{"id":179358,"date":"2009-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009"},"modified":"2018-05-15T17:06:18","modified_gmt":"2018-05-15T11:36:18","slug":"sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sisiliay Hembram vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 21 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sisiliay Hembram vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 21 July, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n              W.P.(S) No. 425 of 2008\nSisiliay Hembram                           ...     Petitioner\n                         Versus\nState of Jharkhand &amp; ors.                  ...    Respondents\n                         ---------\n<\/pre>\n<pre>CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL\n                         ---------\nFor the Petitioner:      Dr. S.N.Pathak, Advocate\nFor the State:           J.C. to A.G.\n                         ---------\n                st\n07\/ Dated: 21 July, 2009\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>1. The present petition has been preferred mainly because of<br \/>\n  inaction on the part of the respondents, in not deciding the<br \/>\n  candidature of the present petitioner for the post of Lady<br \/>\n  Constable, despite the fact that the petitioner has cleared all the<br \/>\n  necessary required tests, which are taken by the respondents,<br \/>\n  as a selection procedure, including physical test and written<br \/>\n  test.. It is also submitted vehemently by the learned counsel for<br \/>\n  the petitioner that as per the letter dated 28th April, 2007, at<br \/>\n  Annexure 6 to the memo of petition, the Deputy Inspector<br \/>\n  General of Police is seeking instructions for the selection of the<br \/>\n  present petitioner that how many marks have been obtained by<br \/>\n  the petitioner in the written examination, because the present<br \/>\n  petitioner has already cleared physical test and the marks<br \/>\n  obtained by the present petitioner in the physical test reveals<br \/>\n  that she has secured higher marks than some other candidates.<br \/>\n  This is explicitly clear from Annexure 6.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\n  that though the letter at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition is<br \/>\n  dated 28th April, 2007, the respondents are not deciding<br \/>\n  whether the petitioner is selected for the post of Constable or<br \/>\n  not. Several representations have also been filed by the present<br \/>\n  petitioner, as per Annexure series to the memo of petition, none<br \/>\n  of them has been replied or decided and, therefore, the present<br \/>\n  petition has been preferred for getting direction upon the<br \/>\n  respondents to decide the representations, in accordance with<br \/>\n  law, considering the fact that the petitioner has already cleared<br \/>\n  the physical test examination and the respondents should also<br \/>\n  consider the fact that the present petitioner has appeared in the<br \/>\n  written test, which was only in the form of a small dictation in<br \/>\n  Hindi language as well as in Santhali language. It is also<br \/>\n  vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\n  that looking to the belated stand, taken by the respondents, as<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                           2.<\/span><br \/>\nper the counter affidavit, the petitioner is given the marks in the<br \/>\nwritten examination as &#8220;failed&#8221;. No marks have been allotted to<br \/>\nthe petitioner in the written examination. Standard of &#8220;pass&#8221;<br \/>\nand &#8220;fail&#8221; is never known to the petitioner. Arbitrarily, that<br \/>\nstandard is fixed in the mind of the respondents and, therefore,<br \/>\ninstead of giving marks in the written test, the respondents<br \/>\nhave assessed the marks, obtained by the petitioner in the<br \/>\nwritten test, as &#8220;failed&#8221;. This one word is coming in the way of<br \/>\nthe present petitioner for getting appointment as a Lady<br \/>\nConstable and, therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner that the assessment of the marks, obtained by<br \/>\nthe present petitioner in the written test, is thoroughly an<br \/>\narbitrary action. Passing standard is never fixed, no marks are<br \/>\ngiven to the present petitioner and, therefore, the respondents<br \/>\ncan pass any candidate, to whom they like and they can give<br \/>\nthe assessment as &#8220;fail&#8221; as per their whims and caprice. Such<br \/>\nan arbitrary assessment, therefore, deserved to be quashed and<br \/>\nset aside and the marks of the petitioner ought to be reassessed<br \/>\non some logical base. It is also submitted vehemently by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner that a written test is taken of<br \/>\na dictation of one paragraph in Hindi language and another<br \/>\nparagraph of Santhali language. As per the counter affidavit,<br \/>\nhighest allegation against the petitioner is that she is not<br \/>\nknowing Hindi language and, therefore, she has been assessed<br \/>\nas &#8220;failed&#8221; in the written test. Whenever an examination is taken<br \/>\nfor Hindi language as well as for Santhali language and where<br \/>\nthere is no grievance about the deduction in a Santhali<br \/>\nlanguage, then 50% marks in the written test ought to be given<br \/>\nto the petitioner, out of the total marks. Thus, if the written test<br \/>\nis taken of 10 marks, then 5 marks minimum should be given<br \/>\nto the present petitioner, because as a part and partial of one<br \/>\nwritten test, like question 1 and 2, two dictations have been<br \/>\ngiven of two different languages and looking to the counter<br \/>\naffidavit, highest allegation is about the knowledge of Hindi<br \/>\nlanguage. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for 50% marks in the<br \/>\nwritten test and, on this logic also, there cannot be a passing<br \/>\nstandard higher than 50% for the post of Constable. This aspect<br \/>\nof the matter has not been properly appreciated by the<br \/>\nrespondents before giving marks to the petitioner as &#8220;failed&#8221; in<br \/>\nthe written test and, therefore, the assessment &#8220;fail&#8221; deserves to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                               3.<\/span><br \/>\n   be quashed and set aside, so far as written test of the petitioner<br \/>\n   is concerned, and, therefore, after applying a fresh mind by the<br \/>\n   higher officer, on a written test, petitioner&#8217;s representation may<br \/>\n   be ordered to be decided by respondent no.3, after giving an<br \/>\n   adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to her<br \/>\n   representative, in accordance with law, rules, regulations,<br \/>\n   policies and enforceable government orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has<br \/>\n   submitted that the petitioner is not having adequate knowledge<br \/>\n   of Hindi, which is necessary for a Constable and as per the<br \/>\n   counter affidavit, if she is not having proper knowledge of Hindi,<br \/>\n   she cannot clear the written test and, therefore, she has been<br \/>\n   assess in the written test as &#8220;failed&#8221; and once a candidate is<br \/>\n   failed in any of the two tests, the said candidate is not eligible<br \/>\n   for appointment and hence, the petitioner cannot be appointed<br \/>\n   as a Constable and the writ petition, therefore, deserves to be<br \/>\n   dismissed. Nonetheless, as no final decision has been taken<br \/>\n   upon the representations, which are at Annexure 5 series to the<br \/>\n   memo of petition, respondent no.3 may be directed to decide the<br \/>\n   same, in accordance with law, within the stipulated time, given<br \/>\n   by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the fact that<br \/>\n   the petitioner has already cleared the physical test, taken for<br \/>\n   the post of Constable, and also looking to the fact that the<br \/>\n   petitioner is already a matriculate certificate holder, wherein,<br \/>\n   Hindi was one of the subjects, and also looking to the arbitrary<br \/>\n   assessment of the written test by the respondents, without<br \/>\n   appreciating the fact that out of the dictations of two languages<br \/>\n   of one paragraph each, half of the written test is correct, and,<br \/>\n   therefore, the petitioner is logically entitled for 50% marks and<br \/>\n   there cannot be a passing standard of written test for a post of<br \/>\n   Constable, exceeding 50%, and also looking to the fact that no<br \/>\n   marks have been allotted to the written test and arbitrarily the<br \/>\n   word &#8220;fail&#8221; is written on the written test paper of the petitioner,<br \/>\n   and also looking to the fact that no standard has been fixed for<br \/>\n   passing or fail, I hereby quash and set aside the assessment by<br \/>\n   the respondents of the written test of the present petitioner,<br \/>\n   with a direction to reassess the marks, obtained by the<br \/>\n   petitioner at the written test. The word &#8220;fail&#8221; is used, as per the<br \/>\n   counter affidavit, upon the written test paper of the petitioner,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       4.<\/span><br \/>\n         which is absolutely an arbitrary action. &#8220;Fail&#8221; or &#8220;pass&#8221; is a<br \/>\n         consequence of the marks, obtained by a candidate. High<br \/>\n         ranking police officer, who has assessed the marks, obtained by<br \/>\n         the petitioner at the written test, ought to have given marks, so<br \/>\n         that the consequence of &#8220;pass&#8221; or &#8220;fail&#8221; can be decided.<br \/>\n         Straightway a candidate cannot be labelled as &#8220;failed&#8221; or<br \/>\n         &#8220;passed&#8221;. Moreover, no standard of &#8220;pass&#8221; or &#8220;fail&#8221; having been<br \/>\n         prescribed or pronounced, in advance, such an action leads to<br \/>\n         absolute arbitrariness. Any candidate can be declared &#8220;pass&#8221; by<br \/>\n         such an arbitrary action or a deserving candidate can be<br \/>\n         declared &#8220;fail&#8221;, if such an arbitrary and unguided powers are<br \/>\n         given to the assessing police officer and hence, I hereby quash<br \/>\n         and set aside such arbitrary assessment by the respondents of<br \/>\n         the written test of the present petitioner. However, looking to<br \/>\n         the   contention,   raised   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the<br \/>\n         respondents that no final decision has yet been taken upon the<br \/>\n         representation of the petitioner, which are at Annexure 5 series<br \/>\n         to the memo of petition, I hereby direct respondent no.3 to<br \/>\n         decide the representation of the present petitioner, which is at<br \/>\n         Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, or to treat this writ petition<br \/>\n         as a representation and I further direct that respondent no.3<br \/>\n         will decide the same, in accordance with law, rules, regulations,<br \/>\n         policies and looking to the enforceable government orders and<br \/>\n         also keeping in mind the aforesaid observations in the foregoing<br \/>\n         paragraphs of this order, after giving an adequate opportunity<br \/>\n         of being heard to the petitioner or to her representative, as<br \/>\n         expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a<br \/>\n         period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the<br \/>\n         order of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the aforesaid<br \/>\n         extent, and is hereby disposed of, with the aforesaid directions<br \/>\n         and observations.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                       (D.N. Patel, J)<\/p>\n<p>A.K.Verma\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Sisiliay Hembram vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 21 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 425 of 2008 Sisiliay Hembram &#8230; Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand &amp; ors. &#8230; Respondents &#8212;&#8212;&#8212; CORAM: HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL &#8212;&#8212;&#8212; For the Petitioner: Dr. S.N.Pathak, Advocate For the [&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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sisiliay Hembram vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 21 July, 2009 - 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\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sisiliay Hembram vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 21 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-15T11:36:18+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sisiliay Hembram vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 21 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-15T11:36:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1494,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Sisiliay Hembram vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 21 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-15T11:36:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sisiliay Hembram vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 21 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sisiliay Hembram vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 21 July, 2009 - 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\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sisiliay Hembram vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 21 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-15T11:36:18+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sisiliay Hembram vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 21 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-15T11:36:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009"},"wordCount":1494,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009","name":"Sisiliay Hembram vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 21 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-15T11:36:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sisiliay-hembram-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-21-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sisiliay Hembram vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 21 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/179358","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=179358"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179358\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}