{"id":16827,"date":"2010-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-03-04T18:26:15","modified_gmt":"2018-03-04T12:56:15","slug":"ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ranveer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. … on 8 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Ranveer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. … on 8 July, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                             Reserved\n\n\n\n\n                      Special Appeal No. 554 of 2010\n     Dr.Arpit Jain and others Vs. Dr. Anurag Kumar Tiwari and others\n\n                               ______\n\n\nHon'ble Ferdino Inacio Rebello, CJ\nHon'ble A.P.Sahi,J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This is an appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment
\nof the learned Single Judge whereby an order passed by the Vice
\nChancellor of the Banaras Hindu University dated 6.4.2010 and the
\nconsequential notification dated 13.4.2010 have been quashed in relation
\nto the 2010 Post Graduate Admission Test in M.D.\/M.S. Courses against
\n43 seats for internal candidates.\n<\/p>\n
            The appellants before us are the respondents in the writ
\npetition and they submit that the order of the Vice Chancellor ought to
\nhave been upheld as the procedure adopted by the two Incharge
\nProfessors of Examination for preparing the results had vitiated the
\nprocess of evaluation of the OMR sheet of the examination, and as such
\nthe Vice Chancellor was perfectly justified in issuing the direction for
\nholding a fresh examination.\n<\/p>\n
            The facts in short necessary for the adjudication for the
\npresent controversy are that the University runs a Medical Institute with
\nprovisions for Post Graduate courses in Medical Science and the process
\nfor admission, conduct of courses and holding of examinations, followed
\nby award of degree are governed by the provisions of the Banaras Hindu
\nUniversity Act, the Statutes framed thereunder and the Ordinances
\nadopted by the University read with circulars and decisions of the
\nUniversity regarding procedure for the holding of such examination.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
            The powers of the University in this regard remain undisputed
\nbetween the parties. Suffice it to say that that under the said powers a
\nCoordination Committee was duly constituted for over seeing the
\nprocedure of the said examination. The Coordination Committee in its
\nmeeting held on 12.11.2009 resolved to hold the examinations and
\naccordingly a schedule was prepared which is contained in the minutes,
\nand forms part of the record as Annexure 2 to the counter affidavit of the
\nUniversity filed before the learned Single Judge. The resolution records
\nthat a merit screening test shall be held captioned as the Banaras Hindu
\nUniversity All India Entrance Examination, 2010. The admission procedure
\nfor internal candidates namely those who have passed out from the
\nBanaras Hindu University      was to be conducted in the manner as
\nprescribed in Resolution No.1(b). The test was to be held on 14.2.2010
\nand the prospective declaration of the result of the said test was
\nscheduled to be uploaded by the University as its website by the third
\nweek of March, 2010. The test was to be an objective one comprising of
\n200 questions printed on the OMR sheet. A brochure to that effect was
\nalso issued and in clause 9 of the said Resolution it was prescribed that
\nthe evaluation of the said OMR sheets and its uploading on the University
\nWebsite   will be done with the help of the Computer Centre of the
\nBanaras Hindu University. The preparation of the question paper being a
\nmatter of utmost secrecy was left to the Professor Incharge to be handled
\naccordingly. It is to be noted that the Director of the Institute of Medical
\nSciences under the orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University
\ninformed Professor L.D. Misra of the Department of Anaesthesiology ,
\nI.M.S. Banaras Hindu University that he was being appointed as the
\nProfessor Incharge of the M.D.\/M.S. Entrance Examination, 2010. Apart
\nfrom this Profesor S.K.Gupta of the Department of General Surgery was
\nappointed as Co-Incharge of the said examination.\n<\/p>\n
            The Information leaflet which was issued to the students has
\nbeen filed as Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit containing the provisions
\nin relation to evaluation of answer-sheet, result and selection which is
\nquoted below:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
“(i) Not withstanding any thing to the contrary contained
\nanywhere in       the       ordinances    of     the    university,      no
\nscrutiny\/revaluation of the         answer sheet shall be allowed on
\nany ground.”\n<\/p>\n
The test was conducted as per the schedule and it is undisputed that 50
\ncandidates appeared for the said examination against the internal 43
\nseats that were available. The two Incharge Professors are stated to have
\nmanually checked the OMR sheets and the result of the scores obtained
\nby the candidates in the said examination was declared on 19.2.2010.
\nThe said list is Annexure 4 to the counter affidavit of the University which
\ncontained the marks obtained by all the said 50 students who had
\nappeared.\n<\/p>\n
            After the aforesaid list was published, three candidates, out of
\nwhom the appellant no.1 Dr. Arpit Jain is one of them and one Dr. Rohit
\nKumar and one Dr. Rahul Bharadwaj moved applications making a
\nrequest for certain informations under the Right to Information Act. The
\nrequest of Dr. Rohit Kumar and Dr. Arpit Jain the appellant was to provide
\na copy of their OMR sheets and key answers as also the OMR sheets of all
\nso candidates. The request of Dr, Rahul Bharadwaj was in relation to the
\nnumber of students who had appeared in the general and OBC category
\nfor the said examination.\n<\/p>\n
            The University, through the Information Officer, informed the
\nappellant Dr. Arpit Jain about the intimation given by the two Professors
\nwho were Incharge of the Examination that the said request cannot be
\nentertained in the light of the conditions stipulated to the effect that
\nnotwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Ordinances of
\nthe University, no scrutiny or re-evaluation of the answer sheets shall be
\nallowed on any ground. It may be noted that the request of the
\ncandidates was neither for scrutiny nor for re-evaluation and it was a
\nsimple information sought under the Right to Information Act to the effect
\n                                                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
as indicated therein.\n<\/p>\n
            The turn in the dispute came thereafter when the two
\nIncharge Professors are stated to have proceeded on their own on the
\npremise that the candidates who had sought information under the Right
\nto Information Act appeared to be extremely dis-appointed with the
\ndeclaration of the results as they had scored much higher marks than
\nwhat has been indicated in the score list which was published. Another
\ncandidate Dr. Shreyash Pandey is alleged to have approached the said
\nthree Professors who is the appellant no.2 before us for supply of the
\nOMR sheet on 26.3.2010. The two Professors who were Incharge and Co-
\nIncharge decided to re-check the OMR answer sheets again as they
\nsuspected that some mistakes might have occurred due to manual
\nchecking. They appeared to have manually re-cheked the OMR sheets
\nagain and in their reply dated 5.4.2010 before the          Rector of the
\nUniversity they have stated that they found a major error in the total of
\nthe marks of the candidate Dr. Rohit Kumar. There was an enhancement
\nof 27 marks in the case of the said candidate as in the first score sheet,
\nmarks obtained by him were 108 whereas in the manual re-checking they
\nwere 135 .The score remained unchanged         in respect of the other two
\ncandidates. This mistake and this re-checking adopted by the two
\nProfessor is alleged to have been brought to the notice of the Director
\nwho is further alleged to have communicated to the two Professors r his
\napproval for re-checking through the Computer Centre as provided for in
\nthe decision of the Coordination Committee. However, they further
\nalleged that they have been asked to re-check the OMR mark sheet a
\nthird time before getting it scanned in the Computer Centre.\n<\/p>\n
            After such manual re-checking as well as the checking
\nthrough the OMR         Scanner the   two Professors Incharge   revised the
\nmerit list of the screening test which had been declared earlier and
\nprepared another list on 1.4.2010 which was put on the notice board
\non2.4.2010 intimating change of marks in the scores obtained by seven
\ncandidates. On publication of this second list several candidates moved a
\n                                                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
detailed representation to the Vice Chancellor on 3.4.2010      including
\nsome of the present appellants and some of the contesting respondents.
\nNoticing the said complaint, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1
\nto the stay application in the present appeal, the Vice Chancellor under
\nhis order dated 4.4.2010      constituted a Committee with the Rector
\nBanaras Hindu University as a Chairperson and the Director of IMS , the
\nController of Examination as well as the Deputy Registrars as members to
\nenquire into the said complaint made by the candidates. A copy of the
\nsaid order is enclosed as Annexure 2 to the stay application. An
\nexplanation was called for from the two Professors who were the Inchage
\nof the Screening Test and they submitted their replies on 2.4.2010, the
\ncontents whereof have been indicated herein above. A copy of the said
\nreply is Annexure 3 to the stay application.\n<\/p>\n
            The report of the Committee was submitted to the Vice
\nChancellor which is Annexure 4 to the stay application wherein the
\nCommittee gave a finding that as per the instructions in relation to
\nscrutiny\/re-evaluation is concerned, there was no occasion for any such
\nre-checking or re-evaluation by the two Professors who ought not to have
\ndone it themselves and they did not bother to maintain any record of the
\nfirst or second or third manual evaluation. The Committee further found
\nthat the re-evaluation attempted by the Professors was without any
\nformal request and the same was in violation of the rules. The Committee
\nfurther expressed surprise as to how the Professors missed the evaluation
\nof 50 questions in the OMR sheet of Dr. Rohit Kumar.\n<\/p>\n
            Accordingly the Committee recommended        that the entire
\nprocess   to be   adopted for conduct of such tests should be reviewed
\nthrough an Expert and the possible lacunaes need to be identified and
\ncorrective measures taken. The Committee concluded that the process of
\nevaluation was in contravention of the relevant rules and without due
\ncare. A suggestion was made by the Committee which is to the following
\neffect:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
a) The entire test my be cancelled and fresh test may be conducted. This
\nwould, however, mean penalizing the candidates for no fault of theirs and
\nmay arouse genuine protests from them.\n<\/p>\n
b) The result declared on 01.04.2010 may be cancelled since this is in
\ncontravention of the explicit rule 3(iii) of the said test. However this
\nwould lead to acceptance of the Mark list which has been shown to be
\nincorrect on subsequent computer verification.\n<\/p>\n
   c) The mark list declared on 19.02.2010 may be withdrawn and that
\n      declared on 01.04.2010 may be declared as valid. However, in this
\n      case, rule 3(iii) will stand violated.\n<\/p>\n
             The Vice Chancellor on a consideration of the said report
\nproceeded to pass an order on 6.4.2010 cancelling both the lists and
\nissued directions for holding examination afresh. This action of the Vice
\nChancellor came to be challenged by the respondents-appellants praying
\nfor the following relief:\n<\/p>\n
      “1. Issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling
\n      upon the respondent no.3 to produce the order dated 6.4.2010
\n      mentioned in the impugned order dated 13.4.2010 on records of
\n      the writ petition and quash the said impugned order dated 6.4.2010
\n      as also the order dated 13.4.2010, issued by respondent no.4
\n      (Annexure 5 to the writ petition).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus
\n      commanding the respondents 2,3 and 4 to hold counseling of the
\n      petitioners for admission in MD\/MS Course 2010 on the basis of first
\n      merit list (Annexure-1) to the writ petition within fortnight from the
\n      command of this Hon’ble Court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The appellants put in appearance and took a stand that the University in
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case was justified in proceeding to hold
\n                                                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
fresh examination. The University also took a stand that the two
\nProfessors who had conducted the examination had violated the
\nconditions in relation to scrutiny\/re-evaluation which was impossible and
\nthey on their own could not have proceeded to re-examine the answer
\nsheet as they had functious officio after the declaration of the first list on
\n19.2.2010. The University also contended that in such a situation the
\norder of the Vice Chancellor was justified and even if two views were
\npossible a judicial review may not be attempted keeping in view           the
\nnature of the examinations that were pertaining to the Post Graduate
\nadmissions which was submitted by the University . The holding of fresh
\nexamination would ensure complete fairness towards all the candidates
\nand doubt expressed about functioning of the two Incharge Professors
\nwould be set at rest.\n<\/p>\n
            The learned Single Judge took a view that the decision of the
\nVice Chancellor did not indicate any reference to the fact that may have
\nperused the Vice Chancellor to doubt the sanctity of the examination and
\ntherefore he could not order for the cancellation. The learned Single
\nJudge observed that what was required to be seen was any defeat of the
\nexamination or mistake in evaluation of the OMR sheets. It was further
\nobserved that the recommendations made by the committee to the Vice
\nChancellor were not considered in correct perspective as the Committee
\nhad given three options to the Vice Chancellor and it is not known as to
\nwhy the Vice Chancellor did not choose to accept the other options.\n<\/p>\n
            We have heard Sri P.N.Saxena learned senior counsel for the
\nrespondents-appellants and Sri Ashok Khare learned senior counsel for
\nthe private respondent nos. 1 to 36 and Sri V.K.Singh learned senior
\ncounsel assisted by Sri Hem Pratap Singh for the respondent-university
\nand its authorities.\n<\/p>\n
            During the hearing of this appeal learned counsel have
\nbrought to the notice of this Court the order passed by the Supreme
\nCourt dated 13.5.2010 wherein certain directions have been given after
\n                                                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
hearing the learned counsel for the M.C.I., the State of U.P. and the other
\nStates whereby their Lordship have fixed a final deadline for the students
\nto join the allotted course by 30.6.2010. It has further been directed by
\nthe Supreme Court     that the unfilled seats of All India Quota would be
\ndeemed to have lapsed. It is, therefore clear that the mandate of the
\nSupreme Court     with regard to the completion of such admissions is
\nclearly to the effect that it shall be completed by 30.6.2010.\n<\/p>\n
            In the instant case the judgment was delivered by the learned
\nSingle Judge on 21.5.2010 and it is admitted that on all hands that under
\nthe interim order passed in this special appeal, the candidates including a
\nmajority of the contestants before us have been granted admissions
\nunder the second revised score list which was declared on1.4.2010 and
\npublished on2.4.2010. Thus the directions of the learned single judge
\nhave been complied with.\n<\/p>\n
            Sri P.N.Saxena learned counsel for the appellants contends
\nthat the procedure adopted by the two Professors in hastily declaring the
\nresult on a manual check of the OMR sheets is in contravention of the
\nmode prescribed which should have been done by the Computer Centre
\nthrough a scanner. He submits that there was no occasion for the two
\nIncharge Professors to have under taken the evaluation themselves
\nmanually. He further submits not only this, the manner in which there has
\nbeen a substantial change in marks of one of the students, and few minor
\nchanges in the case of six other students raises a serious suspicion and a
\ngenuine doubt about the conduct of the two Professors who undertook
\nthe exercise of change of answer sheets manually. He further submits
\nthat there was no provision for any such re-checking or scrutiny and the
\ndeclaration of the list on 1.4.2010 was unsupported by any authority. It
\nhas further contended that the learned Single Judge committed an error
\nby accepting the submissions made by the respondents-petitioners which
\nwas directly in conflict with the relief claimed by them. He submits that
\nthe respondent-petitioners had clearly questioned the correctness of the
\nsubsequent list and had prayed for admissions being made on the basis of
\n                                                                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
the first list published on 19.2.2010. Accordingly it is submitted that the
\nlearned Single Judge ought not to have granted the relief as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
            Sri Saxena has further invited our attention to the application
\nmoved in this special appeal making a prayer that an appropriate
\ndirection be issued to the University to ensure transparency in holding of
\nthe examinations and the declaration of the results as well as evaluation
\nof the OMR sheets so that in case any student has any doubt the same
\ncan be ascertained by adopting a fair procedure.\n<\/p>\n
            Sri   V.K. Singh learned senior counsel for the University
\ncontends that the University may not have filed an appeal against the
\nimpugned order yet the University supports the cause of the appellants
\nand at the same time would abide by the orders of this Court. He however
\ntakes exception to the finding and observations that were made by the
\nlearned Single Judge on the steps taken by the Vice Chancellor and he
\nsubmits that the Vice Chancellor in order to ensure fairness had taken a
\ndecision to cancel the examinations on the asking of the candidates
\nthemselves. He further submits that prompt decision by the Vice
\nChancellor was taken as he was wholly unaware about the two Incharge
\nProfessors having manually evaluated the results who upturned the same
\nthrough a revised list. He further informs the Court that the Vice
\nChancellor was not made aware of any such action being taken by the
\ntwo Professors and they did it on their own without any authority.
\nAccordingly the Vice Chancellor immediately constituted an           Enquiry
\nCommittee and after having received the findings of the said Committee
\ncancelled the examination in order to ensure fair admission in the Post
\nGraduate courses.\n<\/p>\n
            Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel for the respondents
\nhas come with a case that as a matter of fact there was an error of
\ntabulation and even though the respondents-petitioners had initially
\nprayed for maintaining the selection on the basis of the first list, yet they
\nwere satisfied with the second list and therefore, this Court may not
\n                                                                           10<\/span><\/p>\n
interfere with the directions of the learned Single Judge, more so when
\nthe admissions have already been completed within the time schedule
\ngiven by the Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
            Having carefully examined the record we may at the very out
\nset clarify that in view of the specific schedule fixed by the Apex Court for
\nfinalising of admissions for the allotted courses by 30.6.2010 we would
\nnot prefer to disturb the admissions and issue directions for holding of a
\nfresh examination. In our opinion, this would violate the deadline fixed
\nby the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 189 of 2010 Naval Asija
\nand others Versus Union of India and others disposed on on 13.5.2010.
\nThe admissions as intimated by the learned counsel having been
\ncompleted, the same need not be disturbed at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
            The question which has been raised before us is that the two
\nProfessors who were made Incharge were not empowered to enter into
\nthe re-evaluation or scrutiny for re-calculating the marks as per the
\nprovision indicated above. Sri V.K.Singh learned senior counsel for the
\nUniversity has produced the original answer sheets before us. Having
\nperused the same, particularly with regard to the answer sheet of Dr.
\nRohit Kumar, we find that out of 150 questions answered by him, the said
\ncandidate had obtained 108 marks whereas after the re-checking in
\nrespect of 50 questions of the last column he has been awarded 27
\nadditional marks, which the two Professors stated that it had been left
\nout and not evaluated due to inadvertence. Even if the doubt expressed
\nby the appellants is taken into consideration then the candidate who had
\nobtained substantial marks namely 108 out of 150, a presumption prima
\nfacie on the basis of his performance can be drawn that the candidates
\ncould have possibly answered the last column as well and was capable of
\nobtaining 27 marks. This would be in proportion to his previous marks
\nobtained. We may not be construed to express any final opinion on the
\naforesaid process of award of additional marks to Dr. Rohit Kumar but we
\nhave stated this as a prima facie observation. Nonetheless the Committee
\nwhich had submitted its report did not comment on the enhancement of
\n                                                                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
marks as a forgery and only expressed its doubt and surprise about non
\nevaluation by the two Professors. The Committee          mainly rested its
\ndecision on a manual proceeding of evaluation as adopted by the         two
\nProfessors Incharge.\n<\/p>\n
            We have reservations about the manner in which the two
\nProfessors proceeded for changing and re-changing the method of
\nevaluation. The Vice Chancellor therefore in our opinion cannot be said to
\nhave taken an irrational or perverse decision      and he may have been
\njustified in arriving at the conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
            We therefore accept the contention of Sri V.K.Singh learned
\ncounsel for the University that the learned Single Judge was not justified
\nin commenting upon any lapse on the part of the Vice Chancellor. The
\nVice Chancellor in our opinion, faced with such a situation rightly took the
\nsteps to rectify the error if any. It is something different       that the
\nmistakes as reflected by the two Incharge Professors may have been
\ngenuine but we are not required to go into the same, more so when the
\nVice Chancellor has already passed an order for fixing the responsibility
\non the concerned persons for the alleged lapses.\n<\/p>\n
            What remains to be indicated by us is the suggestion made
\nby the appellants through an application for ensuring transparency in
\nfuture examinations. Sri P.N.Saxena submits that appropriate directions
\nbe issued by this Court to ensure transparency in future examinations so
\nthat such mistakes would not be repeated in future. To this proposal
\nneither the learned counsel for the University nor the respondents-
\npetitioners have any objection.\n<\/p>\n
            The episode which gave rise to this controversy involves the
\nfate of candidates who prepare themselves for acquiring Post Graduate
\ncourse in the field of Medicine. They have high hopes and their stakes are
\nsuch that in our opinion the aforesaid suggestion by Sri Saxena deserves
\nto be accepted. This dispute definitely reflects that the fate of the
\n                                                                           12<\/span><\/p>\n
students was put in jeopardy by adopting of a procedure which cannot be
\nsaid to be thoroughly transparent. It is undisputed that the candidates are
\nnot allowed to take back their question papers. It is also undisputed that
\nno carbon copy of the OMR sheets are provided to the candidates and the
\nkey answers are not loaded on the website of the University. This is also
\nevident from the attitude of the University as per the reply given under
\nthe Right to Information Act where the request for supply of OMR sheet
\nbut there was a clear refusal on the part of the University.\n<\/p>\n
            In our opinion such a practice cannot be said to be fair to the
\ncandidates. The candidates are entitled to know as to how and in what
\nmanner their answers do not match with the key answers. For this they
\nare entitled to retain their question papers, a carbon copy of the OMR
\nsheets and information about the key answers.\n<\/p>\n
            We therefore direct the University     that in order to ensure
\nfree and fair examinations and in order to remove any doubt or suspicion
\nin the mind of the candidates, the University shall in such forthcoming
\nEntrance Examinations for Post Graduate Admissions introduce a system
\nof allowing the candidates to retain their question papers. The University
\nshall also make a provision for a carbon copy of the OMR sheets and allow
\nthe candidates to retain the same and shall also make available the key
\nanswers to the questions after declaration of the results in case of
\ndemand by any candidate by placing it on the website of the University.\n<\/p>\n
            Accordingly without disturbing the provisional admissions
\nmade under the order of this Court , the special appeal is disposed of with
\nthe aforesaid directions. The    candidates who have been admitted for
\ntheir allotted courses their admissions shall be treated to be final if they
\nare otherwise eligible for the same.\n<\/p>\n
8th July, 2010
\nmna\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Ranveer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. … on 8 July, 2010 Reserved Special Appeal No. 554 of 2010 Dr.Arpit Jain and others Vs. Dr. Anurag Kumar Tiwari and others ______ Hon’ble Ferdino Inacio Rebello, CJ Hon’ble A.P.Sahi,J. This is an appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment of the […]<\/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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16827","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRanveer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. ... on 8 July, 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\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ranveer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. ... on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-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=\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-04T12:56:15+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ranveer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. … on 8 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-04T12:56:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3948,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Ranveer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. ... on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-04T12:56:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ranveer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. … on 8 July, 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":"Ranveer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. ... on 8 July, 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\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ranveer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. ... on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-04T12:56:15+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ranveer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. … on 8 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-04T12:56:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010"},"wordCount":3948,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010","name":"Ranveer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. ... on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-04T12:56:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranveer-singh-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-through-secy-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ranveer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. … on 8 July, 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\/16827","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=16827"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16827\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16827"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16827"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16827"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}