{"id":149478,"date":"2010-12-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010"},"modified":"2014-09-05T05:19:05","modified_gmt":"2014-09-04T23:49:05","slug":"ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ramarekha Prasad vs The Union Of India on 31 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Ramarekha Prasad vs The Union Of India on 31 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
_ E-\nIN THIS HIGH COURT OF KARN,\/\\'1'A.KA AT BANGALORE'.\nDATED THIS THE 3155\"\" DAY OF DECEMBER, 20 \n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE I--IONBLE MRJUSTICE V.G.SABI-ig_1.\u00a7I.I'I\"'\u00bbV:'   A.\n\nAND\n\nTHE HONBLE MRSJUSTICE   \nWRIT PETITION No.s3--7\u00e9 of 2(\u00a70;1{S\u00a7'CAT1\n\nBETWEEN:\nSR1 RAMAREKHA  '  \nS\/O. GHAMUPRASAD  \" ' \nAGED ABOU'I'31A--YEA1?.S    \nSUBSTITUTE EVLMERGIZNCY _ --\nWHEEL AND AXLE PLm\\'n'?'-~ \"   '-\nYELAHANKA * =  \" \nBANGALOREm56CiAQ64~_ '_ '\n\n.  V.   PETITIONER\n\n(By:.'fSf:';\u00bb .PRAi}E:E1~1 KUMARH RA:K0TE, ADV.)\n\nAND : \n\n 'V _m:\u00ab: {jN1o..N'oF*{ND1z\\\n\n_ H   R1129 BY \u00a7'FS';.SECY\n 'V . '---\u00a7;A1LwAY''\u00a330ARD\n  NEW [}~EE.HI\n\nA' '  __ \" 911-1\u00a3_; GENERAL MANAGER\n\n\" 'WI-i1ZEL AND AXLE? PLAN'1'\n\nV V ' ' *  A \" 7YI3LAHANKA\n\n\" \" \"I23,A.NGAE,ORE ~ 560 064\n\n:13 SR1 SE'E'ARAi.\\\/I\nCI--{REF Mra:c1~~\u00a3AN1cAL, [:1NGINEI't3R\nW'I'\"iI*2I-BIL AND  PLAN'1'\nYI::1.A1~:ANKA\nE3A.NGAl..OR{\u00a7 A 560 064 \n\ngig, M,\n\n\n\ni-..3\n\n4 SR} D NARASIMHAN\nASST. PERSONNEL OFFECER\n'WHEEL AND AXLE PLANT\nYEILAEIANKA\nBANGALORE W 560 064\n\n1\/06\/10] '\n\n{RI IS E) ELETEI) VIDE COURT ORDER DA%E';3    .\n\n  .. ._ RE s\u00e9>_ov1x:DENI's-. . \"\n\n[By S1-i: N S SANJAY GOWDA E_f_ci5'152:R:2\u00a24, E1  DE3v1i\u00a7E'I'E3D\nV\/0 DATED 1\/O6\/10).   V V '   \n\nTHIS WP IS FILED U':\\IDEi:::\" 226 AND 227\nOF THE coNsT1mT1oN~0_E 1'ND_1_A PRAYING TO QUASH\nTHE IMPUGN}':1D*\u00abQ__RDE;:R ESY. ,1gV,i2oo2 VIDE ANNWI-1.\n\n*rH1s%'i3E_j*1rf1\"O\u00e94 B'E:11\\3G' RiES'ERv'ED AND COMING ON\nFOR PRoN.Q'iJN(;E1\\\u00a2ENT-- ~ O__F ,%0RDERs THIS DAY,\nNAGAI{ATEL'\\V\u00a5i J., \":\u00a7DEL:~VERED 'THE FOLLOWING ;\u00ab\n\n* \u00ab  \n\nThi:'V\u00e9V'D\u00abwA::ivi_  filed against the order dated\n\n15.33.2003 1\u00a7a'saeg_: ____ __m O.A.N0.15O\/03 by the Central\n\n.A(}mi::i,stra.iiVe.'.I'ribur1a1. Bangalore (he:rei1'1aI't'\u00a3:1' 1'<'afe:'red to as\n\n\n\n2.  The ;_)L'aje:.j't.i011e1" in this writ pe1:i1.i0n had \ufb02ied the original\n\nV'~.,z1pp1ic'a\u00a3'.i_A\u00e9n before the t,ribur1ai .=3e<::k1'1'1g quashing of the order\n\n 7.\u00a32.2002 and a dire.<:t1'cm. in the authoritms E0\n\n" rL}'instat'@ mm with full back-wa.ges along with (:<)1'1t.i1'1L11't.y of\n\nk\n\nx"\n\n \n\n\n\n'S\nW_1W\n\nservice as a group 'D' employee. The tribunal after hearing\nboth sides had dismissed the application. HE\u00a7iiC:\u00e9'.gT't.lf1\u20ac\n\napplicant has preferred this writ petition.\n\n3. According to the petitioner. he \\vas_.a_p_poi1it_.edlast' \n\nSubstitute Emergency Peon by.__olrder--.dated'2$_l8. 19397 in the\npay scale of Rs.750\u00bb--9\ufb01l(..)il"a't Axle Plant at\nYalahanka, after__he ii1ideryizent' aA1:if1eelical'eXan1ination which\nwas pursuant to '---order dated.._4*;S:.V.lV9Q77; He was posted\nagainst an__. Mechanical Department\nand he joined ':'d.\u00a3i;i,y at   Since he had completed\n120 days of'vcent.ir\u00a71,1oL1's'sewice,"lie was granted temporary\nstatus z\\}'\u00ab"'it'l'l\u00ab. ef1eeVt'fr_orii'5?._:'7';.1l.2--;1997. He was also issued the\nbenefits olfsproyidentl i7txiad:_:and other leave benefits, as well as\n\nt,he4p'1'ivilege of, travelling in second class in the Railways.\n\na"'Acc0rdi*n'g "tie; the petitioner. lie was working continuotisly\n\n  \u00a3"roni  .i99.7u_:i::ill he was discharged from service by notice\n\n 7._1.2V;e:2pQt;)2. Being aggrieved by the order of discharge.\n\n the p\u20acl'll\u00a7_O11CF preferred the original application contending\n\n2  that__ he should liave been absorbed as a Group 'D' employee\n\n"'l._ia1tvi.'i'ig regaid to his l\u20acI1gl.h of service 1111.311'; 28.4.1997 upto\n\nl' =  12.2002 for abotit five years as si.1l:)stit,L1te eiiiergencgy peon.\n\nThat. he liacl also at,teti.ded. the screer1i1'ig.g test and was\nV.\/\n\n_.X\n\n \n\n\n\n_5_\n\nperiod of six months. Thereafteiwards, the performance\n\nreports were in favour of the petitioner. However. the1-'elw_as\n\nno second screening done and though  _\n\nrecommendation for his absor'ptio'nii.'ilinto serv*iee--..p \n\n7.11.2002. nevertheless he \\*}aS--._Vdiseh'ariged ireh\u00a5..1.'ee,mee age\n\n5.12.2002. it is contended  entirelplvaetivon of the\nrespondents as against'\u00abtl"Le_ Apeti.tViovne'r_Vpis:illegal and arbitrary<\/pre>\n
and therefore, the   ‘appreciated the
\ncase of the  sought by him.<\/p>\n
\nIt is   of the tribunal may\nbe    to the petitioner.\n\n<\/pre>\n
6|: i>Ae-:2V_e’eeire,.ii:–\u00a7e-eiiegeeitied on behalf of the respondent-<\/p>\n
Railways thuatithevappointrnent of the petitioner itself was on<\/p>\n
 a ternpo’rafypbasisV”lthat it was subject to certain terms and<\/p>\n
  =5nevu_of which was that the petitioner was liable to<\/p>\n
 at any time and that he had no right to his<\/p>\n
 emplogzirient as such. He has further submitted that when<\/p>\n
 th_e’a”petitioner was found to be unsuitable for the job, the<\/p>\n
raiiways rightly discontinued his services on the ground of<\/p>\n
unsuitabiiity and that the tribunal has rightly appreciated
\nthe case of the respondent and has dismissed the application<\/p>\n
filed by the petitioner which order does not call for any<\/p>\n
4}”\n<\/p>\n
i11t.er1’ei’ence. He. therefore. submits that the writ. petition<\/p>\n
may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
7. It is also necessary” to note the’: by “oi”def <\/p>\n
10.8.2005. this court ha.d di;Fec–t.ed the  Af.f)epVai\u00b0tmeiii:,x*<\/p>\n
to produce the original records iiiolotiing th’t\u00ab1’K’\u20ac’}.}OI.”t’vi\u00a7()’f the 3”?
\nrespondent dated 7. a~eC0f(Eing1y, the original<\/p>\n
records have been madeA..aVai1ah1_e to the ooi_irt.\n<\/p>\n
8. Having heard the cot1n.se\u00ab1_’~on “both sides and on<\/p>\n
perusai of ti’1e”‘m\u00e9\u00a3t.e1V*ia’i .or_i_ :’r*=’:_C0=i’d;–\u00ab’the only point that arises
\nfor ()uIf..tCQI1’VSiC1.\u20ac1;\u00a3’i?;_iQ11.._i’S.__.\u00e91S” to_whethe1* the order of the
\n_  _ 22;,-iii’. p 2
\ntribunal 1s_”L1st’*ro er. ”\n<\/p>\n
–. J ‘\u00a7j_,W.____\u00bb.\n<\/p>\n
9. F”rof13.__tI’:e 15ei”t1sa’i.oi7 material on record. it is not in<\/p>\n
c1isp3i::itei’tha1t’: het.itio1iei* was appointed as a substitute<\/p>\n
.\u00e9I11,\u20acI’gCvl1Cy-p.\u20acOI1 against a clear vacancy in the Mechanical<\/p>\n
17)e’2;.3ai’tVi’i1e’i1I’;__  Wheel & Axle Plant at Bangalore and he<\/p>\n
\\Va2s’—-a1ttv+;1.ehe’6i to the third respondent. The appointment was<\/p>\n
oi’f\u20ac’;’edV’i{)’i1 4.8.1997 and it was ei’fect.iVe from 288.1997.<\/p>\n
’71_’l’i’a1t:”()r1 <;:ompleti0I1 of 120 days oi' coiitiimoiis service he was<\/p>\n
 = g5\u00a7iV'\u20acI1 the 1.{':'31'I1}3()}.'\u00a31I'y status with effect, from 27.12.1997 and<\/p>\n
he was ooi1I'e1"1"e(1 (3\u20ac}"1,21i.l'.l p1'i.vi1e_:_\u00a7es. The question is whether<\/p>\n
-7-<\/span>
\nthe petitioner was erititleci to be absorbed on a pe1’m.ane11t.<\/p>\n
basis after completion of three years of S\u20aci”ViC_\u20ac”~_iVfi~, the<\/p>\n
teiaiporary status. The said three yea1.”.S._DI” se’r\\:-‘iee’iX{eLiltl_Vl_li.avee 0<\/p>\n
been completed on 3.8.2000. The ;’1’e,s’ipof1de’nt’ <\/p>\n
screened immediately after the’-._e11d of ti”:1fee”VyeAa1llll.b.200l and was declared
\nto be uhsaitable..lyylie_0jVvfas~eoritiiiued in service. but there was
\nno second0ls’e1f_eei1iiig0’oi’the petitioner after the end of six<\/p>\n
*9 <\/p>\n
 \u00ab–.yAmoi1tll1s_A—from 3l.5\u00a72’uuI. He was in fact, aliowed to continue<\/p>\n
  in   12.2002 on which date the petitioner was<\/p>\n
tenfiinateti’~ifi’ohi S\u20ac1’ViCC. On a perusal of the material on<\/p>\n
 record. ‘as per Aru1exu1’e~D it becomes clear that on<\/p>\n
-‘3V00.5′–..200l, it was clearly stated that the petitioner was not<\/p>\n
reeoiiiinezided for the present and his perfo1~manee needs to<\/p>\n
be watched for six months. “thereafter the petitioner<\/p>\n
eont.iii’uec\u00a3 to be in service. In fact. the o1’ig;ii1al records reveal<\/p>\n
that on 61.1.2002. 21 letter was issued by the office of the<\/p>\n
Chief Personnel Ollleei’ stating that the petitioiier was eligible
\nxi<\/p>\n
ii
\n2,.\u00bb
\n9\/.\n<\/p>\n
-3-<\/span>
\nto be screened for his absorption in 1-eguiar group ‘D’ service<\/p>\n
as he had comp1e{ed three years of service and it:-i\u00a7vo_s:”-\u00abziiso<\/p>\n
directed that his working report. be enc1ose.;f—<\/p>\n
further E’\u00a3Cf.\u00a7OI}. We have pe1’usec_i..a,_copy’ of” ixrorlcing VV<\/p>\n
report dated 7.1 1.2002 and 1h e’o;3n1e ‘is.extracieolhcreurider: –. VL<\/p>\n
Sub: Working report   Rekha Prasad<\/p>\n
1. Name      <\/p>\n
2- D93iQnaiiQV”i:     ‘V   Emergency Peon\n<\/p>\n
3. Date of   f  2\u00ab\u00e9\u00a7oo8.2oo7<\/p>\n
4.      <\/p>\n
ii}_Co11d1’L ‘C\u00e9    : Good<\/p>\n
 I{f,) ‘:I’ e:fT.i’\/7,De’.Af’3?71er1’Vi”” “””  : Good<\/p>\n
 _  iv]’G\u00e9’rrero.iobei’1oviour : Good<\/p>\n
‘ Ar;}”‘VP’er}”or’n5,_orrice s1’nce_ joined : Overall Good Performance<\/p>\n
 L212) A;)l:ii’;.t.dVe’]or work : Good<\/p>\n
U vii)L’?~2elatio11s}1ip with his
\n ‘ srrpervrsors and other<\/p>\n
“E co–work(3rs. : Good<\/p>\n
35. Recommenclations to<\/p>\n
consider himfor granting
\nleI7’1p()rC1f1 1 si’ai”us : Reoonmlendedjor granting
\ntemporary status.\n<\/p>\n
Sci\/ ~<\/p>\n
Name & Designation. of<\/p>\n
M L; m
\nThe Qf\ufb01cer<\/p>\n
Sita Ram
\nCME ”\n<\/p>\n
10. On a perusal of the Said re-:po1″‘t.A~\u00b0it its ‘seen VVi\u00bbh’3ttu:::\u00e91:<\/p>\n
I’\u20acCOI]1II1\u20acI).d\u00a31UOI1 had been 11ia_d’e_V in favour oi’_t.he ‘petVtttoner 2 L’<\/p>\n
and correspondence was   vvvj’3)etit.io11e1*
\nvide letter dated 6.}   that he had
\ncompleted th1’ee__years .o.\u00a7:._se1’t;i.Vee_’  eligible to be
\nScreened for   ~D~ Sewica
\nHowever, was terminated from
\nservice!” to peruse two
\nother  written by the Personal<\/p>\n
Departvmenttid'”o1fVVtt1e”V*.Ge’;1er\u00e9.1 Manager’s office. Wheel 8;: Axle<\/p>\n
 ;_QneA1et’,t.ei”‘i’:asV been addressed to one Sri. Rakesh<\/p>\n
  “w’het’ehe1′ he reqtlired the services of th.e<\/p>\n
[..)’\u20ac’t’:i’.tiVi’Ol1\u20ac’I’.’ttitij\ufb01tz had been attetcthed to the third respondent.<\/p>\n
 Sri.Seethg11’a1111. The said officer has stated that”; he did not<\/p>\n
\\rtrish–..&t;o have the pet.it.ioner attached to him. On the same<\/p>\n
day. attother letter was written to the t;hi1*d respondent.<\/p>\n
Sri.Seet,l1a1’an1 who has also stated that he was not wi1li1’1\u00a7.f to<\/p>\n
have the services of the petit.ioner. ‘File reason for writing
\nthe afo1’esa:’d 1.et,t:.ers was b\u20ac3.CE1E,ES\u20ac Sr1′.Seet1.1a1’an1 had been<\/p>\n
t,I’\u00e9:1.l’1SfC’.1’1′(;'(‘1 arld t.1’1ereI”ore. it was neeesszwy to find out as to
\n5’?\n<\/p>\n
is
\nE,<\/p>\n
\/r<\/p>\n
.,\u00a7(}.,<\/p>\n
whom the petitioner had to be attached. When the niatter<\/p>\n
stood thus, by order dated 5.12.2002, the petition:er*ti:4ttrasV.<\/p>\n
terminated from service. From the aforesaid m7a._tervijal..V0’what’i 0′<\/p>\n
becomes appa1’e}:1t is that initia1ly;”whe_n <\/p>\n
found to be unsuitable and ‘;izas.r..perrnitted. totribe\ufb02pconrtinued 2 0′<\/p>\n
for a period of six months at the   months,
\nno performance r6P0r{~.,.ii?’aS  neither was he
\nscreened for the second.   only because,
\nSri.Seetharani_.:v   00 Bangalore to another
\nplace and the  interested in having the
\nsenaces oi the.’.pet_i:tioner,”~td_es_piteWthere being a good report
\nwith re\u00a7’\u00a7a.rd”i’.o  of duties, the services of the<\/p>\n
petitioner \\Aras..Vterrninated when in November 2002 action.<\/p>\n
. 0\u00b0-wa”s~– init.ia.te”clto absibfb the petitioner as a regular Group ‘D’<\/p>\n
  ” tvwexiind that this aspect of the matter has not<\/p>\n
been considei’ed by the tribunal. From the original records,<\/p>\n
 it becorntes clear that there has been no opportunity given to<\/p>\n
l”:t’_thet'”petitioner to be screened and in order to find out his<\/p>\n
0  suitability for the purpose of his discharging his duties. Also<\/p>\n
the reliance placed on the screening held on 31.5.2001 in
\nthe Notice dated 17.12.2002 {Annexnre\u00bbA 11) is wholly
\nmisplaced as the petitioner was continued for a further paid<\/p>\n
of six months from the said date. Hence, we find that the<\/p>\n
M1411′<\/p>\n
order of the tribtmal upholding the cliseliarge 0f___ the<\/p>\n
petitioner from his duties is not in accordance with” tV}’1e_”‘i’2;eLtus<\/p>\n
borne out from the records as well as the erititliemerit’  V’<\/p>\n
petitioner to be screened. Under thee Cii’CLz:’11st.e{i1eesfivevset V<\/p>\n
aside the order of the tribuna.1:*.&asd_’_Aiwe}1:*.g1S’ <\/p>\n
WAP\/NG\/TO 145 dated 7.1__2:.’\u00a7;oo2._e_ pa.\u00e9’sed__by_E the 402<\/p>\n
respondent and allow   We direct the
\nrespondent authoritiesiitovreinetdte_  with 50%
\nbackwages  Vdabeorption as a group
\n‘D’ empiogtee   report dated
\n7.1l.21t)vO.’Z’V   .. eeepolident Sri. Seetharam.
\nThe 1’e:sxAp’our1deVnt’  consider the same within a<\/p>\n
periodof t;vt\/o I.t1o12tv\u00a7’1s .1″-_ror’1″.1 the date of receipt of the certified<\/p>\n
Vt’  , eof}y.{oi7..,thisi– order.’ VC”)”r’dered accordingly.<\/p>\n
Sdf\ufb01\ufb02
\nhdge<\/p>\n
Sdii-5?\n<\/p>\n
 it  Ezd\u00e9\u00e9<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Ramarekha Prasad vs The Union Of India on 31 December, 2010 Author: V.G.Sabhahit & B.V.Nagarathna _ E- IN THIS HIGH COURT OF KARN,\/\\’1’A.KA AT BANGALORE’. DATED THIS THE 3155″” DAY OF DECEMBER, 20 PRESENT THE I–IONBLE MRJUSTICE V.G.SABI-ig_1.\u00a7I.I’I”‘\u00bbV:’ A. AND THE HONBLE MRSJUSTICE WRIT PETITION No.s3–7\u00e9 of 2(\u00a70;1{S\u00a7’CAT1 BETWEEN: SR1 RAMAREKHA ‘ […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149478","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamarekha Prasad vs The Union Of India on 31 December, 2010 - 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\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramarekha Prasad vs The Union Of India on 31 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-12-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-04T23:49:05+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramarekha Prasad vs The Union Of India on 31 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-04T23:49:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1392,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Ramarekha Prasad vs The Union Of India on 31 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-04T23:49:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramarekha Prasad vs The Union Of India on 31 December, 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":"Ramarekha Prasad vs The Union Of India on 31 December, 2010 - 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\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramarekha Prasad vs The Union Of India on 31 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-04T23:49:05+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramarekha Prasad vs The Union Of India on 31 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-04T23:49:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010"},"wordCount":1392,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010","name":"Ramarekha Prasad vs The Union Of India on 31 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-04T23:49:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramarekha-prasad-vs-the-union-of-india-on-31-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramarekha Prasad vs The Union Of India on 31 December, 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\/149478","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=149478"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149478\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149478"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149478"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149478"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}