{"id":189620,"date":"2000-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000"},"modified":"2015-05-17T04:32:44","modified_gmt":"2015-05-16T23:02:44","slug":"meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000","title":{"rendered":"Meenakshi vs M.C.D. & Anr. on 12 May, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Meenakshi vs M.C.D. & Anr. on 12 May, 2000<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2000 IVAD Delhi 824, 2000 (56) DRJ 102<\/div>\n
Author: A Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
A.K. Sikri, J.<\/p>\n
1.     Petitioner on the basis of her B.Ed. qualifications, is seeking to get appointment as Primary Teacher with respondent No.1\/MCD. The petitioner had originally  passed  her B.Ed.exam securing 478\/800 marks. However  she  had applied for improvement in respect of one of the papers i.e. English teaching.  By  virtue of result of improvement examination, her marks  were  increased by 9 marks thereby she secured 487\/800 marks. She does not get  the appointment  on the basis of her original marks but if her  improved  marks are  taken  into consideration, she would get the job of  Primary  Teacher. Whether  she  is entitled to rely upon the marks as a  result  of  improved examination is the question which is to be determined in the present  case. The facts on the basis of which this question arises for determination  are important and therefore may be stated first. On July 16, 1996 an advertisement  appeared in the ‘Employment News’ of the same date through which  the respondent  No.2 acting on behalf of the respondent No. 1 invited  applications  from ‘Indian citizens’ for the posts of ‘Primary and Nursery  Teachers’. Approximate vacancies in the General\/Tamil category were indicated to be  around 3000 for Primary Teacher and 65 for Primary  Teacher(Urdu).  The completed  applications were to reach the respondent No. 2 before July  31, 1996. The petitioner possesses the requisite qualifications as required  by the  said advertisement dated July 16, 1996. The petitioner belongs to  the general  category  of candidates. Being entitled to be considered  for  the posts as advertised by the respondents as possessing the requisite qualifications,  the petitioner applied in the prescribed Bio-Data format  to  the respondents  within the stipulated time. It is important to note  that  the petitioner  had applied for the post on 23.7.1996 and sent the  application by way of registered post on that date. In the application, she had submitted  that in B.Ed. she secured 478\/800 marks i.e. the marks which  she  had obtained  before  improvement.  Just after one day of  submission  of  this application, petitioner received her result of improvement examination i.e. on 24.7.1996 as per which she had now secured 487\/800 marks. Last date  for submission of the application for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher  was still far away which was 31.7.1996. Upto this stage, the facts  are not disputed.\n<\/p>\n
2.   However petitioner alleges that after receiving improved result of her B.Ed.  Examination, she went to the office of respondent on 26.7.1996  with the  copy of the improved result but the officer of the respondent  refused to  accept the said marksheet on the plea that since thousands of  applications  had been received by the respondents, it would be difficult to  find out  the application of the petitioner. Therefore she sent the  same  under postal  certificate(UPC) to the respondent on 26.7.1996 itself.  Thereafter she  received communication from respondent No.2 on  14.11.1996  intimating her  application No.30774 for future reference. After receipt of  the  said communication,  she sent duly attested photocopy of her  regular  marksheet which included marks after improvement, to the respondent by registered pos on 15.11.1996.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Thereafter respondent No.2 on the basis of particular criteria adopted by it for awarding points to different candidates who applied for the post, for  their  10th, 12th & B.Ed.\/JBT examination, compiled  the  results  and those  candidates  who had secured upto minimum 72 points and  born  on  or before 30.11.1969 were selected. Although petitioner also secured 72 points but  as  she was born on 13.7.1976 i.e. after 30.11.1969 she could  not  be selected.  It may be mentioned that while awarding 72 points to  the  petitioner,  her original result of B.Ed. i.e. before improvement  wherein  she had  secured 478\/800 marks, was taken into consideration. Had the  improved result  of the petitioner in B.Ed i.e. 487\/800 been taken  into  consideration, she would have secured 75 points and thus would have got the appointment.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The version of MCD because of which it acted on the original marksheet of B.Ed. of the petitioner is as under :\n<\/p>\n
5.   Petitioner  had sent her application on 23.7.1996 alongwith  marksheet of B.Ed.examination as per which she had secured 478\/800 marks. copy of the application  form as submitted by the petitioner as well as  the  marksheet submitted  alongwith  application  showed her marks in  B.Ed.  as  478\/800. According to the respondents, petitioner never submitted her revised  B.Ed. marksheet after improvement in the results. Her allegation that she visited office  on 24.7.1996 with marksheet after the improvement is denied. It  is also  denied that she had sent this marksheet by UPC on 26.7.1996  and  respondents state that it is an afterthought story created by her as she  had sent  all her letters through registered post only and she could have  sent this  letter also by registered post. It shows that she had not  sent  this letter and UPC is made to create false evidence. It is also submitted  that even if it is presumed that on 24.7.1996, officials of MCD refused to  take her marksheet of revised result, she could have again applied for the  post of  Primary Teacher as the last date to move the application was  31.7.1996 In these circumstances, according to respondents, they rightly acted on the basis of applications submitted by the petitioner herself as per which  she had rightly been given the grading of 72 and as per these gradings, she had not been able to make her mark, her date of birth being 13.4.1976.\n<\/p>\n
6.   There appears to be some flaw in the story put forth by the petitioner which creates doubt in the narrations made by her in the petition  inasmuch as ;\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  if  she  had met the officials of MCD  i.e.  24.7.1996  with revised marksheet and officials of the respondents had refused to take  the  same as alleged by her, she did not  meet  any  higher official or write any letter to this effect.\n<\/p>\n
     (b)  She  had allegedly sent her marksheet on 26.7.1996  by  UPC. Although  the original application submitted by her was  sent  by registered  post, it is stated by the respondents that all  other communications  are sent by her by registered post then why  this important  document which could have made all the difference  was allegedly sent by UPC? It lends credence to the allegation of the respondents  that this marksheet was not all sent and  back  date UPC is fabricated.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The  petitioner could apply for the post again if the respondents  had refused to accept the revised marksheet on 24.7.1996, as the date of making the application had not yet expired which was 31.7.1996. Petitioner  should have been careful enough not to miss the chance of making another  application. It is thus clear that petitioner was not vigilant and careful.\n<\/p>\n
8.   In  any  case whether the petitioner visited  respondents’  office  on 24.7.1996  or sent revised marksheet on 26.7.1996 raises disputed  question of  facts  which cannot be gone into these writ proceedings.  More  so  the assessment of circumstances shows that the version of the petitioner is not worth giving any credence. Therefore the present case is to be examined  on the basis as if the application dated 23.7.1996 in which petitioner  stated her  B.Ed.marks  to be 478\/800 supported by original  marksheet  only,  was submitted.  On the basis of these facts, it was but natural and proper  for the  respondents  to act on the basis of petitioner’s marks as  478\/800  in B.Ed. and not 487\/800. On this basis her grading comes to 72 as admitted by the petitioner also. Respondents have mentioned that the candidates with 72 grading  and born on or before 30.11.1969 only are given  the  appointment. Presumably,  there were many candidates who obtained grading of 72 and  the vacancies got filled up by such persons with 72 grading could not be accommodated keeping in view number of posts and therefore those who were senior in  age i.e. born on or before 30.11.1969 could only be  accommodated.  The petitioner  has  thus  missed the bus. May be the  non-appointment  of  the petitioner, even when she improved her academic result, may act as harsh to her but for this, it is the petitioner’s carelessness and\/or inaction which
\nis  to be blamed. Had she been vigilant enough to place on record  the  revised marksheet of improved result or make another application for the post in  question before 31.7.1996 on the basis of revised marksheet, she  would have  got the desired result. As far as respondents are concerned,  in  the absence  of revised marksheet submitted to them, they had no option to  act on the basis of result mentioned in the application submitted by petitioner herself.  Therefore one may have sympathies with the petitioner but  it  is difficult to help her in the facts and circumstances of this case where the consequences are her own creation.\n<\/p>\n
     This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
9.     No orders as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Meenakshi vs M.C.D. & Anr. on 12 May, 2000 Equivalent citations: 2000 IVAD Delhi 824, 2000 (56) DRJ 102 Author: A Sikri Bench: A Sikri ORDER A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Petitioner on the basis of her B.Ed. qualifications, is seeking to get appointment as Primary Teacher with respondent No.1\/MCD. The petitioner had […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189620","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMeenakshi vs M.C.D. & Anr. on 12 May, 2000 - 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\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Meenakshi vs M.C.D. & Anr. on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-16T23:02:44+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Meenakshi vs M.C.D. & Anr. on 12 May, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-16T23:02:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1466,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000\",\"name\":\"Meenakshi vs M.C.D. & Anr. on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-16T23:02:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Meenakshi vs M.C.D. & Anr. on 12 May, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Meenakshi vs M.C.D. & Anr. on 12 May, 2000 - 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\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Meenakshi vs M.C.D. & Anr. on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-16T23:02:44+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Meenakshi vs M.C.D. & Anr. on 12 May, 2000","datePublished":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-16T23:02:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000"},"wordCount":1466,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000","name":"Meenakshi vs M.C.D. & Anr. on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-16T23:02:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-m-c-d-anr-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Meenakshi vs M.C.D. & Anr. on 12 May, 2000"}]},{"@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\/189620","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=189620"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189620\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}