{"id":165335,"date":"2003-04-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003"},"modified":"2016-09-18T14:52:13","modified_gmt":"2016-09-18T09:22:13","slug":"rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"Rajasthan Public Service &#8230; vs Harish Kumar Purohit And Ors on 1 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rajasthan Public Service &#8230; vs Harish Kumar Purohit And Ors on 1 April, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3615-3618 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nRAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHARISH KUMAR PUROHIT AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/04\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nSHIVARAJ V. PATIL &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2003 (3) SCR 206<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Civil Appeal Nos. 3615-3618 of 2002) In these appeals by Rajasthan Public<br \/>\nService Commission (in short &#8216;the Commission&#8217;) and its Chairman, challenge<br \/>\nis to the legality of common judgment by a Division Bench of Rajasthan High<br \/>\nCourt disposing of four writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Synoptical resumption of the factual position, almost undisputed is as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>On 1.6.2001 an advertisement to recruit 116 Munsif Magistrates was issued<br \/>\nby the Commission; out of which 59, 24, 19 and 14 were earmarked for the<br \/>\nGeneral, OBC, SC and ST categories respectively. In terms of the scheme of<br \/>\nthe examination, only those candidates who obtained a minimum of 35 marks<br \/>\nin each law paper and 40% in aggregate were eligible to be called for<br \/>\ninterview. For the posts in question, stipulation was that candidates<br \/>\nnumbering three times the number of posts adverised in each category were<br \/>\neligible to be called for interview. Commission issued interview letters to<br \/>\n302 candidates in respect of 116 vacancies. The shortfall was on account of<br \/>\nnon-availability of candidates in SC and ST categories. Though the number<br \/>\nof posts were 59 in the General category, 189 candidates were called for<br \/>\ninterview as several candidates who had obtained marks similar to the last<br \/>\ncandidate had to be called for interview.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Four writ petitions were filed at Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan, High<br \/>\nCourt. They were disposed of on 20th December, 2001 by the impugned common<br \/>\njudgment. In the Writ Petitions the petitioners had sought for the<br \/>\nfollowing directions:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>    &#8220;a) by an appropriate writ order or direction, the Respondents may<br \/>\n    kindly be directed to consider more candidates from general category as<br \/>\n    per the posts available and as per the condition-2 advertisement;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>    b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Respondents may<br \/>\n    kindly be directed to implement the condition-2 of the advertisement<br \/>\n    for filing up the reserved vacancies adopting the general procedure;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>    c) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\n    Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the<br \/>\n    case may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner;d) writ petition<br \/>\n    filed by the Petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>4. Stand of the petitioners was that each one of them had obtained 35 marks<br \/>\nin each of the law papers and 40% marks in aggregate. In case of non-<br \/>\navailability of SC &amp; ST candidates, the available seats were to be filled<br \/>\nup by candidates belonging to general category. Therefore, the Commission<br \/>\nhad to call 210 candidates by treating the number of posts available in the<br \/>\ngeneral category to be 70 (i.e. 59 as originally fixed and 11 on account of<br \/>\nnon-availability of candidates in SC &amp; ST categories). The Division Bench<br \/>\naccepted the stand, though the Commission pointed out that there is no<br \/>\nprovision in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (in short &#8216;the<br \/>\nRules&#8217;) unlike Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 (in short the<br \/>\n&#8216;Higher Judicial Rules&#8217;) which provides for a decision to be taken to fill<br \/>\nup the posts from the general category or to de-reserve or carry forward in<br \/>\ncase of non-availability of candidates from the reserved categories. The<br \/>\ndirections given by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment are to the<br \/>\nfollowing effect:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>    &#8220;In view of the aforesaid, we allow all the four writ petitions. The<br \/>\n    Respondent Commission is directed to call not less than 210 candidates<br \/>\n    from the General Category for interview instead of 189. We make it<br \/>\n    clear that judgment proceeds on the basis that R.P.S.C. is interviewing<br \/>\n    candidates for R.J.S. against 70 posts in General Category. However,<br \/>\n    this will not prevent the appropriate Authorities to take a decision in<br \/>\n    accordance with the relevant rules, particularly Clause 3 of Schedule<br \/>\n    II of R.J.S. Rules, to fill up only 59 vacancies in the General<br \/>\n    Category and carry forward the vacancies of Scheduled Tribe, but such a<br \/>\n    decision should be taken before the result is declared. However, this<br \/>\n    should not delay the process of recruitment. If such a decision is not<br \/>\n    taken before 4.1.2002, the liberty given shall stand vacated. Any such<br \/>\n    decision will be not affect the merit of selection from the expanded<br \/>\n    zone under this order.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>5. The challenge, as noted above, in these appeals is to the aforesaid<br \/>\ndirection.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Commission submitted that the<br \/>\ndirections as noted above the indefensible. There was no automatic increase<br \/>\nin the vacancies in the general category from 59 to 70. The directions<br \/>\ngiven are contradictory in themselves. While for the purpose of calling<br \/>\ncandidates to the interview the High Court has directed to call 210<br \/>\ncandidates by treating the number of available vacancies to be 70, on the<br \/>\nsame breath it has permitted the Commission to fill up only 59 vacancies in<br \/>\nthe general category and to carry forward the vacancies of Scheduled<br \/>\nTribes. It is not clear as to what useful purpose would be served by<br \/>\nadopting dual procedure. It was pointed out by order dated 27.12.2001, this<br \/>\nCourt has permitted the Commission to complete the interview as scheduled<br \/>\nand prepare and finalise the select list of 59 posts for the general<br \/>\ncategory, 24 posts for OBC, 19 posts for Scheduled Castes and 3 posts for<br \/>\nScheduled Tribes, subject however, to the candidates that no select list<br \/>\nshall be prepared and published for the remaining 11 posts of Scheduled<br \/>\nTribes which may be transferred to the general category, if the Government<br \/>\ntakes a decision to fill up these posts from amongst the general category.<br \/>\nIt is pointed out that pursuant to the said directions, results have been<br \/>\npublished and appointments have been made. It is further pointed out that<br \/>\neven if the directions of the High Court to call 210 candidates for the<br \/>\ninterview would have been complied with, the writ petitioners would not<br \/>\nhave come within the zone of consideration. It was pointed out that another<br \/>\nDivision Bench considering similar prayers had by judgment dated 13.12.2001<br \/>\ndismissed the writ application. Similar contentions were rejected. Though<br \/>\nthe decision was brought to the notice of the Bench hearing the subsequent<br \/>\npetitions which had noted this aspect in the judgment, did not make any<br \/>\nreference to its observations and conclusions.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. There is no appearance by the private respondents in spite of the<br \/>\nservice of notice except by one Devilal Mothsra who is respondent no.1 in<br \/>\nC.A. No. 3618 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. An application for intervention has been filed by certain candidates (in<br \/>\nIA No. 1\/2002 in CA No. 3615- 3618\/2002) seeking permission to intervene.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. We shall first deal with this prayer first. It is fairly accepted by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the applicants that they have not approached the High<br \/>\nCourt. But it is submitted that the applicants belonging to the OBC and the<br \/>\nwoman category and their presence would facilitate proper adjudication of<br \/>\nthese appeals. The prayer is clearly untenable. Since they have not<br \/>\napproached the High Court and it has not been even so that they would be<br \/>\namongst the 210 candidates who were to be called for interview if the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment is maintained, we see no merit in the application for<br \/>\nintervention. The same is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, the<br \/>\ndirections given by the High Court are contradictory in terms. Once it has<br \/>\nbeen accepted by the High Court that it was open to the Government to<br \/>\ndecide as to whether the posts are to be de-reserved or carry forwarded,<br \/>\nthere was no basis to proceed on the assumption that they would be de-<br \/>\nreserved, thereby making the number of posts available for the general<br \/>\ncategory as 70. At the completion of the written examinations, there were<br \/>\nonly 59 posts available for the general category. On a hypothetical basis<br \/>\nthat there is a possibility to increase the number of posts in general<br \/>\ncategory, candidates numbering three times the number of posts including<br \/>\nassumed inclusions had to be called, the High Court gave the direction<br \/>\nwhich defies logic.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. That being the position the High Court was not correct in directing<br \/>\nthat 210 candidates to be called for the interview. The judgment deserves<br \/>\nto be nullified, which we direct.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. Before parting with the case we would like to point out one disturbing<br \/>\nfeature which has been brought to our notice. On 13.12.2001 a Division<br \/>\nBench dismissed an application containing identical prayers. Even before<br \/>\nthe ink was dry on the judgment, by the impugned judgment, another Division<br \/>\nBench took a diametrically opposite view. It is not that the earlier<br \/>\ndecision was not brought to the notice of the subsequent Division Bench<br \/>\nhearing the subsequent applications. In fact, a reference has been made by<br \/>\nthe submissions made by the Commission where this decision was highlighted.<br \/>\nUnfortunately, the Division Bench hearing the subsequent applications did<br \/>\nnot even refer to the conclusions arrived at by the earlier Division Bench.<br \/>\nThe earlier decision of the Division Bench is binding on a Bench of co-<br \/>\nordinate strength. If the Bench hearing matters subsequently entertains any<br \/>\ndoubt about the correctness of the earlier decision, the only course open<br \/>\nto it is to refer the matter to a larger Bench.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. The position was highlighted by this Court in a three- judge Bench<br \/>\ndecision in <a href=\"\/doc\/233689\/\">State of Tripura vs. Tripura Bar Association and others<\/a> 1998<br \/>\n(5) SCC 637 ) in the following words:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>    &#8220;We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court which has<br \/>\n    delivered the impugned judgment being a co-ordinate Bench could not<br \/>\n    have taken a view different from that taken by the earlier Bench of the<br \/>\n    High Court in the case of Durgadas Purkayastha vs. Hon&#8217;ble Gauhati High<br \/>\n    Court (1988 (1) Gau LR 6). If the latter Bench wanted to take a view<br \/>\n    different than that taken by the earlier Bench, the proper course for<br \/>\n    them would have been to refer the matter to a larger Bench. We have<br \/>\n    perused the reasons given by the learned Judges for not referring the<br \/>\n    matter to a larger Bench. We are not satisfied that the said reasons<br \/>\n    justified their deciding the matter and not referring it to the larger<br \/>\n    Bench. In the circumstances, we are unable to uphold the impugned<br \/>\n    judgment of the High Court insofar as it relates to the matter of inter<br \/>\n    se seniority of the Judicial Officers impleaded as respondents in the<br \/>\n    writ petition. The impugned judgment of the High Court insofar as it<br \/>\n    relates to the matter of seniority of the respondent &#8211; Judicial<br \/>\n    Officers is set aside. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No<br \/>\n    costs.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>14. In the instant case, the position is still worse. The latter Bench did<br \/>\nnot even indicate as to why it was not following the earlier Bench judgment<br \/>\nthough brought to its notice. Judicial propriety and decorum warranted such<br \/>\na course indicated above to be adopted.\n<\/p>\n<p>15. Appeals are allowed. Costs, cost in the cause.\n<\/p>\n<p>Civil Appeal No. 3614 of 2002<\/p>\n<p>16. The appeal is allowed in view of our judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.<br \/>\n3615-3618\/2002.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Rajasthan Public Service &#8230; vs Harish Kumar Purohit And Ors on 1 April, 2003 Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3615-3618 of 2002 PETITIONER: RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR. RESPONDENT: HARISH KUMAR PUROHIT AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/04\/2003 BENCH: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-165335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rajasthan Public Service ... vs Harish Kumar Purohit And Ors on 1 April, 2003 - 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\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajasthan Public Service ... vs Harish Kumar Purohit And Ors on 1 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-18T09:22:13+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajasthan Public Service &#8230; vs Harish Kumar Purohit And Ors on 1 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-18T09:22:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1808,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003\",\"name\":\"Rajasthan Public Service ... vs Harish Kumar Purohit And Ors on 1 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-18T09:22:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajasthan Public Service &#8230; vs Harish Kumar Purohit And Ors on 1 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajasthan Public Service ... vs Harish Kumar Purohit And Ors on 1 April, 2003 - 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\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajasthan Public Service ... vs Harish Kumar Purohit And Ors on 1 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-18T09:22:13+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajasthan Public Service &#8230; vs Harish Kumar Purohit And Ors on 1 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-18T09:22:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003"},"wordCount":1808,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003","name":"Rajasthan Public Service ... vs Harish Kumar Purohit And Ors on 1 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-18T09:22:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajasthan-public-service-vs-harish-kumar-purohit-and-ors-on-1-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajasthan Public Service &#8230; vs Harish Kumar Purohit And Ors on 1 April, 2003"}]},{"@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\/165335","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=165335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165335\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}