{"id":145639,"date":"2011-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011"},"modified":"2015-08-13T05:33:54","modified_gmt":"2015-08-13T00:03:54","slug":"vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Vaghela vs State on 12 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Vaghela vs State on 12 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/2467\/2011\t 9\/ 9\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2467 of 2011\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHON'BLE\nSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil  judge ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nVAGHELA\nUSHABEN DAHYABHAI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT THROUGH DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHARNISH V DARJI for\nPetitioner \nMR MAULIK G NANAVATI, ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for\nRespondent:1 \nMR DEEPAK P SANCHELA for\nRespondent:2 \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHON'BLE\n\t\t\tSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/05\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
Rule.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Maulik G.Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader, and
\n\tMr.Deepak P.Sanchela, learned advocate waive service of notice of
\n\tRule on
\n\tbehalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively. On the facts, and in
\n\tthe circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned
\n\tadvocates for the respective parties, the petition is being heard
\n\tand finally decided, today.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tpetition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
\n\tfiled with the following prayers:\n<\/p>\n
“(A)\tAdmit
\n\tand allow this Special Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n
(B)\tAllow
\n\tthis Special Civil Application and be pleased to hold action of
\n\trespondent authority in not regularizing services of petitioners as
\n\tbad, illegal and arbitrary and further be pleased to direct
\n\trespondent authority to consider case of petitioner for selection on
\n\tregular post and regularize service of petitioner and direct them to
\n\tgive all consequential benefits to petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
(C)\tPending
\n\tadmission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition be
\n\tpleased to grant interim relief in terms of para 10(B).\n<\/p>\n
(D)\tPending
\n\tadmission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition be
\n\tpleased to direct respondent no.2 not change service condition of
\n\tpetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
(E)\tBe
\n\tpleased to award the cost of this petition.\n<\/p>\n
(F)\tGrant
\n\tsuch other and further relief as deemed fit and just in the interest
\n\tof justice.”\n<\/p>\n
Briefly
\n\tstated, the case of the petitioner is that she was appointed on
\n\t01.03.1990, as Safai Kamdar on daily wages in Mansa Municipality.
\n\tShe has been working as Safai Kamdar ever since her date of
\n\tappointment and is still engaged as such. The grievance of the
\n\tpetitioner is that though work is available, respondent No.2 has not
\n\ttaken any steps to regularize her services. According to the
\n\tpetitioner, the respondent – Municipality has a sanctioned set
\n\tup and had initiated the procedure for appointment on several posts,
\n\tby issuing an Advertisement dated 13.01.2008. Pursuant thereto, the
\n\tpetitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Safai Kamdar,
\n\tand was called for the interview on 16.06.2008. However, as the
\n\tpetitioner did not possess the requisite educational qualification,
\n\tshe was not given appointment. Being aggrieved thereby, the
\n\tpetitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Harnish
\n\tV.Darji, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that in
\n\tpetitions filed by similarly situated persons, the Court had
\n\tdirected the respondents to consider the cases of daily wagers for
\n\tregularization. The case of the petitioner has not been considered
\n\tin proper perspective by the respondent-Municipality, though there
\n\tis a regular sanctioned setup and posts are available. It is further
\n\tsubmitted that the work that the petitioner is performing does not
\n\trequire any educational qualifications. Though, admittedly, the
\n\tpetitioner does not possess the necessary qualifications as
\n\tmentioned in the advertisement, considering the fact that she has
\n\tworked for about 21 years, the respondent-Municipality ought to have
\n\tregularized her services, in view of the judgment in Secretary,
\n\tState of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi<\/a> (3) and Others –
\n\t(2006)4 SCC 1.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\taffidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Chief
\n\tOfficer of the respondent-Municipality, wherein it is stated that if
\n\tany appointment on regular post is to be made, the procedure
\n\tprescribed in the sanctioned setup has to be followed and any
\n\tappointment made should be in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.\n<\/p>\n
Referring
\n\tto the said affidavit-in-reply, Mr.Dipak P.Sanchela, learned
\n\tadvocate for respondent No.2, who is the main contesting respondent,
\n\thas submitted that the petitioner had applied pursuant to the
\n\tadvertisement and could not be selected as she does not have the
\n\trequisite educational qualifications as stipulated therein. The
\n\tMunicipality is bound to follow the criteria set by respondent No.1,
\n\tDirector of Municipalities, and the sanctioned posts have to be
\n\tfilled up in accordance with the said criteria. It is contended that
\n\tin the present case, the minimum educational requirement for the
\n\tpost of Safai Kamdar as per advertisement dated 13.01.2008 is that
\n\tthe candidate should have passed the 4th
\n\tStandard which, admittedly, the petitioner does not possess.
\n\tTherefore, the petitioner could not be given appointment on regular
\n\tbasis.\n<\/p>\n
\tI
\n\thave heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and
\n\tperused the averments made in the petition and other documents on
\n\trecord.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis an admitted position that the petitioner does not fulfil the
\n\trequisite educational qualification of having passed the 4th
\n\tStandard, which is necessary for being appointed as Safai Kamdar on
\n\tregular basis, as per advertisement dated 13.01.2008. When the
\n\teligibility criteria has been prescribed by the
\n\trespondent-Municipality as per the sanctioned setup, any candidate
\n\tappointed to such post should necessarily fulfil the said criteria.
\n\tMerely because the petitioner has worked for 21 years as daily waged
\n\tSafai Kamdar in the respondent-Municipality, and is still working as
\n\tsuch, does not mean that the prescribed educational qualifications
\n\tand criteria should be given a go-bye, and the services of the
\n\tpetitioner should be regularized dehors the Recruitment Rules
\n\tand stipulations made in the advertisement, only on the ground of
\n\tlength of service. In any case, the petitioner has not challenged
\n\tthe said advertisement. On the contrary, she has applied in
\n\tpursuance thereto, and even appeared in the interview,
\n\tunsuccessfully. Having participated in the recruitment process, it
\n\tdoes not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that her services
\n\tshould be regularized dehors the eligibility criteria prescribed for
\n\tsuch post. The learned advocate for the petitioner has placed
\n\treliance upon the decision of  Secretary, State
\n\tof Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi<\/a> (3) and Others
\n\twherein
\n\tit has been held that:\n<\/p>\n
“53.\n<\/p>\n
\tOne aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular
\n\tappointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of
\n\tMysore v. S.V.Narayanappa<\/a> (1967)1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071,
\n\tR.N.Nanjundappa v. T.Thimmiah<\/a> (1972)1 SCC 409 : (1972)2 SCR 799, and
\n\tB.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka  (1979)4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L
\n\t& S)4 : (1979)3 SCR 937, and referred to in paragraph 15 above,
\n\tof duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have
\n\tbeen made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or
\n\tmore but without the intervention of orders of courts or of
\n\ttribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such
\n\temployees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the
\n\tprinciples settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and
\n\tin the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India,
\n\tthe State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps
\n\tto regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such
\n\tirregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly
\n\tsanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of
\n\ttribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are
\n\tundertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be
\n\tfilled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are
\n\tbeing now employed. The process must be set in motion within six
\n\tmonths from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any
\n\talready made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this
\n\tjudgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the
\n\tconstitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent,
\n\tthose not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tabove observations will not be applicable to the facts and
\n\tcircumstances of the present case, as the petitioner has been
\n\tappointed on daily wage basis on 01.03.1990 and it is not her case,
\n\tor even that of the respondents, that her appointment as a daily
\n\twager is either irregular, or illegal. In addition thereto, during
\n\tthe subsistence of her appointment on daily wages, the petitioner
\n\thas applied pursuant to the advertisement and has appeared for the
\n\tinterview for the post of Safai Kamdar on regular basis. The post
\n\thas been advertised as a part of the regular recruitment process and
\n\tthe petitioner admittedly does not possess the requisite educational
\n\tqualifications for the post. In this view of the matter, to grant
\n\tthe prayer for regularization made by the petitioner would amount to
\n\tappointment of a person who is not qualified or eligible, through
\n\tthe back-door, which would neither be permissible, nor legally
\n\tsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tground advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the
\n\tnature of the work performed
\n\tby the petitioner does not require any educational qualifications,
\n\tcannot be accepted, as the eligibility criteria are not to be
\n\tdecided by the petitioner but by the employer. In a fact-situation
\n\tsuch as the present one where the petitioner admittedly does not
\n\tfulfil the educational requirements for the post in question, she
\n\tcannot be considered to be entitled to the post in question. The
\n\taction of the respondents in not offering the petitioner regular
\n\tappointment on the ground that she lacks the requisite educational
\n\tqualification, cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor
\n\tthe aforestated reasons, the petition has no merit and deserves to
\n\tbe dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
\n\tThere shall be no orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(Smt.Abhilasha
\nKumari, J.) <\/p>\n
(sunil)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Vaghela vs State on 12 May, 2011 Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2467\/2011 9\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2467 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-145639","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVaghela vs State on 12 May, 2011 - 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\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vaghela vs State on 12 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-13T00:03:54+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=\"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\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vaghela vs State on 12 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-13T00:03:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1494,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Vaghela vs State on 12 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-13T00:03:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vaghela vs State on 12 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Vaghela vs State on 12 May, 2011 - 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\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vaghela vs State on 12 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-13T00:03:54+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vaghela vs State on 12 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-13T00:03:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011"},"wordCount":1494,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011","name":"Vaghela vs State on 12 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-13T00:03:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaghela-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vaghela vs State on 12 May, 2011"}]},{"@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\/145639","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=145639"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145639\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145639"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145639"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145639"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}