{"id":194760,"date":"1997-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997"},"modified":"2019-04-10T09:46:44","modified_gmt":"2019-04-10T04:16:44","slug":"state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997","title":{"rendered":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr on 31 January, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr on 31 January, 1997<\/div>\n
Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDR. DINA NATH SHUKLA & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t31\/01\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nK. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t O R D E R
\n     Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.
\n     This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment
\nof the\tAllahabad High\tCourt, made  on 3.5.1996 in CMWP No.
\n12592 of  1995. The legislature of Uttar Pradesh enacted the
\nUttar Pradesh  Public Services\t(Reservation  for  Scheduled
\nCasts, Scheduled  Tribes and  other Backward  Classes)\tAct,
\n1994 (for short, the `Act’). Advertisement was issued by the
\nUniversity  of\t Allahabad  on\tJanuary\t 30,  1995  inviting
\napplications  from   all  eligible   persons  for  posts  of
\nProfessors,  Readers   and  Lecturers  including  the  posts
\nreserved for  Scheduled Castes\t(for short,  the  `Dalits’),
\nScheduled  Tribes   (for  short,  the  `Tribes’)  and  Other
\nBackward Classes  (for short,  the `OBCs’).  A clarification
\nwas issued  by the Government on April 19, 1995 stating that
\nfor recruitment\t to the\t posts of  Professors,\tReaders\t and
\nLecturers, University  or College  is treated  as a unit and
\nthe  recruitment   would  be   made  applying  the  rule  of
\nreservation for\t the Dalits,  Tribes and  OBCs in respect of
\nall the\t posts. That  came to  be  questioned  in  the\twrit
\npetition.  The\t Division  Bench  has  held  that  the\tsaid
\nnotification was  bad in  law. Thus,  this appeal by special
\nleave.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Rakesh  Dwivedi,  learned  Advocate  General,\t has
\ncontended that\tthe view of the High Court is not correct in
\nlaw. As\t most of  the subjects\tthere are  single  posts  of
\nProfessors, Readers  or Lecturers  in the University\/College
\nand if\trecruitment is made to each single post, there would
\nbe total  prohibition on  application of rule of reservation
\nfor the\t Dalits, Tribes\t and  OBCs,  therefore,\t for  making
\nappointment by direct recruitment to the posts\/services, the
\ninstructions came  to be  issued. The Government, therefore,
\nhad clarified that entire University\/College should be taken
\nas a  unit for\tthe purpose  of recruitment  to the posts of
\nProfessors, Readers  and Lecturers  and the  posts should be
\nfused as  three separate  categories for  application of the
\nrule  of   reservation.\t The  clarification  issued  by\t the
\nGovernment is,\ttherefore, consistent with the provisions of
\nthe Act.  He  in  particular,  makes  reference\t to  Section
\n2(c)(iv) read with Section 3(5) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the
\nrespondents,  on   the\tother\thand,  contended   that\t the
\nadvertisement was  issued for subjectwise recruitment in the
\nUniversity and applying the rule of reservation the subjects
\nin which  the posts would be reserved for Dalits, Tribes and
\nOBCs were  specified. The  Government instructions,  on\t the
\nother hand,  would create ambiguity as to which of the posts
\nare to\tbe reserved  for Dalits,  Tribes, OBCs and which are
\nmeant for general candidates. If the subjectwise reservation
\nis provided  for,  everyone  would  know  which\t vacancy  is
\navailable to  the general candidate or to Dalits, Tribes and
\nOBCs. If there is only one post available for recruitment in
\na given\t faculty\/cadre, then rule of rotation as provided in
\nSection 3(5)  of the  Act would\t be applied  so that rule of
\nreservation would  be effectuated,  properly implemented and
\nwhat is\t more, candidates  would be in a position to know to
\nwhich post  he\/she would  be entitled  to apply for and seek
\nrecruitment in accordance with the qualifications prescribed
\nfor and possessed by the respective candidates.\n<\/p>\n
     We think that the stand taken and the contention raised
\nby Shri\t P.P. Rao,  learned senior  counsel, is\t correct and
\nmerits acceptance.  It is  seen that Section 2(c) of the Act
\ndefines “Public\t Services and  Posts”  to  mean\t service  in
\nconnection with\t the  affairs  of  the\tState  and  includes
\nservices and  posts in any educational institution owned and
\ncontrolled by  the State Government or which receives grant-
\nin-aid from  the State\tGovernment, including  a  University
\nestablished by\tor under  a Uttar  Pradesh  Act,  except  in
\neducational  institution  established  and  administered  by
\nminorities referred  to in  clause (1)\tof Article 30 of the
\nConstitution. Section  3 postulates  application of the rule
\nof reservation and reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “3.  Reservation\tin   favour   of
\n     Scheduled Castes,\tScheduled Tribes
\n     and other\tBackward Classes.  – (1)
\n     In public services and posts, there
\n     shall be  reserved at  the state of
\n     direct recruitment,  the  following
\n     percentages of  vacancies to  which
\n     recruitment  are\tto  be\tmade  in
\n     accordance with the roster referred
\n     to in  sub-section (5) in favour of
\n     persons  belonging\t  to   Scheduled
\n     Castes, Scheduled\tTribes and other
\n     backward classes of citizens –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) in the case of\t Twenty one per
\n     Scheduled Castes\t cent;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) in the case of\t Two per cent;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n     Scheduled Tribes\n     (c) in case of other     twenty\n     eeven Backward classes   per   cent\n     of citizens\n<\/pre>\n
     Provided that the reservation under
\n     clause (c)\t shall not  apply to the
\n     category of  other backward classes
\n     of citizens  specified in\tSchedule
\n     II.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (5) The State Government shall, for
\n     applying the reservation under sub-
\n     section (1),  by a\t notified order,
\n     issue  a\troster\twhich  shall  be
\n     continuously  applied  till  it  is
\n     exhausted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Rest of the sub-sections of Section 3 are not relevant;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
hence omitted.\n<\/p>\n
     Article 46 of the Constitution enjoins that educational
\nand economic interest of the Dalits, Tribes and Other weaker
\nsections shall be promoted by the State with special care of
\nthe Dalits  and Tribes.\t They shall be protected from social
\ninjustice  and\t all  forms   of  exploitation.\t Article  38
\nenvisages that\tthe State shall strive to promote welfare of
\nthe people  by securing and protecting, as effectively as it
\nmay, a\tsocial order  in which justice, social, economic and
\npolitical, shall inform all the institutions of the national
\nlife; in  particular, to  minimise the\tequalities in income
\nand  endeavour\t to  eliminate\t inequalities\tin   status,
\nfacilities and\topportunities, not  only amongst individuals
\nbut also  amongst groups  of people  residing  in  different
\nareas or engaged in different vocations. The Preamble of the
\nConstitution which  decries source  of power  from  “We\t the
\npeople of  India”, i.e.\t Bharat,  envisions  an\t egalitarian
\nsocial order  to integrate  all the  people with equality of
\nstatus, dignity\t of person and fraternity as a united Bharat
\nand  providing\tthem  socio-economic  justice,\tequality  of
\nopportunity and\t status and  dignity of\t person. It  is well
\nsettled\t legal\t position  that\t Preamble  is  part  of\t the
\nConstitution and is the basic structure of the Constitution.
\nEvery  citizen\t is  born   equal  but\t gets  chained\twith
\nimpregnable  walls   of\t social,   sectional  and  religious
\nbarriers and is made victim of discrimination and denuded of
\nhuman rights.  Articles\t 14,  15(1)  and  16(1)\t banish\t all
\nbarriers of  discrimination on\tgrounds of  religion,  race,
\nsex, sect, caste, place of birth or any of them.\n<\/p>\n
     When there\t is clash  of interests and competing claims
\nthere is  crave for  equality  of  opportunity\tamongst\t the
\npeople and  for emanicipation  from the\t pangs\tof  absolute
\nprohibition, Articles  15(2) to\t (4), 16(4) & 4(a) read with
\nthe Directive  Principles, pored  forth practical content of
\nequality  in   opportunity  resulting  through\tdistributive
\njustice in  favour of  unequals to  hold an  office or\tpost
\nunder the State in the democratic governance. These Articles
\ngive power  to the  State to make positive discrimination in
\nfavour of  the disadvantaged,  in particular  the Dalits and
\nTribes. Socio  economic empowerment  secures them dignity of
\nperson and  equality of\t status. Appointment to an office or
\npost gives  opportunity\t to  have  equality  of\t status\t and
\ndignity of  person. The\t object thereby is to provide socio-
\neconomic equality.  Social equality  gets  realised  through
\nfacilities and\topportunities given  to them  to  live\twith
\ndignity and  equal status  in the society. Economic equality
\nalso  gives  socio-economic  empowerment  as  a\t measure  to
\nimprove excellence  in every  walk of  life. Article  51A(h)
\nenjoins on  every  citizen  to\tdevelop\t scientific  temper,
\nhumanisms and  the spirit of inquiry and reform, and charges
\nthe  citizens\tto  promote   harmony,\tspirit\t of   common
\nbrotherhood transcending all social, religious, regional and
\nlinguistic barriers;  Article 51A(j) enjoins the citizens to
\nstrive towards\texcellence in  all spheres of individual and
\ncollective activity  so that  the nation constantly rises to
\nhigher level of endeavour and achievement. Equal opportunity
\nof appointment\tto a  post or  office is  available  to\t all
\ncitizens and legitimately and constitutionally entitles them
\nto consider  their claims  for employment\/appointment  to an
\noffice\tor   post.  There  are\tmany  aspirants\t for  a\t few
\nposts\/offices which generates spirit of competition. Article
\n335 mandates the State that in the field of competition, the
\nclaims\tof  the\t Dalits\t and  Tribes  shall  be\t taken\tinto
\nconsideration\tconsistently   with   the   maintenance\t  of
\nefficiency of  administration, in the making of appointments
\nto services  and posts in connection with the affairs of the
\nUnion or of a State.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus Article 335 read with Articles 46, 38 and 16 would
\ngive the socio-economic empowerment to the Dalits and Tribes
\nand rule  of reservation  in the  matter of appointment to a
\nservice\t or   post  under   the\t State\t is  part   of\t the
\nconstitutional scheme as a positive facility and opportunity
\navailable to  them and\twhere it  is extended to OBCs., they
\ntoo get\t opportunity to\t strive to  improve excellence\tin a
\nservice or  a post in which he or she gets appointment. In a
\ndemocracy governed  by rule  of law,  every segment  of\t the
\nsociety is  entitled to\t a share  in the  governance of\t the
\ncountry. Permanent  bureaucracy is a facet of our democratic
\ngovernance  and\t  integral  scheme   of\t the   Constitution.
\nRecruitment to\ta post\tor an  office  under  the  State  is
\ngoverned by  the Constitution,\tlaw and the rules made under
\nproviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or administrative
\ninstructions in\t the absence  of statutory rules. Protective
\ndiscrimination has  been upheld\t by this  Court. It connotes
\nmitigating absolute  equality to  achieve equality in favour
\nof the\tdisadvantaged segments of the society. The Act gives
\npractical content to implement the constitutional mandate of
\nequality of opportunity and status to the Dalits, Tribes and
\nOBCs, in  the matter of appointment to a public service or a
\npost under  the State  of U.P. including an appointment in a
\nuniversity or  educational institution.\t In R.K. Sabharwal &
\nOrs. vs.  The State  of Punjab\t& Ors.<\/a> [(1995) 2 SCC 745], a
\nConstitution Bench  of this  Court had\tconsidered and\theld
\nreservation in\tpromotion as  per the  roster as  valid\t and
\nconsistent with\t Articles 16(1)\t and 14 of the Constitution.
\nIt was\talso held  that the promotion in accordance with the
\nroster is  valid. The  reserved candidates promoted on merit
\nshould not  be put  in the  roster reserved  for them but be
\ntreated as  general  candidates.  Only\tcandidates  selected
\nunder the  reserved quota  should be  appointed as  per\t the
\nroster\tpoint  to  the\tpost  ear-marked  for  the  reserved
\ncandidates. In\tUnion of India & Anr. vs. Madhav s\/o Gajanan
\nChaubal &  Anr. [JT  1996 (9)  that the reservation could be
\nprovided even  to the  isolated post on the basis of rule of
\nrotation. Extension  of reservation  in such  cases  is\t not
\nunconstitutional. On  the other\t hand, such  scheme provided
\nfor and\t facilitate the\t Dalits and  Tribes being considered
\nfor promotion  to hold\tsingle post consistent with equality
\nof opportunity\ton par\twith others.  Therefore, it was held
\nthat the rule of rotation and the roster point in filling up
\nthe vacancy  that has arisen in the single post sought to be
\nfilled up  with the reserved candidates, is not violative of
\nArticle 16(1) or 14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, it  could be\t seen that  even in  the service and
\nposts in  connection with the affairs of the State including
\nservices and  posts in\tall educational institutions, owned,
\ncontrolled\/maintained by  the State  or which receive grant-
\nin-aid\tfrom   the   Government\t  including   a\t  University
\nestablished by\tor under the U.P. Act, the Act is applicable
\nand when  advertisement for direct recruitment to any of the
\nposts or  services in  the University is issued, the rule of
\nreservation  should  be\t applied  for  recruitment  in\teach
\nservice,  post,\t  grade\t or  cadre  as\tper  the  percentage
\nprescribed in  sub-section (1)\tof Section  3 in  compliance
\nwith sub-Sections (2) to (4) and (6) to (7); so also rule of
\nrotation as  per the roster adumbrated in sub-section (5) of
\nSection 3  of the Act. Thereby, it would be clear that while
\nissuing any  advertisement for direct recruitment to fill up
\nany  post   or\tservice\t  in  any  grade  or  cadre  in\t the
\nUniversity\/educational\tinstitution  established  under\t the
\nU.P. Act, the university\/educational institution should work
\nout  the   posts  before   hand\t and   to  make\t recruitment
\naccordingly. It\t is  seen  that\t in  the  present  case\t the
\nadvertisement specified\t various posts\tsubjectwise and\t the
\nvacancies were\treserved  for  general\tcandidates,  Dalits,
\nTribes and OBCs. Of course, it is not clear whether it is as
\nper roster. It is true, as contended by the learned Advocate
\nGeneral that  if there\tis only one post in a cadre\/Faculty,
\nbe it  a post of Professor, Reader or Lecturer, necessarily,
\nall such  single posts\tcarrying the  same scale  of pay are
\nrequired to be clubbed and the roster applied to such single
\npost in terms of Section 3(5) of the Act. When such a fusion
\nis and\tin fact should be worked out, and roster is applied,
\nnecessarily  advertisement   should   be   issued   inviting
\napplications for recruitment to the posts. The University is
\nrequired to  ear-mark the  posts in  the  roster  meant\t for
\ngeneral category  or Dalits,  Tribes or\t OBCs so  that every
\nqualified candidate  would apply  for and  seek selection in
\naccordance with\t law. In  this behalf,\tsub-section  (6)  of
\nSection 3  amplifies the general law that the candidates who
\nhad applied  for recruitment  for the posts earmarked as per
\nSection 3(1),  if selected on merit in open competition with
\ngeneral candidates,  then they shall not be adjusted against
\nreserved vacancies,  Sub-section (6)  of Section  3 reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
     “If a  persons belonging  to any of
\n     the categories  mentioned\tin  sub-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     section (1)  gets selected\t on  the
\n     basis   of\t  merit\t  in   an   open
\n     competition      with\t general
\n     candidates,   he\tshall\tnot   be
\n     adjusted  against\t the   vacancies
\n     reserved for  such\t category  under
\n     sub-section (1).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In a  case where there are more than one post available
\nin the\tsame faculty  in the  cadre of\tProfessor, Reader or
\nLecturer, as the case may be, necessarily and per force, the
\nadvertisement  should  also  be\t made  subjectwise  applying
\nSection 3(1)  & (5) of the Act. On selection, the candidates
\nappointed should  be fitted in that behalf as per the roster
\nmaintained by  the University\/educational institution. Thus,
\nall eligible  candidates, be they general or reserved, would
\nget equal  opportunity to  apply for  and seek selection and
\nrecruitment  in\t accordance  with  law\tand  the  Rules.  In
\nadjudging the  constitutionality of  the scheme\t or rule  of
\nreservation, what  is required to be kept at the back of the
\nmind is\t the equality  and adequacy of representation as per
\nthe  percentage\t  prescribed  by   the\trules\/administrative
\ninstructions.  The   enforcement  of  the  Act\thinges\tupon
\nlogistic interpretation\t and not  on legalistic orientation;
\npragmatic and  not pedantic  approach so that all candidates
\nget equality  of opportunity to hold an office or post under
\nthe State.  Care should\t also be  taken to ensure that equal
\nopportunity for\t selection and\tappointment is\tavailable to
\nall candidates\tin all faculties, discipline, speciality and
\nsuper-speciality and  in each  cadre\/grade\/service  so\tthat
\nequality is spread out and no one category gains monopoly or
\nis pushed into one category, grade or service.\n<\/p>\n
     In Dr.  Suresh Chandra Verma & Ors. vs. The Chancellor,
\nNagpur University & Ors.<\/a> [(1990) 4 SCC 55] instead of making
\nsubjectwise recruitment,  an  advertisement  in\t respect  of
\ntotal of 77 posts including 13 posts of Professors, 29 posts
\nof Readers  and\t 35  posts  of\tLecturers  were\t issued\t and
\nrecruitment was\t sought to  be made. When it was questioned,
\nthis Court tested the principle on the anvil of equality and
\nfairness of procedure posing the question thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “Is  non-reserving\t  the  posts  of
\n     University teachers  subjectwise in
\n     the employment  notice a  breach of
\n     letter and\t spirit\t of  reservation
\n     policy contained  in  Section  77-C
\n     read with Section 57 of the Act?”
\n     This Court had laid down in paras 10 to 12 thus:
\n     As regards\t the first  question, we
\n     have narrated  earlier  the  method
\n     which was adopted by the University
\n     for   reserving   the   posts.   It
\n     announced the posts categorywise as
\n     professors, Readers  and  Lecturers
\n     in different  subjects and\t made  a
\n     blanket declaration  that 6  of the
\n     posts  of\tProfessors,  12\t of  the
\n     posts of  Readers\tand  16\t of  the
\n     posts   of\t  Lecturers   would   be
\n     reserved\tfor    backward\t  casts.
\n     Neither  the   University\tnor  the
\n     candidates knew  at that time as to
\n     for which\tof the\tsubjects and  in
\n     what number  the  said  posts  were
\n     reserved. The  result was\tthat the
\n     candidates\t  belonging    to    the
\n     reserved  category\t in  particular,
\n     who  wanted   to  apply   for   the
\n     reserved posts  did  not  know  for
\n     which of the posts they could apply
\n     and whether they could apply at all
\n     for the  posts in\tthe subjects  in
\n     which  they  were\tqualified.  That
\n     this   could    be\t  the\texpected
\n     consequence of  such an  employment
\n     notice can legitimately be inferred
\n     and need  not be  and indeed cannot
\n     be,  demonstrated\tby  evidence  of
\n     what actually  happened, for  there
\n     may be  a number  of candidates who
\n     on account\t of the said uncertainty
\n     might to  take a  chance.\tWhat  is
\n     further, the  selection  committees
\n     which were\t appointed to  interview
\n     that candidates  for the respective
\n     posts did\tnot  also  know\t whether
\n     they    were    interviewing    the
\n     candidates for  reserved  posts  or
\n     not, and  to assess  merits of  the
\n     candidates\t  from\t  the\treserved
\n     category as  such\tcandidates.  The
\n     contention advanced  on  behalf  of
\n     the appellants  that the  selection
\n     committee even  without knowing  to
\n     the candidates  from  the\treserved
\n     category and,  therefore, it cannot
\n     be\t said  that  any  injustice  had
\n     resulted to  them is without merit.
\n     In\t  the\t first\t instance,   the
\n     contention proceeds  on the footing
\n     that all  those  belonging\t to  the
\n     reserved  category\t who  wanted  to
\n     apply for\tall the\t said posts  had
\n     done so  even without  knowing that
\n     the concerned  posts were reserved.
\n     Secondly, it also presumes that all
\n     eligible candidates from unreserved
\n     category had  applied for the posts
\n     without knowing  whether the  posts
\n     were   reserved\tor   not.    The
\n     possibility  that\t many\teligible
\n     candidates\t  belonging    to   both
\n     reserved and  unreserved categories
\n     might not\thave taken  the risk and
\n     chosen to\tgamble cannot  be  ruled
\n     out. This\targument further ignores
\n     the fact, that the suitability of a
\n     candidate from  a reserved category
\n     to the  particular post  has to  be
\n     adjudged\t  by\t taking\t    into
\n     consideration various  factors  and
\n     the  desired   result   cannot   be
\n     obtained by  merely giving\t uniform
\n     weightage marks  to the  candidates
\n     concerned which was the only method
\n     followed\t by\tthe    selection
\n     committees\t while\t selecting   the
\n     candidates.   Further,   there   is
\n     nothing on record to show that this
\n     method of\tgiving weightage  to the
\n     candidate\twas   not  followed   in
\n     respect   of    reserved\tcategory
\n     candidates even  if  they\thad  not
\n     applied  for   the\t post\tin   the
\n     reserved seats. What is more, there
\n     is also  nothing on  record to show
\n     whether any  candidate belonging to
\n     the reserved  category had\t applied
\n     for a particular post in a reserved
\n     seat, without  the prior  knowledge
\n     that the  post was reserved. It is,
\n     therefore, difficult  to understand
\n     as to  how the selection committees
\n     proceeded to  give weightage to the
\n     candidates without\t knowing whether
\n     they had  applied for  reserved  or
\n     non-reserved seats.  What\tis  more
\n     objectionable in  the procedure was
\n     that    its    Executive\t Council
\n     proceeded to  classify the posts in
\n     different subjects between reserved
\n     and non-reserved  posts  after  the
\n     lists of  selected candidates  were
\n     received from  different  selection
\n     committees. This method was open to
\n     an obvious\t objection since it gave
\n     a\tscope\tto  eliminate\tunwanted
\n     selected candidates  at that stage.
\n     Whether it\t occurred in the present
\n     case  or\tnot  is\t immaterial  for
\n     testing  the   validity   and   the
\n     propriety of the method followed by
\n     the university.  As has been stated
\n     earlier, in fact, after the receipt
\n     of the  list of selected candidates
\n     not  only\t the  Executive\t Council
\n     constituted yet  another  committee
\n     to decide\twhich of the subjectwise
\n     posts should be reserved or not but
\n     the Executive  Council also decided
\n     that  although  candidates\t for  47
\n     posts were\t selected only 30 of the
\n     posts were\t set apart  although the
\n     candidates were  selected for them,
\n     and they  were  so\t set  apart  for
\n     being   filled    in   afresh    by
\n     candidates\t  belonging    tot    he
\n     reserved  category.  Interestingly,
\n     however,  the   employment\t  notice
\n     issued subsequently for these posts
\n     mentioned\t reservations\tpostwise
\n     (subjectwise).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     According to  us, the  word  “post”
\n     used in  the context has a relation
\n     to the  faculty, discipline, or the
\n     subject for  which it  is\tcreated.
\n     When, therefore,  reservations  are
\n     required to be made “in posts”, the
\n     reservations have\tto be  postwise,
\n     i.e.    subjectwise.    The    mere
\n     announcement  of\tthe  number   of
\n     reserved posts  is no  better  than
\n     inviting  applications   for  posts
\n     without mentioning the subjects for
\n     which  the\t posts\tare  advertised.
\n     When, therefore,  Section\t57(4)(a)
\n     requires that  the advertisement or
\n     the   employment\t notice\t   would
\n     indicate  the  number  of\treserved
\n     posts, if\tany, it implies that the
\n     employment notice\tcannot be  vague
\n     and has  to indicate  the\tspecific
\n     post, i.e.,  the subject  in  which
\n     the post  is vacant  and for  which
\n     the applications  are invited  from
\n     the  candidates  belonging\t to  the
\n     reserved class. A non-indication of
\n     the  post\tin  this  manner  itself
\n     defeats the  purpose for  which the
\n     applications are  invited from  the
\n     reserved  category\t candidates  and
\n     consequently negates  the object of
\n     the reservation  policy. That  this
\n     is\t also\tthe  intention\t of  the
\n     legislature  is   made   clear   by
\n     Section 57(4)(d) which requires the
\n     selection committees  to  interview
\n     and  adjudge  the\tmerits\tof  each
\n     candidate and  recommend him or her
\n     for appointment  to   “the\t general
\n     posts” and “the reserved posts”, if
\n     any, advertised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A support\twas also  sought  to  be
\n     derived by\t the appellants to their
\n     contention\t from\tthe  policy   of
\n     reservation   as\t enunciated   in
\n     Government Resolution  dated  March
\n     30, 1981  wherein instructions  are
\n     issued in the matter in exercise of
\n     the   power    conferred\ton   the
\n     Government under  Section 77 (c) of
\n     the Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  instructions\t issued\t by   the  Government\twere
\nextracted  and\tto  avoid  confusion  in  understanding\t the
\nprovisions of  the Act,\t the instructions were explained and
\nstated thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “….similarly, at\t any given  time
\n     of\t recruitment   to  the\tteaching
\n     posts, only  the  total  number  of
\n     reserved vacancies and the sections
\n     from which they are to be filled in
\n     should be\tdetermined. It\twould be
\n     enough if\tthe required  percentage
\n     is fulfilled  as a\t whole\tand  not
\n     with reference  to\t any  particular
\n     post.  IF\tthe  reserved  vacancies
\n     cannot  be\t filled,  then\tso  many
\n     posts as  cannot be  filled in, may
\n     be kept  vacant for  six months and
\n     should be\tagain advertised thrice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     If, even  after re-advertising  the
\n     posts   three    times,\tsuitable
\n     candidates\t  belonging    to    the
\n     reserved  category\t do  not  become
\n     available, they may be filled in by
\n     candidates belonging  to  the  open
\n     category.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This Court had further held thus:
\n     “It is  common knowledge  that  the
\n     vacancies\tin  posts  in  different
\n     subjects occur  from time\tto  time
\n     according to  the exigencies of the
\n     circumstances   and    they   arise
\n     unequally in different posts. There
\n     may not be vacancies in one or some
\n     posts whereas  there may be a large
\n     number of vacancies in other posts.
\n     In such  circumstances, it\t is  not
\n     possible to comply with the minimum
\n     reservation percentage of 34 vis-a-
\n     vis  each\tpost.  It  is  for  this
\n     reason that  the resolution  states
\n     that although minimum percentage of
\n     reserved posts may not be filled in
\n     one  or  some  posts,  it\twill  be
\n     enough if in that year it is filled
\n     in taking\tinto  consideration  the
\n     total number of appointments in all
\n     the posts.\t This, however, does not
\n     absolve  the  appointing  authority
\n     from  advertising\tin  advance  the
\n     vacancies\tin  each  post\tand  the
\n     number of\tposts in  such vacancies
\n     meant for\tthe  reserved  category,
\n     and inviting  applications from the
\n     candidates\t  belonging    to    the
\n     reserved and  unreserved categories
\n     with  a  clear  statement\tin  that
\n     behalf.  In   fact,   the\t overall
\n     minimum percentage\t has to\t be kept
\n     in\t  mind,\t  as   stated\tin   the
\n     resolution, at  the time of issuing
\n     the  employment   notice\tor   the
\n     advertisement as the case may be.
\n     What is  material from our point of
\n     view in  this case\t is to point out
\n     that even\tthe Karnataka Full Bench
\n     has taken\tthe view  that generally
\n     reservation has to be cadrewise and
\n     subjectwise. It  was also a case of
\n     the filling  in of the vacancies in
\n     teaching posts in a University.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thus,  it\t could\tbe  seen  that\tif  the\t subjectwise
\nrecruitment is adopted in each service or post in each cadre
\nin each faculty, discipline, speciality or super-speciality,
\nit would  not only  be clear  to  the  candidates  who\tseek
\nrecruitment but\t also there  would not be an over-lapping in
\napplication of\tthe rule  of reservation  to the  service or
\nposts as  specified and\t made applicable by Section 3 of the
\nAct. On\t the other  hand, if  the total posts are advertised
\nwithout\t subjectwise   specifications,\tin   every  faculty,
\ndiscipline, speciality\tor  super-speciality,  it  would  be
\ndifficult for  the candidates  to know\tas to  which of\t the
\nposts  be  available  either  to  the  general\tor  reserved
\ncandidates or  whether or  not they  fulfil or\tqualify\t the
\nrequirements so\t as to\tapply for a particular post and seek
\nselection. As indicated earlier, if there is any single post
\nof  Professor,\t Reader\t or   Lecturer\tin   each   faculty,
\ndiscipline, speciality\tor super-speciality  which cannot be
\nreserved for  reserved\tcandidates,  it\t should\t be  clubbed
\nroster applied\tand  be\t made  available  for  the  reserved
\ncandidates in  terms of\t Section 3(5)  of the  Act. Even  if
\nthere  exists\tany  isolated  post,  rule  of\trotation  by
\napplication of roster should be adopted for appointment. For
\nachieving the  said  object,  the  Vice-Chancellor,  who  is
\nresponsible authority  under Section  4 to  enforce the Act,
\nwould ensure  that single posts in each category are clubbed
\nsince admittedly  all the posts in each of the categories of
\nProfessors, Readers  or Lecturers  carry the  same scale  of
\npay.  Therefore,   their  fusion   is\tconstitutional\t and
\npermissible. The  Vice-Chancellor should  apply the  rule of
\nrotation and  the roster  as envisaged under sub-section (5)
\nof Section  3. The  advertisements are required to be issued
\nso that\t the reserved and the general candidates would apply
\nfor  consideration   of\t their\t claims\t of  recruitment  in
\naccordance therewith. This interpretation would subserve and
\nelongate  constitutional  objective  and  public  policy  of
\nsocio-economic justice serving adequacy of representation in
\na service  or post, grade or cadre as mandated and envisaged
\nin Articles  335 and  16(4) read with Articles 14 and 16(1),
\nPreamble, Article  38 and Article 46 of the Constitution and
\nall other cognate provisions.\n<\/p>\n
     This ratio is consistent with the law laid down by this
\nCourt in Madhav’s  case as elaborated earlier.\n<\/p>\n
     The law  is declared  accordingly. The  Vice-Chancellor
\nwould work  out the  details, make  fresh advertisement\t and
\nhave  the   selection  done   in  accordance  with  law\t and
\nappointments made  accordingly. The directions issued by the
\nHigh Court are modified accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr on 31 January, 1997 Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati PETITIONER: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: DR. DINA NATH SHUKLA & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/01\/1997 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D E R Leave […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-194760","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr on 31 January, 1997 - 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\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr on 31 January, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-10T04:16:44+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr on 31 January, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-10T04:16:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997\"},\"wordCount\":4391,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997\",\"name\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr on 31 January, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-10T04:16:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr on 31 January, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr on 31 January, 1997 - 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\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr on 31 January, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-10T04:16:44+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr on 31 January, 1997","datePublished":"1997-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-10T04:16:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997"},"wordCount":4391,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997","name":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr on 31 January, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-10T04:16:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-dr-dina-nath-shukla-anr-on-31-january-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & Anr on 31 January, 1997"}]},{"@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\/194760","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=194760"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194760\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}