.\/B.Ed. or<\/p>\n
its equivalent along with 8 years’ experience as on 5.4.2002. The<\/p>\n
petitioners, being fully eligible, applied for the said posts. Screening<\/p>\n
test was held on 25.5.2002. The result thereof was published on<\/p>\n
5\/6.6.2002. On 26.6.2002 onwards, the petitioners were called for<\/p>\n
interview. They, however, were not selected. They were also not<\/p>\n
disclosed the marks for screening test or for interview. They were<\/p>\n
also unaware of the criteria, which was adopted for the interview. The<\/p>\n
final result of the interview was published on 13.8.2002. The<\/p>\n
petitioners obtained some information about the selected candidates.<\/p>\n
They accordingly filed these writ petitions, alleging that the selection<\/p>\n
has been made to accommodate kith and kin of members and even<\/p>\n
the ineligible persons, who did not fulfill the requisite experience of 8
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003                          :{ 3 }:\n<\/p>\n
years teaching had been selected. The petitioners accordingly<\/p>\n
approached the Commission with a prayer to supply the criteria<\/p>\n
adopted by them for making selection. However, when the<\/p>\n
Commission did not supply any information in response to the<\/p>\n
representation, the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No.16913 of<\/p>\n
2002 for a direction to the respondents to supply the criteria adopted<\/p>\n
for making selection to the posts of Principals and so also the details<\/p>\n
of marks, which the petitioners and other selected candidates have<\/p>\n
obtained. This prayer of the petitioners was not accepted by this<\/p>\n
Court. However, it was observed that it would always be open for the<\/p>\n
petitioners to challenge the selection of selected candidates and<\/p>\n
accordingly, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.<\/p>\n
            When the case came up for hearing on 11.2.2009, this<\/p>\n
Court observed that        criteria laid down by the Commission for<\/p>\n
recruitment to the posts of Principal be placed on record of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid writ petition. Complying with this order, the Commission<\/p>\n
through its Application No.6781 of 2009 placed on record additional<\/p>\n
reply, mentioning the criteria, which was followed by the Commission<\/p>\n
while making recruitment to the posts of Principal, HES Class II. A<\/p>\n
perusal of the criteria placed on record revealed that there were total<\/p>\n
100 marks for viva-voce test, which were distributed as under:-<\/p>\n
            “1. Personal achievements:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            There   will   be   25     marks   for   Higher     qualification,<\/p>\n
            experience and co-curricular activities.<\/p>\n
            Marks will be awarded according to the following criteria:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n            (a) Higher Qualification     (Maximum 10 marks)\n\n            i. For Ph.D.                   10 marks\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003                    :{ 4 }:\n\n           ii. For M.Phil.                 5 marks\n\n           iii.For M.Ed.                   5 marks\n\n<\/pre>\n
             Candidates possessing both Ph.D. And M.Phil. Or<\/p>\n
             M.Ed. Will not be awarded more than 10 marks.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             b. Experience:-               (Maximum 10 marks)<\/p>\n
           2 marks per year will be awarded for teaching or<\/p>\n
           administrative experience in addition to what experience<\/p>\n
           is necessary to make a candidate eligible. The maximum<\/p>\n
           marks for experience will be 10 marks.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (c) Position in University Examination in Post Graduation:-<\/p>\n
           Candidate getting first, Second & Third position in<\/p>\n
           University examination at post graduation level will be<\/p>\n
           awarded 5 marks in all i.e.:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           First Position           5 marks\n\n           Second Position          3 marks\n\n           Third Position           2 marks\n\n           II. Interview:-\n\n<\/pre>\n
           The interview test will be conducted to test the knowledge<\/p>\n
           of the subject, intelligence, awareness, teaching faculty,<\/p>\n
           articulations, expression, speaking ability and other<\/p>\n
           related qualities. There will be 75 marks assigned for this<\/p>\n
           test. They are distributed as under:-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           i. Knowledge and awareness                25 marks<\/p>\n
           ii. Teaching faculty including articulation 22 marks<\/p>\n
             expression and speaking ability.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Iii. Intelligence and other qualities     25 marks<\/p>\n
           In order to make a precise assessment the Candidate will
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003                    :{ 5 }:\n<\/p>\n
           be granted in consultation with the expert advisor in the<\/p>\n
           following categories for each of the three groups of<\/p>\n
           qualities. Marks will be awarded in accordance with<\/p>\n
           category in which a candidate is graded:-<\/p>\n
           i. Knowledge and awareness:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             a. Good                      18-25\n\n             b. Average                   9 - 17\n\n             c. Poor                      1-8\n\n<\/pre>\n
           ii. Teaching faculty including articulation, expression and<\/p>\n
             speaking ability:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             a. Good                      18-25\n\n             b. Average                   9 - 17\n\n             c. Poor                      1-8\n\n           iii.Intelligence and other qualities:-\n\n             a. Good                      18-25\n\n             b. Average                   9 - 17\n\n             c. Poor                      1-8\n\n<\/pre>\n
             For qualifying the viva-voce test the candidate must<\/p>\n
             obtain at least 40% marks in aggregate.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           When this criteria was placed on record by the<\/p>\n
Commission, the counsel for the petitioners sought time to point out<\/p>\n
short-comings and arbitrariness in the said criteria. This permission<\/p>\n
was granted vide order dated 16.4.2009 with a direction that advance<\/p>\n
copies be provided to the counsel for the respondents to file<\/p>\n
response thereto. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application,<\/p>\n
pointing out infirmities and arbitrariness in the criteria that was<\/p>\n
adopted by the Commission. The challenge to the criteria was made
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003                       :{ 6 }:\n<\/p>\n
on number of grounds as contained in the said application with a<\/p>\n
plea that fixing of viva-voce marks in this manner will violate the<\/p>\n
provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such, it<\/p>\n
was accordingly liable to be struck down. Some submissions were<\/p>\n
made on the basis of law laid down in Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib<\/p>\n
Sehravardi, 1981 (1) SCC 722 and Ashok Kumar Yadav and<\/p>\n
others Vs.      State of Haryana and others, 1985 (4) SCC 417.<\/p>\n
Basically, it was alleged that 100 marks fixed for evaluation only on<\/p>\n
the basis of interview would lead to arbitrary consideration and<\/p>\n
selection and hence, was bad on that count.\n<\/p>\n
            The Commission filed a response to this challenge raised<\/p>\n
on behalf of the petitioners in the application. The criteria adopted by<\/p>\n
the respondent-Commission has been justified. It is stated in the<\/p>\n
reply that the criteria does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity as<\/p>\n
pointed out in the application. It is further pleaded that the petitioners<\/p>\n
had participated in the selection process and once having not<\/p>\n
succeeded there at, have chosen to challenge the criteria. Reference<\/p>\n
is made to number of judgments in this regard to say that where the<\/p>\n
challenge was made to the process of selection after participation,<\/p>\n
such a challenge would not need consideration. Justifying the<\/p>\n
method of selection and appointment, it is pointed out that yardstick<\/p>\n
to be followed for allocation of marks in cases where the selection is<\/p>\n
made on the basis of written test and viva-voce can not be applied to<\/p>\n
the case in which selection is exclusively made on the basis of<\/p>\n
interviews. Accordingly, the judgments relied upon by counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners have been distinguished.\n<\/p>\n
            When the matter came up for hearing on 23.7.2009, the
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003                        :{ 7 }:\n<\/p>\n
submissions on behalf of the petitioners ultimately centered around<\/p>\n
the fact of fixing 75 marks for the interview. This, according to the<\/p>\n
petitioners, could be utilised in the discretion of the Members to<\/p>\n
select the preferred ones. From this, counsel for the petitioners have<\/p>\n
forcefully argued that arbitrariness in fixing the criteria is indicated.<\/p>\n
             In this background, it is thought proper to call for the<\/p>\n
record of selection to see in case any of the candidate has been<\/p>\n
given excessive marks during interview or in other words, the<\/p>\n
candidates who were not selected and were the petitioners, were<\/p>\n
brought down while assessing them in the interview so as to oust<\/p>\n
them. The evaluation done by the Interview Committee was<\/p>\n
summoned to be placed before the Court in a sealed cover.<\/p>\n
Mr.Mehtani today has brought before this Court the record of<\/p>\n
selected candidates as well as those candidates who could not make<\/p>\n
it on the basis of merit. I have perused the record and have noticed<\/p>\n
that there is not much substantial difference in the assessment of<\/p>\n
candidates in the interview marks. Generally there is a difference of 1<\/p>\n
or 2 marks in the assessment of candidates as far as the interview is<\/p>\n
concerned. In some of the cases, the marks obtained by the<\/p>\n
candidates, who could not be selected, were rather little higher than<\/p>\n
those who did make the grade. I am, thus, satisfied that there is no<\/p>\n
arbitrariness or discrimination noticeable from the marking in the<\/p>\n
interview. Otherwise also, the selection in the present case was<\/p>\n
made in the year 2002 and the candidates selected have already<\/p>\n
worked for over a period of 7 years. Prima-facie, I have not been able<\/p>\n
to see any arbitrariness or unfairness in the method of selection or<\/p>\n
fixing of criteria, I am   not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ
\n CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003                      :{ 8 }:\n<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
                The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. The record,<\/p>\n
after perusal, has been got resealed and returned to Mr.H.N.Mehtani,<\/p>\n
counsel for the Commission.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
August 03, 2009                            ( RANJIT SINGH )\nkhurmi                                           JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2009 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16651 OF 2003 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 03, 2009 Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav and others …..Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.Rajbir Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2009 - 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\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-20T10:02:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-20T10:02:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1505,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-20T10:02:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2009 - 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\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-20T10:02:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-20T10:02:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009"},"wordCount":1505,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009","name":"Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-20T10:02:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajbir-singh-yadav-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-3-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.Rajbir Singh Yadav And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/14345","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=14345"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14345\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}