{"id":144236,"date":"2008-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-12-18T02:14:26","modified_gmt":"2018-12-17T20:44:26","slug":"mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mst.Abha Sharma vs State &amp; Ors on 9 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Rajasthan High Court &#8211; Jodhpur<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mst.Abha Sharma vs State &amp; Ors on 9 September, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>                                           1\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                                       JODHPUR\n                                    O R D E R\n\n                                Mst. Aabha Sharma\n\n                                         Vs.\n                           The State of Rajasthan and Others\n\n\n\n                  S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1666\/2006\n                                        .........\n                   Date of Order            :         09\/09\/2008\n\n\n                                       PRESENT\n                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR\n\n\n      Mr. M.R.Singhvi for the petitioner.\n      Mr. V.K.Mathur for the respondents.\n\n\n      BY THE COURT<\/pre>\n<p>Reportable<\/p>\n<p>                  By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n<p>      Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the<\/p>\n<p>      respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of LDC with<\/p>\n<p>      effect from the date when the first person from the panel was<\/p>\n<p>      appointed and be given all consequential benefits such as<\/p>\n<p>      seniority, pay fixation, increments etc. etc. and restraining the<\/p>\n<p>      respondents No.2 and 3 from filling these posts otherwise than<\/p>\n<p>      by the merit list.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  I   have     heard   learned      counsel   for   the   parties.<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Carefully gone through the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>              It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>that Rule 7 (B) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial<\/p>\n<p>Establishment (Amendment) Rules, 1999 (for short &#8216;the Rules of<\/p>\n<p>1999&#8217; hereinafter) provides reservation of vacancies for woman<\/p>\n<p>candidates.     It is contended that the petitioner is a woman<\/p>\n<p>candidate belonging to the general category and as per Rule 7-B<\/p>\n<p>of the Rules of 1999, 20% reservation categorywise in direct<\/p>\n<p>recruitment to the woman candidates has been provided.<\/p>\n<p>According to learned counsel for the petitioner, out of the total<\/p>\n<p>posts advertised for LDC, 3 posts of LDCs available with the<\/p>\n<p>respondents were for general category and out of 3 vacancies, a<\/p>\n<p>20% reservation has been provided for the woman candidates<\/p>\n<p>categorywise and therefore, against 20% reservation out of 3<\/p>\n<p>posts the petitioner be given appointment.<\/p>\n<p>              A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the<\/p>\n<p>respondents and contended that Rule 7-B of the Rules of 1999<\/p>\n<p>provides only 20% reservation categorywise to the woman<\/p>\n<p>candidates in the direct recruitment and since there are only 3<\/p>\n<p>vacancies, therefore,     the petitioner   is not   entitled   to be<\/p>\n<p>appointed on the post of LDC. It is further contended by learned<\/p>\n<p>counsel for the respondents that all the three persons selected<\/p>\n<p>from the panel have already been given appointment and they<\/p>\n<p>have joined their services long back and none of them have been<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>impleaded as party respondent and therefore, the relief prayed<\/p>\n<p>for cannot be granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a<\/p>\n<p>decision of Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Another<\/p>\n<p>Vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Others 2005 SCC (L&amp;S) 193 and<\/p>\n<p>contended that out of 3 posts 20% reservation comes to (.6) and<\/p>\n<p>therefore, it be rounded to (1) seat and appointment be given to<\/p>\n<p>the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>            In State of U.P. and Another Vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari<\/p>\n<p>and Others (Supra) there were 93 posts of Civil Judge (Junior<\/p>\n<p>Division) in Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service, out of which, 50%<\/p>\n<p>posts were for General Category, 21% posts were for Scheduled<\/p>\n<p>Castes, 27% posts were for Other Backward Classes and 2%<\/p>\n<p>posts were for Scheduled Tribes and the percentage worked out<\/p>\n<p>to 46.50% for General Category, 19.53% for Scheduled Castes<\/p>\n<p>category, 25.11% for OBCs and 1.86% for Scheduled Tribes. On<\/p>\n<p>the basis of the percentage worked out, the number of posts<\/p>\n<p>reserved were 46, 20, 26 and 1 for General, SC, OBCs and ST<\/p>\n<p>respectively.     So far as the reservation for other backward<\/p>\n<p>classes is concerned, the percentage worked out to 25.11%,<\/p>\n<p>whereas the number of posts reserved were 26.      On challenge<\/p>\n<p>before the High Court, the figure of 46.50 worked out have been<\/p>\n<p>rounded off to 47 instead of 46 as determined. That came to be<\/p>\n<p>challenged before Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court and Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Court observed as under :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>         &#8220;We do not find fault with any of the two<br \/>\n         reasonings adopted by the High Court. The rule<br \/>\n         of rounding off based on logic and common sense<br \/>\n         is: if part is one-half or more, its value shall be<br \/>\n         increased to one and if part is less than half then<br \/>\n         its value shall be ignored. 46.50 should have<br \/>\n         been rounded off to 47 and not to 46 as has been<br \/>\n         done.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>            Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has<\/p>\n<p>relied on a recent decision of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in<\/p>\n<p>Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission<\/p>\n<p>and Others (2007) 8 SCC, 785, wherein the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<\/p>\n<p>Court held that &#8220;Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC<\/p>\n<p>under   Article   16   (4)   are   &#8220;vertical   reservations&#8221;.   Special<\/p>\n<p>reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc.<\/p>\n<p>under Articles 16 (1) or 15 (3) are &#8220;horizontal reservations&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward<\/p>\n<p>Class under Article 16 (4), the candidates belonging to such<\/p>\n<p>Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they<\/p>\n<p>are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit,<\/p>\n<p>their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for<\/p>\n<p>the respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC<\/p>\n<p>candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open<\/p>\n<p>competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of<\/p>\n<p>posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>reservation quota for SCs stood filled. The entire reservation<\/p>\n<p>quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected<\/p>\n<p>under open competition category.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>             It was further observed by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<\/p>\n<p>Court that &#8220;But the said principle applicable to vertical (social)<\/p>\n<p>reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations.<\/p>\n<p>Where a special reservation for women is provided within the<\/p>\n<p>social reservation for SCs, the proper procedure is first to fill up<\/p>\n<p>the quota for SCs in order of merit and then find out the number<\/p>\n<p>of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation<\/p>\n<p>group of &#8220;scheduled caste women&#8221;.      If the number of women in<\/p>\n<p>such list is equal to or more than the number of special<\/p>\n<p>reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection<\/p>\n<p>towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any<\/p>\n<p>shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall<\/p>\n<p>have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of<\/p>\n<p>candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled<\/p>\n<p>Castes.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>            In the instant case, the petitioner claims the special<\/p>\n<p>reservation which has to be applied horizontally and first the<\/p>\n<p>post has to be filled in from the male candidates and then by<\/p>\n<p>applying the number of horizontal reservation of 20% from<\/p>\n<p>woman candidates of the general category, the selection has to<\/p>\n<p>be made.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>           In the instant case, if the contention raised by the<\/p>\n<p>counsel for the petitioner is accepted rounding &#8220;.6&#8221; to &#8220;1&#8221;, then<\/p>\n<p>the reservation to the woman candidates in general category<\/p>\n<p>would come to 33% instead of 20% and therefore, it would<\/p>\n<p>exceed the reservation provided under Rule 7-B of the Rules of<\/p>\n<p>1999. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief<\/p>\n<p>claimed for for the reason that the persons who have been<\/p>\n<p>selected and appointed have not been impleaded as party<\/p>\n<p>respondent and therefore, no order adverse to their interest<\/p>\n<p>without hearing them can be passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>           In Sushma Suri Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory<\/p>\n<p>of Delhi and Another (1999) 1 SCC 330, Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n<p>observed as under :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>         &#8220;It is however not possible to give any relief to the<br \/>\n         appellant because when she commenced this<br \/>\n         litigation, recruitment process was still going on but<br \/>\n         now the process is complete, selected candidates<br \/>\n         have already been appointed, they have reported<br \/>\n         for duty at different places and they are also not<br \/>\n         impleaded as parties.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>           More so, in the instant case, the vacancies of LDC for<\/p>\n<p>the subsequent years have already been advertised and after<\/p>\n<p>process of selection, the candidates have been selected and<\/p>\n<p>having   been   appointed   and        therefore,   even   there   is   no<\/p>\n<p>anticipated vacancies available.\n<\/p>\n<p>           A Division Bench of this Court in Laxman Prasad<\/p>\n<p>Sharma Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and Others<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     RLW 2005 (3) Raj. 1819 while considering the identical issue<\/p>\n<p>     held that claiming vested and enforceable right to be appointed<\/p>\n<p>     by candidate placed in select list on future vacancies occurred in<\/p>\n<p>     excess of the advertised vacancies during the currency of one<\/p>\n<p>     year, merely finding place in select list does not acquire right of<\/p>\n<p>     appointment, except to limited extent that when candidate<\/p>\n<p>     selected against the advertised vacancy does not join for some<\/p>\n<p>     reason and the selected list is still operative. It has further been<\/p>\n<p>     held that the process of selection comes to an end when the<\/p>\n<p>     appointment on all the advertised vacancies are made and<\/p>\n<p>     carried out. The selection process by way of requisition and<\/p>\n<p>     advertisement can be started for clear vacancies and also for<\/p>\n<p>     anticipated vacancies but not for future vacancies.<\/p>\n<p>                 Viewed from any stand point, in my view, the<\/p>\n<p>     petitioner is not entitled for relief prayed for.<\/p>\n<p>                 In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in<\/p>\n<p>     the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. Stay<\/p>\n<p>     petition as well as the application being I.A. No. 3065\/07 also<\/p>\n<p>     stand dismissed. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                         (H.R.PANWAR), J.\n<\/p>\n<p>rp\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Rajasthan High Court &#8211; Jodhpur Mst.Abha Sharma vs State &amp; Ors on 9 September, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Mst. Aabha Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1666\/2006 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230; Date of Order : 09\/09\/2008 PRESENT HON&#8217;BLE MR. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-144236","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mst.Abha Sharma vs State &amp; Ors on 9 September, 2008 - 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\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mst.Abha Sharma vs State &amp; Ors on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-17T20:44:26+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mst.Abha Sharma vs State &amp; Ors on 9 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-17T20:44:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1409,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Mst.Abha Sharma vs State &amp; Ors on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-17T20:44:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mst.Abha Sharma vs State &amp; Ors on 9 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/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":"Mst.Abha Sharma vs State &amp; Ors on 9 September, 2008 - 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\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mst.Abha Sharma vs State &amp; Ors on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-17T20:44:26+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mst.Abha Sharma vs State &amp; Ors on 9 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-17T20:44:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008"},"wordCount":1409,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008","name":"Mst.Abha Sharma vs State &amp; Ors on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-17T20:44:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mst-abha-sharma-vs-state-ors-on-9-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mst.Abha Sharma vs State &amp; Ors on 9 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/144236","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=144236"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144236\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144236"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}