{"id":197503,"date":"2010-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-20T06:55:16","modified_gmt":"2018-07-20T01:25:16","slug":"gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Gujarat vs State on 23 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Gujarat vs State on 23 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/488\/2010\t 7\/ 10\tJUDGMENT \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 488 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA\n\t\tSd\/- \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?      1\n\t\t\t& 2 YES; 3 to 5 NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nGUJARAT\nRAJYA KARIGAR TALIM YOJNA KARMACHARI MANDAL VARG & 1 -\nPetitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nNK MAJMUDAR for\nPetitioners : 1 - 2. \nMR SHIVANG SHUKLA ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER\nfor Respondents : 1 - 2. \nNone for Respondent :\n3, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n:    23\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
1.\t\tThe
\npetitioners are an association and its president representing the
\nemployees serving on class-III posts in various industrial training
\ninstitutes under the State Government. They have invoked Article 226
\nof the Constitution with the grievance that, by virtue of the Foreman
\n Instructor in the Gujarat Skill Training Service Class-III
\nRecruitment Rules, 2008 (for short  the Rules ) notified on
\n29.9.2008, the Government  has included in the cadre of   Foreman
\nInstructor , Group Instructor (Plastic Processing Operator Trade),
\nGroup Instructor (Computer Trade) and Junior Training Officer
\n(Advance Vocational Training Scheme). The Government has, by those
\nrules, not only included the aforesaid three posts in Annexure-1 to
\nthe Rules, but provided in Rule 2 of the Rules that the categories in
\nAnnexure-1 shall include all other posts as may be declared by a
\ngeneral or special order by the Government. The Rules are made to
\nprovide for regulating recruitment to the post of Foreman Instructor
\nin the Gujarat Skill Training Service Class-III  in the Subordinate
\nService of the Directorate of Employment and Training.  And Rule 3
\nthereof provides for promotion to the post of Foreman Instructor
\nClass III of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the
\neligible persons as also for recruitment by direct selection.   The
\ngrievance of the petitioners is that by indirectly expanding the
\ncadre of Foreman Instructor, the Rules have included in that category
\nnot only Foreman Instructors but the aforesaid three categories of
\nemployees, who were traditionally treated as subordinate or inferior
\nto the Foreman Instructors and thus that part of the Rules were
\nviolating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by treating unequals
\nas equals.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tIt
\nwas submitted that, according to  another set of rules made under
\nArticle 309 of the Constitution providing for regulating recruitment
\nto the posts of Principal Class-II\/ Senior Surveyor Class-II\/
\nTechnical Officer Class-II\/ Training-cum-Placement Officer\/ Trade
\nTesting Officer\/ Senior Training Officer in the Gujarat Skill
\nTraining Service, promotion to those posts require  proved merit and
\nefficiency and seven years of working experience in the cadre of
\nForeman Instructor Class-III in the Subordinate Service of the
\nDirectorate of employment and Training. Thus, the newly added posts
\nof Group Instructor (Computer Trade), Group Instructor (Plastic
\nProcessing Operator Trade) and Junior Training Officer are included
\nin the feeder cadre; while the recruitment rules for those three
\ncadres required lesser educational qualifications. It was, on that
\nbasis, submitted that the impugned rules are irrational, arbitrary
\nand violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.  It was also
\nsubmitted that the earlier rules called  the  Vice-Principal
\nGujarat Skill Training Service Class-II (Junior Duty) Recruitment
\nRules, 1983  did not provide for promotion to Class-II post of
\nVice-Principal for the aforesaid three categories of employees, even
\nthough, admittedly the pay-scales of those three newly added feeder
\ncadre posts were made equal to the pay-scale of Foreman Instructors.
\nIt was, in that context, submitted that mere equality of pay-scale
\ncan never be the criteria for treating particular posts as equivalent
\nor equal; but the nature of work and the qualification prescribed for
\nparticular post should be the decisive criteria.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe
\npetitioners have relied upon Constitution Bench judgment of the
\nSupreme Court in All India Station Masters’ and
\nAssistant Station Masters’ Association v. General Manager, Central
\nRailway<\/a> [AIR 1980 SC 384], wherein it was observed as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
 8.
\n……..There is, in our opinion, no escape from the conclusion that
\nequality of opportunity in matters of promotion, must mean equality
\nas between members of the
\nsame class of employees, and not equality between members of
\nseparate, independent classes.\n<\/p>\n
 12.\t\tIn
\nview of this conclusion, it is unnecessary for the purpose of the
\npresent case to decide the other question : whether matters of
\npromotion are included in the words “matters relating to
\nemployment” in Art. 16(1) of the Constitution .\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn
\nthe facts of the above case, the petitioners contended that the
\nchannel of promotion in so far as it enabled Guards to be promoted
\nas Station Masters in addition to the other line of promotion  open
\nto them as Guards  amounted to denial of equal opportunity as between
\nroad-side Station Masters and Guards in the matter of promotion and
\nthus contravened the provisions of Article 16 (1) of the
\nConstitution. And the Apex Court rejected the petition on the ground
\nthat the petitioners belonged to a wholly distinct  and separate
\nclass from Guards and so there can be no \tquestion of equality of
\nopportunity in matters of promotion as between the petitioners and
\nGuards.\n<\/p>\n
3.1\t\tThe
\npetitioners also relied upon another Constitution Bench judgment of
\nthe Apex Court in Ram Lal Wadhwa v. State of
\nHaryana [AIR 1972 SC 1982]. The pertinent observations
\ntherein read as under:\n<\/p>\n
 47.
\n\t\t……..The two cadres thus being separate, Government was not
\nbound to bring about an integrated cadre especially in view of its
\ndecision of making the provincialised cadre a diminishing one and
\nbringing about ultimately through that
\nprinciple one cadre only in the field in a phased manner. If through
\nhistorical reasons the teachers had
\nremained in two separate categories, the classification of the
\nprovincialised teachers into a separate cadre could not be said to
\ninfringe Art. 14 or Art. 16. It was also not incumbent on the
\nGovernment to frame the 1961-Rules uniformly applicable to both the
\ncategories of teachers, firstly, because a rule framing authority
\nneed not legislate for all the categories and can select for which
\ncategory to legislate.      ………….There can be no doubt that
\nif there are two categories of employees, it is within Government’s
\npower to recruit in one and not recruit in the other. There is no
\nright in a government employee to compel it to make fresh
\nappointments in the cadre to which he belongs. It cannot also be
\ndisputed that Government had the power to make rules with
\nretrospective effect and therefore, could provide therein that
\nappointments made between October 1, 1957 and February 13, 1961 shall
\nbe treated as appointments in the State cadre. That had to be done
\nfor the simple reason that the provincialised cadre was already
\nfrozen even before October 1, 1957 and Government had decided not to
\nmake fresh appointments in that cadre since that cadre was to be a
\ndiminishing one.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIt
\nwas further observed:\n<\/p>\n
 53.\t\t……The
\nreal grievance of the provincialised teachers could be not that an
\nintegrated service was split into two by the Rules but that the Rules
\ndid not combine the two. No principle under Art. 14 or Art. 16 is
\ninvolved if such an integration was not brought about, for,
\nconsidering the past history of the two services and the
\ndifferences existing between them, Government could not be required
\nto fuse them into one upon any principles
\nemanating from the two Articles. \t….. There is nothing in either
\nArt. 14 or Art. 16 under which Government could be compelled to
\nmaintain that cadre in its original strength or make fresh
\nappointments in that cadre.       ……. The two service thus being
\nseparate both before and after provincialisation and there being no
\ncomplaint  about dissimilar or arbitrary treatment among members of
\nthe provincialised cadre, it is difficult to appreciate the grievance
\nof discrimination or the denial of equal opportunity. The conclusion
\non the reasons hereabove given is that no infringement of either of
\nthe two Articles is involved in this case.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe
\nabove observations clearly show that the Court was dealing with a
\nsituation which was contrary to the contentions in the present
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
3.2\t\tIndian
\nRailway SAS Staff Association v. Union of India<\/a> [AIR 1998 SC 805]
\nwas relied upon for the proposition that simplistic solution to
\nclassification merely based on the scales of pay might lead into
\nvarious complications and might lead to administrative hierarchial
\nimbalances in any particular organisation. Selection procedure for
\nappointment to a particular group post and requirements of a
\ndepartment for classification of posts are valid considerations and
\nany disturbance thereof would certainly lead to compounding of
\nproblems. The scale of pay alone cannot be the criteria for
\nclassification of posts.\n<\/p>\n
3.3\t\tS.P.Shivprasad
\nPipal v. Union of India<\/a> [AIR 1998 SC 1882]  was relied
\nupon for the petitioner, although following observations are made
\ntherein:\n<\/p>\n
 7.\t…….The
\nthree cadres though operating separately, were operating in the field
\nof Industrial Relations and Labour Welfare; and, therefore, in 1987
\nit became possible to merge the three cadres as per the
\nrecommendations of the Cadre Review Committee and the discussions
\nheld thereon. The respondents have also stated that in merging the
\nthree services the Government’s intention was to provide for avenues
\nwhereby the officers of the three merging cadres could get enriched
\nby the experience of different posts. The interchangeability brought
\nout by the creation of a new service enables, for example, the
\nAssistant Labour Commissioners to get the experience of work in an
\nindustry. Similarly, Labour Officers and Senior Officers can get
\nexposure to some of the quasi-judicial functions connected with the
\nposts of Assistant and Regional Labour Commissioners. It was,
\ntherefore, felt that the constitution of a unified cadre was in
\npublic interest. Hence the merger took place. Since this is
\nessentially a matter of policy, the scope of review by the Court is
\nlimited. We can, however, examine the grievance of the appellant
\nrelating to unequals being treated as equals and the grievance
\nrelating to losing promotional avenues.\n<\/p>\n
 14.\t\tThe
\nCadre Review Committee after examining the kinds of duties discharged
\nby these officers decided that since they all worked in the area of
\nlabour welfare, it would be desirable that they could widen
\ntheir experience. This would be possible if the cadres were
\nintegrated and the posts were made interchangeable so that the
\nmembers of the cadre could get a more varied experience in different
\nareas of labour welfare, thus making for a
\nbetter equipped cadre. Therefore, although the exact nature of work
\ndone by the three cadres was different, it would be difficult to say
\nthat one cadre was superior or inferior to the other cadre or
\nservice.\n<\/p>\n
 15.\t\tA
\ndecision to merge such cadres is essentially a matter of policy.
\nSince the three cadres carried the same pay scale at the relevant
\ntime, merging of the three cadres cannot be said to have caused any
\nprejudice to the members of any of the cadres. The total number of
\nposts were also increased proportionately when the merger took place
\nso that the percentage of posts available on promotion was not in any
\nmanner adversely affected by the merger of the cadres .\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tPerusal
\nof the Foreman Instructor in the Gujarat Skill Training Service
\nClass-III Recruitment Rules, 2008 would clearly show that they are
\nmade to provide for recruitment to the post of Foreman Instructors in
\nClass-III by promotion and by direct recruitment. In order to be
\neligible for such promotion, apart from proved merit and efficiency,
\nexperience of five years in the cadre of Supervisor Instructor in
\nClass-III,  passing of prescribed departmental examination and
\nqualifying examination for computer knowledge are required.  Even
\nafter appointment on promotion, the candidate is required to undergo
\nsuch training and pass such examination as may be prescribed by the
\nGovernment. Such provisions make it abundantly clear that mere
\ninclusion of any posts in Annexure-1 to the Rules, at par with
\nForeman Instructor, does not, by itself, make a candidate eligible
\nfor promotion to the post of Foreman Instructor Class-III. And, if
\nan employee in any of the cadres or posts  included in Annexure-1
\nsatisfies the aforesaid eligibility criteria, there is no valid
\nreason to exclude him from the selection process for promotion to the
\npost of Foreman Instructor Class-III. Therefore, the case and the
\ncontention of the petitioners are misconceived and wholly devoid of
\nany merit. Besides that, as recently reiterated by the Supreme Court
\nin Union of India v. Pushparani [(2008) 9 SCC 242]
\n  in para 37, it is the settled legal position that
\nmatters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and
\nstructuring\/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source \/mode of
\nrecruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of
\nservice records of employees fall within the exclusive domain of the
\nemployer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the
\nadministration is also the preserve of the employer.  The power of
\njudicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown
\nthat the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or
\nstatutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated by mala
\nfides. The court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the
\nemployer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct
\nrecruitment or promotion or by transfer. The court has no role in
\ndetermining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the
\ncriteria of selection. It is also not open to the court to make
\ncomparative evaluation of merit of the candidates. The court cannot
\nsuggest the manner in which the employer should structure or
\nrestructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of
\nadministration.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tKeeping
\nin view the above salutory dicta and inapplicability in the facts of
\nthe present case of the aforesaid judgments relied upon for the
\npetitioners, the impugned rules or inclusion of three categories of
\nemployees in the annexure to the rules cannot be set aside as
\narbitrary or unconstitutional. Therefore, the petition is summarily
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
(
\nD.H.Waghela, J.)<\/p>\n
(KMG
\nThilake)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Gujarat vs State on 23 March, 2010 Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/488\/2010 7\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 488 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Sd\/- ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197503","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGujarat vs State on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gujarat vs State on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-20T01:25:16+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gujarat vs State on 23 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-20T01:25:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2187,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Gujarat vs State on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-20T01:25:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gujarat vs State on 23 March, 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":"Gujarat vs State on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gujarat vs State on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-20T01:25:16+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gujarat vs State on 23 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-20T01:25:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010"},"wordCount":2187,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010","name":"Gujarat vs State on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-20T01:25:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-state-on-23-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gujarat vs State on 23 March, 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\/197503","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=197503"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197503\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197503"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197503"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}