{"id":15645,"date":"2002-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002"},"modified":"2019-03-23T22:53:41","modified_gmt":"2019-03-23T17:23:41","slug":"shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002","title":{"rendered":"Shri N.K. Rawat vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri N.K. Rawat vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Mudgal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A D Singh, M Mudgal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>Mukul Mudgal, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. This writ petition challenges the Order of the Central<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to<br \/>\nas the &#8216;Tribunal&#8217;) dated 11th September, 2000, dismissing<br \/>\nOA.572\/2000, filed by the Tribunal. The petitioner before<br \/>\nthe Tribunal challenged the order of termination issued by<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2 dated 16.3.2000.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement noticed<br \/>\ndated 27.7.1996 inviting applications for three posts of<br \/>\nComputer Operators, Grade-II. The petitioner figured at<br \/>\nserial No. 3 of the selection panel and was appointed by<br \/>\nan Order dated 29.1.1998 passed by respondent No. 2. He<br \/>\njoined against this post and an satisfactory completion of<br \/>\nhis probation was confirmed by order dated 1.2.1999 passed<br \/>\nby respondent No. 2. However, later he was put on show<br \/>\ncause notice dated 11.1.2000 by respondent No. 2 stating<br \/>\nthat respondent NO. 1 raised objections to his appointment<br \/>\nwhich according to the respondent No. 1 was bad in law and<br \/>\nin contravention of CSIR instructions. He replied to this<br \/>\nnotice, but his services were ordered to be terminated by<br \/>\norder dated 16.3.2000. He challenged this in O.A.<br \/>\n572\/2000 which was dismissed by impugned order dated<br \/>\n11.9.2000 by Tribunal holding that since appointment was<br \/>\nmae erroneously against a non-existing post it was rightly<br \/>\nset aside. The petitioner has now filed this petition<br \/>\nassailing the Tribunal&#8217;s order.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. In our view the impugned judgment of the Tribunal<br \/>\ncannot be sustained. The petitioner had undergone the<br \/>\ncomprehensive departmental selection procedure. He had<br \/>\nbeen fully found fit and it is not in dispute that he has<br \/>\ncarried out his duties satisfactorily since his appointment<br \/>\non 29th January, 1998. In fact it is not in dispute that<br \/>\nthe petitioner had successfully completed his probation and<br \/>\nwas confirmed by an Order dated 1st February, 1999, passed<br \/>\nby respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also brought on<br \/>\nrecord the fact that he is doing a highly specialized job<br \/>\nof IMPACT System (Integrated Management of Project and<br \/>\nAccounting). Furthermore right since the date o his<br \/>\nappointment, the petitioner has been working on the post of<br \/>\nComputer Operator and due to the various interim orders<br \/>\npassed from time to time by the Tribunal and this Court has<br \/>\ncontinued to do so since 29th January, 1998 up to date. The<br \/>\npetitioner will obviously now be handicapped by seeking a<br \/>\nfresh employment at this stage of this career. The<br \/>\nrespondents&#8217; purported mistake has led to the present<br \/>\nsituation and the petitioner cannot be blamed for the<br \/>\nerror, if any, committed by the respondents. In fact the<br \/>\nrespondents who have appointed the petitioner after a<br \/>\nproper selection procedure are now estopped from contending<br \/>\nto the contrary as the petitioner due to the long passage<br \/>\nof time cannot now be asked to seek fresh employment.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. In our view in the impugned order, the Tribunal has<br \/>\nfailed to consider this aspect of the estoppel against the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2. Furthermore, the respondent No. 2 had made<br \/>\na request in December, 1997 regarding the downgrading of<br \/>\nGroup III post to Group II post. Thereafter it proceeded<br \/>\non an assumption that since the CSIR, respondent No. 1 had<br \/>\nnot offered any comments on the proceedings, the approval<br \/>\ncan be presumed. This order was passed on 8th January,<br \/>\n1998 by the Director of respondent No. 2. Thereafter, it<br \/>\nwas noted on 19th January, 1998 by the respondent No. 2 that<br \/>\nthere was great demand for immediate appointment of a<br \/>\ncomputer operator and, therefore, in view of the<br \/>\nimplementation of the business plan and the increasing<br \/>\nproject work, the appointment letter was issued to the<br \/>\npetitioner. The respondent No. 1 has indeed sought to rely<br \/>\nupon its own inaction on the request of the respondent No. 2<br \/>\nto downgrade the posts in Group III to Group II to enable<br \/>\nit to fill up the posts of computer operator. The<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 while frowning upon the action of<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2 in assuming its non-disapproval as approval<br \/>\nhas however, not stated as and when whether the proposal<br \/>\nwas specifically disapproved by it. The additional<br \/>\naffidavit stated that the respondent No. 1-CSIR&#8217;s<br \/>\nHeadquarters rejected the request of respondent No. 2 for<br \/>\nupgrading the Group-III post to Group-II post. However,<br \/>\nthe affidavit dated 30th August, 2001 fails to state as to<br \/>\nwhen the proposal to upgrade the post was rejected. This<br \/>\nis a crucial factor in determining the laches of the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 in waking up to the alleged mistake of<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2. In any event, the internal arrangements<br \/>\nand misunderstanding between respondent No. 1 &amp; 2 cannot<br \/>\naffect the petitioner&#8217;s rights vested and otherwise and the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1&#8217;s long delay in objecting to the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s appointment is a crucial circumstance not<br \/>\ngiven due weight by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. The petitioner has appeared in the interview on 15th<br \/>\nMarch, 1997 and was selected on 29th January, 1998 and even<br \/>\nthough the proposal to upgrade the post was sent by<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 in December, 1997, the<br \/>\nnotice of termination of the petitioner&#8217;s services was<br \/>\ngiven only on 11th January, 2000. This fact of substantial<br \/>\ndelay in objecting to the petitioner&#8217;s employment is<br \/>\ncrucial and appears to have been totally overlooked by the<br \/>\nTribunal. We have also given due consideration to the<br \/>\nsevere prejudice which would be caused to the petitioner by<br \/>\nthis arbitrary delay on behalf of the respondents.<br \/>\nFurthermore the petitioner is now doing a highly<br \/>\nspecialised job of IMPACT System (Integrated Management of<br \/>\nProject and Accounting). The petitioner&#8217;s appointment was<br \/>\nalso occasioned by the imminent need noted on 19.1.98 by<br \/>\nthe respondent No. 2 for the immediate appointment of a<br \/>\nComputer Operator. The petitioner having been selected by<br \/>\na duly constituted DPC and had been confirmed after<br \/>\nsatisfactory completion of his probation on 1.2.1999,<br \/>\ncannot now be thrown out arbitrarily. Significantly the<br \/>\nTribunal has failed to even advert tot he plea raised by<br \/>\nthe petitioner that due to the selection by respondent<br \/>\nNo. 1, he had left his earlier job and had subsequently<br \/>\nbecome over-age. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated<br \/>\n11th September, 2000, passed by the Tribunal cannot be<br \/>\nsustained and is accordingly set aside. The petitioner was<br \/>\nentitled to succeed in his application before the Tribunal<br \/>\nand the impugned Order dated 16th March, 2000 cancelling<br \/>\nthe petitioner&#8217;s appointment is accordingly set aside.<br \/>\nThere shall be no orders as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Shri N.K. Rawat vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 2002 Author: M Mudgal Bench: A D Singh, M Mudgal JUDGMENT Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This writ petition challenges the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;Tribunal&#8217;) dated 11th September, 2000, dismissing [&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-15645","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>Shri N.K. Rawat vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 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\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri N.K. Rawat vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-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=\"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-23T17:23:41+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri N.K. Rawat vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-23T17:23:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1047,\"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\\\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002\",\"name\":\"Shri N.K. Rawat vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-23T17:23:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri N.K. Rawat vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 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":"Shri N.K. Rawat vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 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\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri N.K. Rawat vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-23T17:23:41+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri N.K. Rawat vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-23T17:23:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002"},"wordCount":1047,"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\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002","name":"Shri N.K. Rawat vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-23T17:23:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-n-k-rawat-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-26-july-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri N.K. Rawat vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 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\/15645","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=15645"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15645\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}