{"id":198151,"date":"2009-05-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009"},"modified":"2016-03-16T17:48:00","modified_gmt":"2016-03-16T12:18:00","slug":"bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah<\/div>\n
*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+                    LPA 168\/2009 & CM No. 5472\/2009\n\n        BHASKARENDU DATTA MAJUMDAR                 ..... Appellant\n                       Through: Mr. Sunil Gupta, Senior Advocate with\n                       Mr. Rajiv K.Garg, Advocate.\n\n                     versus\n\n        UOI & ORS.                                     ..... Respondents\n                          Through: Mr. R.N. Singh, Mr. A.S. Singh and Ms.\n                          Rekha Aggarwal, Advocates for Rspdt. No. 1.\n                          Mr. M.M. Sudan, Advocate for Rspdt. No. 2.\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL\n\n                           ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
%                         18.05.2009<\/p>\n
        Admit. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service of<\/p>\n
notice. By the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for<\/p>\n
final hearing.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.      This appeal is directed against the order passed by the<\/p>\n
learned single Judge in WP(C) 4135\/2008 dated 9th January, 2009.<\/p>\n
3.      Few facts are that the appellant joined the respondent No.2-<\/p>\n
State Trading Corporation of India Limited in April 2001 as<\/p>\n
Executive Secretary to Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the<\/p>\n
Corporation. He is presently working as Chief General Manager of<\/p>\n
respondent No.2. A vacancy arose in the post of Director<\/p>\n
(Marketing) in the respondent No.2 and the appellant applied for<\/p>\n
the said post on 27th December, 2005. In March, 2006 interviews<\/p>\n
were conducted by Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB for<\/p>\n
short). PESB shortlisted two candidates and made panel in which<\/p>\n
the appellant was placed at serial No.1 and one Mr.Neeraj Mishra<\/p>\n
was placed at serial No.2 in order of preference.<\/p>\n
LPA No. 168\/2009                                           Page 1 of 7<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 4.      In or around 26th March, 2006 in accordance with the<\/p>\n
procedure laid down the CVC issued vigilance clearance in favour of<\/p>\n
the appellant. According to the appellant, for the post of Director<\/p>\n
(Marketing) in the respondent No.2, the Department of Commerce,<\/p>\n
being the administrative Ministry, selected the name of the<\/p>\n
appellant          and    forwarded    it   to   the   final     approval         of   the<\/p>\n
Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC for short). The appellant<\/p>\n
has further stated that his name was also endorsed by the Home<\/p>\n
Minister as the second Member of the ACC. However, according to<\/p>\n
the appellant the Cabinet Secretary Shri P.K.Chaturvedi, who was<\/p>\n
earlier MD of the respondent No.2 presented a complete distorted<\/p>\n
picture and raised a querry as to why the name of the appellant<\/p>\n
had been proposed by the Department of Commerce in view of<\/p>\n
some alleged cases of serious dimensions, which were at one point<\/p>\n
of time pending against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.      The appellant has further stated that in or around 1994-95<\/p>\n
the appellant was dragged into various departmental enquiries and<\/p>\n
two     criminal         cases   investigated    by    the     Central      Bureau      of<\/p>\n
Investigation (CBI for short) at the instance of Shri Chaturvedi, who<\/p>\n
happened to be the then MD of respondent No.2 The appellant has<\/p>\n
pointed out that in all the cases and the departmental enquiries the<\/p>\n
appellant was exonerated on merits.                     In fact, the appellant<\/p>\n
obtained two promotions, one to the rank of General Manager with<\/p>\n
retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 17th September, 1997 and<\/p>\n
thereafter to the post of Chief General Manager in which he is<\/p>\n
currently working.           The appellant has also pointed out that as a<\/p>\n
LPA No. 168\/2009                                                         Page 2 of 7<\/span>
\n sequel to the ongoing CBI investigations, departmental enquiries ,<\/p>\n
the name of the appellant was placed in the “agreed list” as well as<\/p>\n
in the list of “officers with doubtful integrity”, which entries were<\/p>\n
deleted consequent to the exoneration of the appellant on merits of<\/p>\n
each of the said cases after completion of due process of law. The<\/p>\n
grievance of the appellant is that the file was kept pending for<\/p>\n
some time and ultimately the name of the second candidate Shri<\/p>\n
Neeraj Mishra was placed for consideration of ACC and finally even<\/p>\n
that name was dropped and the panel was scrapped and direction<\/p>\n
was given to take fresh process for filling up the vacancy for the<\/p>\n
post of Director (Marketing).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.      The appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition<\/p>\n
which came to be dismissed vide order under appeal. The learned<\/p>\n
single Judge was of the view that it is within the domain of the ACC<\/p>\n
to adjust suitability of candidates and no mandamus can be issued<\/p>\n
in this respect to compel the ACC to exercise the discretion in a<\/p>\n
particular manner, or even to interfere in the exercise of such<\/p>\n
discretion unless and until the exercise of the discretion of ACC was<\/p>\n
mala fide or unreasonable or actuated by bias. In the opinion of the<\/p>\n
learned single Judge the decision of the ACC not the approve the<\/p>\n
appointment of the appellant did not suffer from any such infirmity<\/p>\n
so as to warrant interference.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.      Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
submitted that no valid reason or cause was shown for depriving<\/p>\n
the appellant his legitimate right of appointment as Director<\/p>\n
(Marketing) of respondent No. 2, when the appellant has been<\/p>\n
LPA No. 168\/2009                                        Page 3 of 7<\/span>
\n recommended by all the authorities and also by two members of<\/p>\n
the ACC.           He submitted that when the ACC makes appointments<\/p>\n
and intends to differ from the recommendations of the PESB, the<\/p>\n
former must record reasons for so differing, even if those reasons<\/p>\n
need not be communicated to the officer concerned. According to<\/p>\n
him the file relating to those reasons is subject to the scrutiny by<\/p>\n
the Court, when that decision is challenged.          In support his<\/p>\n
submission, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union<\/p>\n
of India & Ors. vs. N.P. Dhamania & Ors.,<\/a> 1995 Supp (1) SCC<\/p>\n
1.    In that case, the ACC chose to differ without assigning any<\/p>\n
reason. In fact, Union of India was unable to produce any material<\/p>\n
to show that any reasons had been assigned for differing from DPC.<\/p>\n
The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the appeal and<\/p>\n
directed to grant promotion to the appellant therein. Though the<\/p>\n
grant of ‘deemed promotion’ by the Tribunal was held to be in<\/p>\n
excess of jurisdiction, the Court held that notwithstanding the fact<\/p>\n
that it was open to ACC, which alone was the appointing authority,<\/p>\n
to differ from the recommendations of the DPC,          it must give<\/p>\n
reasons for so differing to ward off any attack of arbitrariness. The<\/p>\n
following observations of the Court are pertinent:-<\/p>\n
         “19. Notwithstanding the fact that it is open to AAC
\n         which alone is the appointing authority and not the
\n         Minister concerned, as urged by the respondent to differ
\n         from the recommendations of the DPC, it must give
\n         reasons for so differing to ward off any attack of
\n         arbitrariness. Those reasons will have to be recorded in
\n         the file. It requires to be stated at this stage that we
\n         have perused the file in the instant case. We find no
\n         reasons have been recorded for differing from the
\n         recommendations of the DPC. That is why the tribunal
\n         also inter alia observes in the impugned judgment as
\n         under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
LPA No. 168\/2009                                        Page 4 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n
          “However, the counsel for the respondent felt helpless in
\n         the matter and he failed to provide us any inkling of
\n         what prevailed with the ACC in dropping the petitioner
\n         and four others out of the select panel of 59 officers.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         20. If the file had contained reasons something could be
\n         said in favour of the appellant. But, that is not the case
\n         here. Then the question would be whether the reasons
\n         recorded are required to be communicated to the officer
\n         concerned. Our answer is in the negative. There is no
\n         need to communicate those reasons. When challenged it
\n         is always open to the authority concerned to produce the
\n         necessary records before the Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         XXX         XXX         XXX<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         22. ACC may reconsider these cases within 3 months
\n         in the light of the observations at page 7,10 and above
\n         and if found suitable, may give promotion with effect
\n         from the date, their immediate junior officer was
\n         promoted with consequential benefits of seniority and
\n         salary etc.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.      On behalf of the Union of India, it was contended that in a<\/p>\n
subsequent judgment in Union of India & Anr. vs. Samar Singh<\/p>\n
& Ors.,<\/a> (1996) 10 SCC 555, the Apex Court has taken a view that<\/p>\n
it is not necessary for the authority to give reasons for the non-<\/p>\n
selection of the officer. Learned counsel for the Union of India<\/p>\n
contended that Samar Singh’s case being later in point of time, is<\/p>\n
binding on this Court.     We are unable to agree with the submission<\/p>\n
of the learned counsel. Facts in Samar Singh’s case were clearly<\/p>\n
different and the case is distinguishable. In that case the name of<\/p>\n
the officer was not included in the panel prepared by the Special<\/p>\n
Committee. Consequently the name of the officer was not<\/p>\n
considered by the ACC. The challenge was mainly to the exclusion<\/p>\n
of the name of the respondent by the Special Committee.                The<\/p>\n
LPA No. 168\/2009                                         Page 5 of 7<\/span>
\n question of ACC differing from the Special Committee did not arise<\/p>\n
in that case. The Court held that merely because the minutes of<\/p>\n
the Committee do not contain the reason for non-selection of the<\/p>\n
respondent does not mean that there has been no proper<\/p>\n
consideration of the merits and suitability of the respondent and as<\/p>\n
a result the selection is vitiated.   However, the situation in the<\/p>\n
present case is different. The PESB has included the name of the<\/p>\n
appellant in the panel at serial No.1 in order of preference. The<\/p>\n
CVC has given its clearance to the appellant’s name vide letter<\/p>\n
dated 26th March, 2006. In the departmental enquiries as well as<\/p>\n
CBI investigations the appellant was exonerated on merits. In fact,<\/p>\n
the appellant thereafter obtained two promotions, one to the rank<\/p>\n
of General Manager and then to rank of Chief General Manager, in<\/p>\n
which post he is currently working. The name of the appellant has<\/p>\n
been removed from the “agreed list” as well the list of officers with<\/p>\n
“doubtful integrity’, consequent to the exoneration of the appellant<\/p>\n
on merits on each of the said cases after due enquiries. We have<\/p>\n
called for the CRs of the appellant and it is seen that he had been<\/p>\n
assessed as “very good” for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03, as<\/p>\n
“excellent” for the years 2003-04 and as “outstanding” for the<\/p>\n
years 2004-05 and 2005-06.\n<\/p>\n
9.      In the present case the ACC chose to differ without assigning<\/p>\n
any reason. Learned counsel for the Union of India was unable to<\/p>\n
produce any material to show that reasons had been assigned for<\/p>\n
differing from PESB. We have also gone through the original files<\/p>\n
and we do not find any inkling as to what prevailed with the ACC in<\/p>\n
not selecting the appellant whose name was duly included in the<\/p>\n
LPA No. 168\/2009                                        Page 6 of 7<\/span>
\n panel by PESB and who seems to have an impeccable record. No<\/p>\n
reasons whatsoever are indicated in the files.<\/p>\n
10.     In the circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the<\/p>\n
impugned order dated 9th January, 2009. We direct that the<\/p>\n
appointing authority shall consult PESB once again by making a<\/p>\n
reference to it indicating the reasons for making a departure from<\/p>\n
the panel recommended by the PESB and also forward the material<\/p>\n
on which it has reached the conclusion and obtained views of PESB<\/p>\n
before taking a final decision in the matter.        In case after<\/p>\n
consultation with the PESB, in the manner indicated above, the<\/p>\n
name of the appellant is restored to its original position, as<\/p>\n
recommended by PESB, the case of the appellant for promotion to<\/p>\n
the post of Director (Marketing) shall be considered on merits and<\/p>\n
necessary orders will be passed within a period of two months from<\/p>\n
today. It has already been directed by this Court that any<\/p>\n
appointment to the post of Director (Marketing) will be subject to<\/p>\n
the outcome of the present proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
11.     With the above directions, the appeal along with pending<\/p>\n
applications stand disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                       NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.\n<\/p>\n
MAY 18, 2009
\nSb\/”v”\n<\/p>\n
LPA No. 168\/2009                                      Page 7 of 7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2009 Author: Ajit Prakash Shah * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 168\/2009 & CM No. 5472\/2009 BHASKARENDU DATTA MAJUMDAR ….. Appellant Through: Mr. Sunil Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K.Garg, Advocate. versus UOI & ORS. […]<\/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-198151","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhaskarendu Datta Majumdar vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2009 - 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\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-16T12:18:00+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-16T12:18:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1884,\"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\\\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-16T12:18:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2009 - 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\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-16T12:18:00+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-16T12:18:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009"},"wordCount":1884,"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\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009","name":"Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-16T12:18:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskarendu-datta-majumdar-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198151","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=198151"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198151\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}