{"id":150899,"date":"2002-09-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002"},"modified":"2015-12-03T03:44:47","modified_gmt":"2015-12-02T22:14:47","slug":"k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"K.M. Agrahari vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.M. Agrahari vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 September, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Sikri<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>A.K. Sikri, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. CWP.2883\/99  was disposed of by this Court vide<br \/>\njudgment and order dated 30.5.2002. This writ petition<br \/>\nwas filed by the petitioner impugning the judgment<br \/>\ndated 21.12.98 passed by the learned Central<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.<br \/>\nThe judgment of the Tribunal was upheld by the<br \/>\naforesaid judgment dated 30.5.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. It may be stated that the petitioner was appointed<br \/>\nto the post of Assistant Employment Officer (Technical)<br \/>\n(&#8216;AEO&#8217; for short) on 3.9.1969. The question was<br \/>\nwhether he was entitled to be promoted to the post of<br \/>\nSub-regional Employment officer (Technical) (&#8216;SREO&#8217; for<br \/>\nshort). In our judgment dated 30.5.2002 we have noted<br \/>\nthat Notification dated 6.5.1965 was issued prescribing<br \/>\nthe mode of recruitment for the post of SREO, AEO etc.<br \/>\nin exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to<br \/>\nArticle 309. It was further pointed out that these<br \/>\nRecruitment Rules stood cancelled vide Notification<br \/>\ndated 27.3.1968 where after by another Notification<br \/>\ndated 25.11.1968 Rules for appointment to the post of<br \/>\nSREO(T) and AEO(T) in the  Directorate of Employment,<br \/>\nTraining and Technical Education, Delhi Administration<br \/>\nwere framed. It was held that since the petitioner was<br \/>\nappointed under these Rules of 25.11.1968 as his<br \/>\nappointment was made on 3.9.1969 he was governed by<br \/>\nthese Rules and not the Rules of 1965. Under the Rules<br \/>\npromulgated by Notification dated 25.11.1968, since the<br \/>\npost of SREO was to be filled by directed recruitment,<br \/>\ntherefore, the petitioner could not be considered for<br \/>\npromotion to this post at all.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The petitioner by way of present review application<br \/>\nalleges that an error apparent on the face of record<br \/>\nhas crept and this error led to the dismissal of his<br \/>\nwrit petition. According to the petitioner Rules of<br \/>\n1965 issued by Notification dated 6.5.1965 were not<br \/>\nrepealed in totality vide Notification dated 27.3.1968<br \/>\ninasmuch as the Notification of 27.3.1968 clearly<br \/>\nstipulated that the Rules of 1965 were cancelled only<br \/>\nin respect of post mentioned in the Schedule annexed<br \/>\ntherewith and the said Schedule did not include the<br \/>\npost of SREO. In order to give further credence to<br \/>\nthis argument he pointed out that these Rules of 1965<br \/>\nin respect of SREO remained in force up to 22.3.1983 as<br \/>\nwas clear from Notification dated 23.2.1983 which<br \/>\namended Rules 1965 for the post of SREO.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. The submission of learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner pointing the aforesaid error appears to be<br \/>\ncorrect. The observations in the judgment dated<br \/>\n30.5.2002 at Page-26 thereof to this effect would not<br \/>\nbe correct. However, even when this factual error is<br \/>\ncorrected it would not vary the ultimate outcome. Fact<br \/>\nremains that insofar as the petitioner is concerned he<br \/>\nwas appointed in 1969 to the post of AEO(T) under Rules<br \/>\nwhich were promulgated by Notification dated<br \/>\n25.11.1968. Therefore, he was governed by these Rules<br \/>\nand his further promotion would take place in<br \/>\naccordance with these Rules. This is what we have held<br \/>\nin our judgment. As pointed out in the judgment<br \/>\ninsofar as post of SREO under these Rules is concerned<br \/>\nthe same could be filled up by way of direct<br \/>\nrecruitment and not by way of promotions.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. It is not disputed that the Recruitment Rules of<br \/>\n1965 provide for promotion to the post of SREO. The<br \/>\nsaid rules also prescribed mode of recruitment to the<br \/>\npost AEO. According to the Rules of 1965 promotion to<br \/>\nthe two categories of SREO is to be made from amongst<br \/>\nthe eligible AEO. The essential qualification for<br \/>\npromotion is a degree preferably in Economics or<br \/>\nCommerce. The petitioner do not satisfy the conditions<br \/>\nof eligibility. The petitioner was appointed to the<br \/>\npost of AEO(T) and he holds B.E. degree. The post of<br \/>\nAEO is different from the post of AEO(T) with different<br \/>\nqualifications. The former is eligible for promotion<br \/>\nto the post of SREO whereas the latter is not. The<br \/>\npetitioner was appointed  in 1969 as AEO(T) under the<br \/>\nRules made in 1968. It may be seen there from that a<br \/>\ndegree in Electrical or Mechanical\/Engineering is an<br \/>\nessential qualification for AEO(T) and the post of<br \/>\nSREO(T) is to be filled by direct recruitment only.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. In the reply to review application it is also<br \/>\nclarified that the petitioner had tried to get himself<br \/>\nselected by UPSC for the post of SREO(T) but could not<br \/>\nsucceed and, therefore, it follows that merely because<br \/>\nthe post of SREO continued to exist even after 1968<br \/>\ndoes not mean that the petitioner could be promoted to<br \/>\nthe said post.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. It is also stated that the Rules of 1965 were<br \/>\ncancelled in 1983 and fresh Recruitment Rules for the<br \/>\npost of SREO were issued vide notification dated<br \/>\n23.2.1983. The feeder posts for promotion to SREO are<br \/>\nOccupational Information Officer and Assistant Career<br \/>\nCounsellor. Therefore with effect from 23.2.1983 the<br \/>\npost of AEO ceased to be a feeder post of promotion to<br \/>\nthe post of SREO.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. During arguments when the petitioner was confronted<br \/>\nwith the aforesaid legal position the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner tried to argue that since the<br \/>\npetitioner was promoted to the post of SREO in 1994<br \/>\nw.e.f. 1974 after taking into consideration all the<br \/>\nfacts, such promotion could not have been revoked.\n<\/p>\n<p>This aspect has been dealt with in the judgment dated<br \/>\n30.5.2002 at length and the contention of the<br \/>\npetitioner on this account was rejected after scanning<br \/>\nthrough and discussing the entire material and finding<br \/>\nthat the petitioner was considered for promotion to<br \/>\nthis post by mistake. The petitioner cannot be<br \/>\npermitted to re-argue this aspect of the matter in<br \/>\nreview petition as the jurisdiction of this court in<br \/>\nreview is limited. We, therefore, do not find any<br \/>\nmerit in the review  petition. It is accordingly<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. However, at this stage, we may point out that while<br \/>\ndisposing of the writ petition vide judgment dated<br \/>\n30.5.2002 we had expressed our feeling that the<br \/>\npetitioner had suffered immensely due to the lapses on<br \/>\nthe part of official respondent. We had directed that<br \/>\nthe petitioner be considered for promotion in his own<br \/>\ncadre as per the Rules. We had also noted the<br \/>\nassurance given by Mr. Shali, learned counsel for<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 to the effect that the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase for promotion as per Rules applicable shall be<br \/>\nduly considered. While disposing of the writ petition<br \/>\nwe had, inter alia issued the following directions :\n<\/p>\n<p> I. The case of the petitioner for further<br \/>\npromotions to various posts as per the<br \/>\nRecruitment Rules applicable to him, to the<br \/>\nconsidered forthwith and in any case, before<br \/>\nthe retirement of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p> II. It is hoped that while considering the case of<br \/>\nthe petitioner, the official respondents shall<br \/>\nkeep in view the aforesaid peculiar facts<br \/>\nwhich made the petitioner struggling for his<br \/>\nlegitimate rights in his entire career and<br \/>\nalso keeping in view the fact that the<br \/>\npetitioner was afterall found suitable for<br \/>\npromotion to the post of SREO, and therefore,<br \/>\nhe would not be deprived of his legitimate<br \/>\npromotions now in his own cadre and his case<br \/>\nwould be considered objectively,<br \/>\ndispassionately and without any bias.\n<\/p>\n<p> III. The petitioner shall be entitled to cost of<br \/>\nRs. 10,000\/- even when we are dismissing the<br \/>\nwrit petition of the petitioner. We only hope<br \/>\nthat the official respondents shall not be<br \/>\nwanting in their solemn duty which they have<br \/>\nto discharge and the petitioner would find a<br \/>\nsmile on his face at least at the end of his<br \/>\ncareer and would go home as a happy person.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. We had expected that the petitioner would be given<br \/>\nall promotions due to him in his own cadre and he would<br \/>\nbe be given his due at least before his retirement i.e.<br \/>\n30.6.2002. However, to our dismay, at the time of<br \/>\narguments of this petition we were informed that the<br \/>\npetitioner was considered for promotion to the higher<br \/>\npost by review DPC but his case for promotion was<br \/>\nrejected. We, therefore, find that the relief given to<br \/>\nthe petitioner has in fact been rendered illusory.<br \/>\nResult is that the petitioner does not get even a<br \/>\nsingle promotion. In these circumstances, we had<br \/>\nsummoned the record of the Review DPC which was held on<br \/>\n24.6.2002. A perusal thereof shows that the petitioner<br \/>\nhas not been given promotions only because certain<br \/>\nFIRs. are pending against him and certain<br \/>\ncharge-sheets are served. However, these FIRs. and<br \/>\nCharge-sheets are of the year 2002. Review DPC was to<br \/>\nconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to<br \/>\nthe higher post as on 1974. However, we do not want to<br \/>\nexpress our final view in the matter as by doing so we<br \/>\nwould be exceeding our brief as that is not the issue<br \/>\nbefore us. If the petitioner is aggrieved, it would be<br \/>\nfor him to challenge the action of the respondent by<br \/>\ntaking out appropriate proceedings before appropriate<br \/>\nforum. However, this will not come in the way of<br \/>\nrespondents considering the case of the petitioner<br \/>\nafresh, if the respondents so desire.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. No orders as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court K.M. Agrahari vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 September, 2002 Author: A Sikri Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. 1. CWP.2883\/99 was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 30.5.2002. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner impugning the judgment dated [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150899","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K.M. Agrahari vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 September, 2002 - 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\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.M. Agrahari vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-02T22:14:47+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\\\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.M. Agrahari vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-02T22:14:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1497,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002\",\"name\":\"K.M. Agrahari vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-02T22:14:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.M. Agrahari vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"K.M. Agrahari vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 September, 2002 - 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\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.M. Agrahari vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-02T22:14:47+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\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.M. Agrahari vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-02T22:14:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002"},"wordCount":1497,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002","name":"K.M. Agrahari vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-02T22:14:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-agrahari-vs-govt-of-n-c-t-of-delhi-and-ors-on-3-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.M. Agrahari vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/150899","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=150899"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150899\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150899"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150899"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150899"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}