{"id":184567,"date":"2010-01-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-09-18T19:15:27","modified_gmt":"2016-09-18T13:45:27","slug":"sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sharda Devi vs State And Others on 1 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jammu High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sharda Devi vs State And Others on 1 January, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \nSWP No. 2647 OF 2001    \nSharda Devi \nPetitioners\nState and others\nRespondent  \n!Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Abrol and Mr. Sachin Sharma\n^Mrs. Neeru Goswami, Dy.AG.   \n\nHon'ble Mr. Justice Gh. Hasnain Massodi, Judge \nDate: 01.01.2010 \n:J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n<p>The State Government vide Govt. order No. 396 of Edu 2000<br \/>\ndated 28.4.2000 accorded sanction to a scheme called RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nScheme (hereinafter referred to as Scheme) intended to make<br \/>\nup the deficiency of staff at the elementary level of education. The<br \/>\nobjectives of scheme were to promote decentralized management of<br \/>\nelementary education with the community participation and<br \/>\ninvolvement, to ensure accountability and responsiveness through<br \/>\ncommunity supervision and to operationalize effectively the schooling<br \/>\nsystem at the grass root level. The Scheme provided for services of<br \/>\nteaching guides called RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nwith a role for them to act as<br \/>\na catalyst for quality education and to ensure overall development of<br \/>\nthe personality of the children. The ultimate aim of the RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nScheme was to secure universal enrolment and to check out<br \/>\nthe school drop outs. The aforementioned Govt. Order is<br \/>\ncomprehensive self contained and takes care of all aspects of the<br \/>\nScheme including the role of village level committees, the eligibility<br \/>\nfor the teaching guides or RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nproposed to be recruited,<br \/>\ntheir mode of selection, the honorarium to be paid to them and their<br \/>\nregularization on their satisfactorily completing five years period on<br \/>\nhonorarium basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>Zonal Education Officer, Zone Billawarrespondent<br \/>\nNo. 4 vide<br \/>\nnotice dated 28.8.2001 invited applications from eligible candidates<br \/>\nthrough respective village level committees for the RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nvacancies available in different primary and middle schools of zone<br \/>\nBillawar. The advertisement notice reproduced the eligibility criteria<br \/>\nfor the advertised vacancies in consonance with the Scheme identified<br \/>\nthe schools\/ villages were vacancies were available and gave the<br \/>\ntimeframe within which the applications were to be submitted. The<br \/>\nannexure to the advertisement notice serialized the schools as also the<br \/>\nnumber of vacancies therein proposed to be filled up.<br \/>\nThe petitioners claim to have submitted applications for the<br \/>\nengagement as RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nin Middle School Niali and Middle<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">2<\/span><br \/>\nSchool Dhamlar respectively. However, the petitioners did not find<br \/>\nplace in the selection list issued by the respondent No.3. Shri Ranjeet<br \/>\nSingh S\/o Charan Singh R\/o Dhamlarrespondent<br \/>\nNo.5 herein was<br \/>\nselected for Middle School Raper village Dhamlar whereas Bushan<br \/>\nKumar S\/o Ishwar Dass also resident of Dhamlarrespondent<br \/>\nNo.6<br \/>\nherein was selected as RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nfor Middle School Niali. The<br \/>\npetitioners, aggrieved by their noninclusion<br \/>\nin the select list and<br \/>\nconsequent appointment, have assailed the appointment of<br \/>\nrespondents 5 and 6 as RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nmade by respondent No.3<br \/>\nand sought its quashment. The petitioners also seek a direction to the<br \/>\nrespondents to appoint the petitioners against the vacancies to be<br \/>\navailable after the appointment of respondents 5 and 6 is setaside.<br \/>\nThe petitioners edifice the writ petition on the grounds that though the<br \/>\npetitioner No.1 and the respondent No.5 belong to the same Morah<br \/>\n(Locality) and having regard to their place of residence were equally<br \/>\nplaced to compete for the vacancy of RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nin Middle<br \/>\nSchool Niali, yet the petitioner No.1 had a superior right to be<br \/>\nappointed against the available vacancy as against the respondent<br \/>\nNo5. on the ground that the petitioner No.1 had better academic<br \/>\nqualification as against the respondent No.5. It is pleaded that the<br \/>\npetitioner No.1 has done her graduation in Arts (B.A.) as also in<br \/>\nEducation (B.Ed) and thus had an edge over the claim of respondent<br \/>\nNo.5 to the vacancy who according to the petitioner No.1 had only<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">3<\/span><br \/>\ndone Masters in Urdu. The comparative merit and technical<br \/>\nqualification, according to the petitioner No.1 made her a better<br \/>\ncandidate for the aforesaid vacancy. The respondents are said to have<br \/>\nignored the better academic qualification of the petitioner No.1 and<br \/>\nalso the directions of this court in Balwinder Kour&#8217;s case. A good<br \/>\nteacher, it is averred, is backbone of society and a technically<br \/>\nqualified person being well equipped to work as a teacher has a<br \/>\npreferential right to be considered for appointment as RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nas against a candidate having no technical qualification. The<br \/>\nrespondents are alleged to have acted arbitrarily and illegally while<br \/>\nignoring the petitioner No.1 and selecting respondent No.5 to man the<br \/>\npost.\n<\/p>\n<p>The challenge is thrown to selection of respondent No.6 as<br \/>\nRehbareTaleem<br \/>\nfor Middle School Raper Village Dhamlar on the<br \/>\nground that the respondent No.6 does not reside in the Morah<br \/>\n(Locality) where the Middle School, for which respondent No. 6 has<br \/>\nbeen selected as RehbareTaleem,<br \/>\nis situated. It is urged that the<br \/>\nunderlying object of RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nScheme is to ensure<br \/>\naccountability of the RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nand to attain the intended<br \/>\nobject, the scheme provides that the RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nis to be drawn<br \/>\nfrom the local community so that the local community does not only<br \/>\nhave a say in the selection but also exercises effective supervision. It<br \/>\nis pleaded that selection of respondent No.6 against the vacancy<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">4<\/span><br \/>\navailable in the school of a Morah where respondent No.6 does not<br \/>\nreside runs against the fundamental principles of RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nScheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondents 1 to 4 in their objections, which at the request<br \/>\nof the respondents are being treated as counter, refute the grounds set<br \/>\nout in the writ petition. The objections, after summarizing the salient<br \/>\nfeatures of the Scheme, deny that the selection was made unmindful<br \/>\nof the merit of the aspirants for the vacant positions. The respondents<br \/>\n1 to 4 while admitting that the petitioners as well as respondents 5 and<br \/>\n6 were recommended for appointment as RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nagainst the<br \/>\navailable vacancies, have insisted that having regard to the eligibility<br \/>\ncriteria, merit and the academic qualification, the respondents 5 and 6<br \/>\nwere selected for the available vacancies in the aforementioned<br \/>\nMiddle Schools. The respondents 1 to 4 have denied that respondent<br \/>\nNo.6 did not hail from the village where the vacancy was available. It<br \/>\nis insisted that the residence in the concerned village and not the<br \/>\nMorah\/ Mohalla\/ Pati is the requirement of Govt. Order No. 396 dated<br \/>\n28.4.2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Government Order No. 396 dated 28.4.2000, as pointed<br \/>\nout, does not only deal with the aims and objectives of the Scheme<br \/>\nand the role the RehbareTaleems,<br \/>\nis intended to play in universal<br \/>\nenrolment and as catalyst for quality education, but also lays down the<br \/>\neligibility criteria for appointment as a RehbareTaleem.<br \/>\nThe<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">5<\/span><br \/>\naforesaid Govt. Order provides for empanelment of a candidate from<br \/>\nthe locality as RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nprovided the candidate possesses the<br \/>\nminimum qualification of 10+2. The Government Order does not<br \/>\nprovide for any preferential treatment to a candidate having academic<br \/>\nqualification higher than 10+2. The reason and rationale for the<br \/>\neligibility criteria is not difficult to guess. It needs no emphasis that<br \/>\nRehbareTaleem<br \/>\nscheme was launched to meet the staff requirements<br \/>\nof Schools located in difficult, inaccessible and far flung areas where<br \/>\nthe teachers posted from other places would not ordinarily attend their<br \/>\nduties regularly. Furthermore the scheme provides for making up the<br \/>\ndeficiency in the school staff at elementary level. Be that as it may,<br \/>\nthe academic qualification requirement under the RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nScheme is 10+2 without any preferential superior right to the<br \/>\ncandidates possessing higher qualification. Against the said backdrop<br \/>\nthe claim made by the petitioner No.1 to a preferential right of<br \/>\nconsideration for RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nvacancy in Middle School Niali as<br \/>\nagainst the respondent No.5 who admittedly has done Masters in Urdu<br \/>\nis not sustainable. There can be no disagreement that the State<br \/>\nGovernment vide Govt. Order No. 1503Edu<br \/>\nof 2003 dated 1.10.2003<br \/>\nhas room for comparative assessment of the academic qualification of<br \/>\naspirants for RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nvacancy and it is expressly provided<br \/>\nthat a professional degree like B.Ed and M.Ed shall have an edge as<br \/>\nagainst a academic post graduate degree. However, the Govt. Order is<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">6<\/span><br \/>\nprospective in its operation and cannot be pressed into service by<br \/>\npetitioner No.1 to substantiate her claim. The advertisement notice, it<br \/>\nmay be stated at the cost of repetition, was issued on 28.4.2000 and<br \/>\nthe selection list prepared\/ issued on 10.9.2001 i.e. much before the<br \/>\nGovt. Order No. 1503Edu<br \/>\nof 2003 dated 1.10.2003. The case set up<br \/>\nby the petitioner No. 1 thus does not find support from the pleadings<br \/>\nand the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner No.2 has based his claim on the place of<br \/>\nresidence. If petitioner No.2 is to be believed the respondent No.6<br \/>\ndoes not hail from the place where the school, in which RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nvacancy was available, is situated. The case set up and the<br \/>\narguments advanced at Bar in support of the case are made oblivious<br \/>\nto the real import of the Scheme. It is true that the Scheme lays<br \/>\nemphasis on the recruitment from the locality where he\/ she has to<br \/>\nserve. The object is that the RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nis in a position to<br \/>\nperform the role and discharge the duties visualized under the RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nScheme. The RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nScheme nonetheless<br \/>\nprovides for the &#8220;village&#8221; as the place of residence as against the<br \/>\nMohalla, Morah, or Pati. In other words an aspirant for RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nvacancy should belong to the village where the vacancy is<br \/>\nsought to be filled up. The village level committee as visualized by<br \/>\nthe Scheme is even empowered to draw up a panel from adjoining<br \/>\nvillage where no eligible candidate from within the village is<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">7<\/span><br \/>\navailable. The emphasis thus is on the &#8220;village&#8221; and not on the sub<br \/>\nunit of the village like a Mohalla\/ Morah. Having said so, it needs to<br \/>\nbe noted that the case set up by the petitioner No.2 is belied by the<br \/>\npetition itself. The petitioner No.2 in the writ petition has given his<br \/>\nplace of residence as Village Dhamlar Mohalla Miali Tehsil Billawar<br \/>\nDistrict Kathua and the place of residence of respondent No.6 whom<br \/>\nthe petitioner wants to dislodge, is village Dhamlar, Morah Dhamlar,<br \/>\nTehsil Billawar. The petition thus itself indicates though both the<br \/>\npetitioner No.2 and respondent No.6 belong to the same village and<br \/>\nmere fact that the respondent No.6 does not hail from Morah Raper<br \/>\ndoes not in any manner brighten up chances of petitioner No 2&#8217;s case.<br \/>\nThis apart even petitioner No.2 does not belong to Morah Raper as is<br \/>\nevident from the petition itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>The State Govt. through Govt. Order No. 563Edu<br \/>\nof 2005<br \/>\ndated 24.8.2005 has set at rest thecontroversy, if any, as regards true<br \/>\nimport of expression &#8220;Village&#8221; used in the RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nScheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>It stands clarified that the expression &#8220;village&#8221; used in the RehbareTaleem<br \/>\nScheme and the subsequent instructions shall mean and<br \/>\ndeemed to have always meant a revenue village.<br \/>\nSo viewed the writ petition is devoid of any merit and liable to<br \/>\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">8<\/span><\/p>\n<p>(Gh. Hasnain<br \/>\nMassodi)<br \/>\nJammu Judge<br \/>\n01.01.2010<br \/>\nAmjad lone<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jammu High Court Sharda Devi vs State And Others on 1 January, 2010 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. SWP No. 2647 OF 2001 Sharda Devi Petitioners State and others Respondent !Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Abrol and Mr. Sachin Sharma ^Mrs. Neeru Goswami, Dy.AG. Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice Gh. [&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":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-184567","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sharda Devi vs State And Others on 1 January, 2010 - 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\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sharda Devi vs State And Others on 1 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-18T13:45:27+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\\\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sharda Devi vs State And Others on 1 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-18T13:45:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1719,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Sharda Devi vs State And Others on 1 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-18T13:45:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sharda Devi vs State And Others on 1 January, 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":"Sharda Devi vs State And Others on 1 January, 2010 - 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\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sharda Devi vs State And Others on 1 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-18T13:45:27+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\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sharda Devi vs State And Others on 1 January, 2010","datePublished":"2009-12-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-18T13:45:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010"},"wordCount":1719,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010","name":"Sharda Devi vs State And Others on 1 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-18T13:45:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharda-devi-vs-state-and-others-on-1-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sharda Devi vs State And Others on 1 January, 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\/184567","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=184567"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184567\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184567"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184567"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184567"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}