{"id":205369,"date":"2009-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009"},"modified":"2015-10-11T15:46:30","modified_gmt":"2015-10-11T10:16:30","slug":"dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Anuradha Bharti And Anr vs State Of J&amp;K And Ors on 2 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jammu High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dr. Anuradha Bharti And Anr vs State Of J&amp;K And Ors on 2 March, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \nLPAOW No. 50 OF 2008    \nDr. Anuradha Bharti and Anr\nPetitioners\nState of J&amp;K and ors\nRespondent  \n!Mr. K. S. Johal, Advocate with M\/s. Amit Gupta and Pavit Singh Katoch,Advocates\n^Mr. M. I. Qadri, Advocate General with Mrs. Shaista Hakim,Dy. A. G. with Mr. D.\nS. Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. D.C. Raina,Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikas Mangotra, \nAdvocate. \n\nHon'ble Mr. Justice Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice\nHon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge\nDate: 02\/03\/2009 \n:J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n<p>Per Barin Ghosh, CJ (Oral):\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellants along with some others approached the Writ Court<br \/>\nseeking to contend that the insertions made in SRO 158 of 1995 by SRO<br \/>\n430 of 2007 are inappropriate and not sustainable, the reason being that<br \/>\nsuch insertions stood in the way of the writ petitioners being eligible to<br \/>\noffer themselves for being admitted in the post-graduate medical<br \/>\ncourses.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>By the judgment and order under appeal, the writ petition has been<br \/>\nrejected on the ground that the insertions so made are aimed at fulfilling<br \/>\nthe Directive Principles of State policy contained in Section 24 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of the State. Being aggrieved thereby the present appeal has<br \/>\nbeen preferred by two of the writ petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>SRO 158 of 1995 sets down the eligibility of candidates who are<br \/>\nentitled to apply for being considered for admission in post-graduate<br \/>\ncourses in Medical Colleges. By SRO 430 of 2007, two clauses have<br \/>\nbeen added to SRO 158 of 1995, whereby and under an in-service<br \/>\naspirant seeking admission in post-graduate courses in Medical Colleges<br \/>\nis required to have at least two years of rural service experience. Only<br \/>\nwhen a candidate has so served, he would be entitled to apply for being<br \/>\nconsidered for admission on the strength of a certificate to be issued. It<br \/>\nhad been the contention of the State, which contention has been accepted<br \/>\nby the learned Single Judge and repeated before us, that the said clauses<br \/>\nhad been inserted for the purpose of enticing in-service Medical Officers<br \/>\nto serve the village community and, thereby, to improve the backward<br \/>\nregions of the State insofar as medical facilities are concerned.<br \/>\nThere cannot be any dispute that many and probably almost all the<br \/>\nrural areas are backward in comparison to urban areas of the State in<br \/>\nrelation to medical facilities available to the denizens of the respective<br \/>\nareas. Therefore, there can not be any dispute that if the Government<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">3<\/span><br \/>\ndecides as a policy to improve upon the medical infrastructure available<br \/>\nin rural areas and, for that matter, either entices or compels, as a<br \/>\ncondition of service, its existing members of medical service to serve in<br \/>\nrural areas, such a policy, as such, may not be interfereable.<br \/>\nIn the instant case, however, by the insertions, referred to above,<br \/>\nservice in the rural areas has been made as an eligibility criteria or<br \/>\ncondition for an in-service candidate to apply. Specifying eligibility, no<br \/>\ndoubt, is within the domain of the person competent to specify<br \/>\neligibility. Neither the writ petitioners, nor the appellants have contended<br \/>\nthat the State Government is incompetent to fix eligibility. They are<br \/>\ncontending that fixation of eligibility of having minimum of two years of<br \/>\nrural service is bad and illegal, inasmuch as the same is not achievable<br \/>\nthrough the effort of the candidate, but depends upon things which are<br \/>\nbeyond his control.\n<\/p>\n<p>Fixation of eligibility either of academics or of experience,<br \/>\nthough, is a matter strictly within the domain of the person competent to<br \/>\nfix eligibility, but the same must be achievable by the person seeking to<br \/>\ncross the eligibility hurdle either by his own efforts or by exercise of his<br \/>\noption. When an eligibility criterion of a particular percentage in a<br \/>\nparticular examination is fixed, the person, who has been able to achieve<br \/>\nthat criterion, alone is entitled to contend that he has eligibility.<br \/>\nObtaining of that particular percentage in that particular examination<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">4<\/span><br \/>\ndepends upon the effort of that candidate and is not circumscribed by<br \/>\nanything else. Similarly when a particular experience is the bench-mark<br \/>\nof eligibility, a person who has that experience can contend that he has<br \/>\neligibility. In order to achieve that experience the person concerned must<br \/>\nhave the option to pursue his career in that direction without being<br \/>\ncircumscribed by anything else.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the instant case, had there been a policy of the Government that<br \/>\nevery entrant in the medical service would be required to serve either<br \/>\ntwo years or more in the rural areas as a condition of his service, it could<br \/>\nbe said that the eligibility fixed by the insertions is achievable by the<br \/>\ncandidate seeking admission through his own volition by exercise of his<br \/>\noption to join the medical service. In the absence of such a policy,<br \/>\nrendering of two years rural service by a Health Department Medical<br \/>\nOfficer would depend on his being per chance posted in a rural area for<br \/>\ntwo years. The same would not depend on his volition. If eligibility is<br \/>\nfixed on the basis of per chance, achievement thereof would not depend<br \/>\nupon either effort or volition; the same will depend on fortune, and<br \/>\nfortune cannot be regarded as eligibility. There is admittedly no such<br \/>\npolicy.\n<\/p>\n<p>Even though a policy for making Health Department Medical<br \/>\nOfficers to serve at least two years in rural areas would be laudable and<br \/>\ntowards achievement of the goal set out in Section 24 of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">5<\/span><br \/>\nConstitution, but the inserted eligibility criteria will not achieve the<br \/>\npurpose unless the officer concerned seeks to pursue higher studies and,<br \/>\naccordingly, the purpose and object of putting such eligibility criteria by<br \/>\nthe insertions in question may partially serve the purpose by enticing<br \/>\nonly those doctors, if there be any, who are interested to pursue higher<br \/>\nstudies to get themselves posted for two years in rural areas, but even<br \/>\nthen that would be dependent on the wishes of some one else, i.e.,<br \/>\nauthority competent to post, upon which they have no control.<br \/>\nIn the circumstances, we do not think that the conditions imposed<br \/>\nby SRO 430 of 2007 achieved or could achieve the purpose and object of<br \/>\nSection 24 of the Constitution or that by the said SRO, an eligibility<br \/>\ncriteria could be inserted in SRO 158 of 1995 which is not achievable by<br \/>\nthe candidate seeking admission of his own volition or by exercise of his<br \/>\noption but is entirely dependent upon some body else&#8217;s action.<br \/>\nWe, accordingly, hold that SRO 430 of 2007 cannot stand the test<br \/>\nof law and, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and<br \/>\norder under appeal and quash SRO 430 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>At the same time, we have to think about further relief(s) to be<br \/>\ngranted to the appellants before us. We make it clear that as on the date<br \/>\nof the writ petition, the SRO in question was holding the fort and,<br \/>\naccordingly, was applicable to the appellants. It was on the permission<br \/>\nof the Court that the appellants appeared in the Entrance Examination.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>One of them did succeed in such examination and, at the same time, it is<br \/>\nalso correct that the judgment rendered by us today would relate back to<br \/>\nthe date of presentation of the writ petition insofar as the appellants are<br \/>\nconcerned, the but the fact remains that the success of the said appellant<br \/>\nat the said Entrance Examination did not fructify into an admission in<br \/>\nview of dismissal of the writ petition, and as a result the seat in which<br \/>\nthe said appellant could be accommodated has been filled up by some<br \/>\none else. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate on our part to<br \/>\npermit the appellants to respond to the present advertisement, which we<br \/>\nhave kept alive only for the appellants by interim orders passed on the<br \/>\nappeal and, accordingly, direct the respondents to allow the appellants<br \/>\nto fill up forms in terms of the advertisement published in January,<br \/>\n2009 by coming Friday, i.e., March 6, 2009, with a further direction<br \/>\nupon the respondents to allow the appellants to take full advantage of<br \/>\nsuch applications to be made by them.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of<br \/>\nthe Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court rendered in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/470507\/\">Kanpur University v.<br \/>\nSameera Gupta,<\/a> reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309 and many other<br \/>\njudgments, where the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court found as a fact that a<br \/>\ncandidate, who was entitled to be admitted, was not admitted and,<br \/>\naccordingly, issued directions for giving admission to such a candidate<br \/>\nwho ought to have had been admitted. It was submitted that having<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">7<\/span><br \/>\nregard to the success recorded by the Competent Authority, the said<br \/>\nappellant should be given the benefit of his success and he must be given<br \/>\na berth in the seats available for the forthcoming admissions. The only<br \/>\ndifference between the candidates in the cases before the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nSupreme Court and the case at hand is that the candidates before the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court of their own right had appeared at the test for<br \/>\nadmission. That right was sought to be defeated by not giving them the<br \/>\nmarks to which they were entitled. The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court had<br \/>\ncorrected only that and upheld their success at the test in which they had<br \/>\nappeared of their own right; whereas in the instant case, the appearance<br \/>\nof the appellants was not permissible in view of the subject eligibility<br \/>\ncriteria. It was only on the basis of the interim order of the Court that the<br \/>\nappellants appeared at the test. Their right to appear was not pronounced<br \/>\nby lifting the embargo. One of the appellants succeeded in the test, but<br \/>\nthe said success did not mature into an admission. In consequence, the<br \/>\nseat to which he could be accommodated has already been supplied. By<br \/>\nreason of the pronouncement made today, the appellants&#8217; right to be<br \/>\nconsidered without achieving the subject eligibility has been upheld and<br \/>\nthe embargo has been lifted and they have been put in the same platform<br \/>\nas that of others. This right can be exercised with others who would be<br \/>\nappearing in the forthcoming examination. In the circumstances, if one<br \/>\nof those seats is kept reserved for one of the appellants, the same would<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">8<\/span><br \/>\nbe inappropriate, as competition for that seat would be lost to people<br \/>\nentitled to compete for the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>It has come to our knowledge that appellant No. 2 has filed a writ<br \/>\npetition, registered as SWP no. 740\/2008, seeking to contend that,<br \/>\ninasmuch as he has tendered resignation, he is no longer an employee of<br \/>\nthe State and, accordingly, the bar imposed by SRO 430 of 2007 is not<br \/>\napplicable to him and, therefore, he must be granted the benefit of the<br \/>\nsuccess that he has obtained in the test conducted in the year 2007. We<br \/>\ndismiss the said writ petition and all proceedings thereunder only on the<br \/>\nground that the success that the appellant No. 2 obtained in the test was<br \/>\non the basis of an interim order passed by the Court, but in his capacity<br \/>\nas an in-service candidate. Without that order, the appellant could not<br \/>\nappear in the examination. At or before filling up of the form for<br \/>\nappearing in the examination, he did not disclose that he is a candidate<br \/>\nwho is not associated with the Government as one of its employees.<br \/>\nTherefore, he is not entitled to take advantage of the success that he<br \/>\nobtained at the said test in any capacity except in his capacity as an<br \/>\nemployee of the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>We make it clear that the tenor of this judgment would indicate<br \/>\nthat the effect of this judgment is prospective, except for the appellants<br \/>\nfor whom by interim orders the period of responding to the<br \/>\nadvertisement had been extended from time to time.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">9<\/span><\/p>\n<p>After we pronounced the judgment, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant cited a number of judgments, but none of them pertain to<br \/>\nlifting of eligibility criteria by the pronouncement of Court and<br \/>\naccommodating the successful candidate competing on interim order,<br \/>\nwithout reserving a place for him in the competition.<br \/>\n(Virender Singh) (Barin Ghosh)<br \/>\nJudge Chief Justice<br \/>\nJammu,<br \/>\n02.03.2009.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jammu High Court Dr. Anuradha Bharti And Anr vs State Of J&amp;K And Ors on 2 March, 2009 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. LPAOW No. 50 OF 2008 Dr. Anuradha Bharti and Anr Petitioners State of J&amp;K and ors Respondent !Mr. K. S. Johal, Advocate with M\/s. Amit Gupta and Pavit Singh [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-205369","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dr. Anuradha Bharti And Anr vs State Of J&amp;K And Ors on 2 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Anuradha Bharti And Anr vs State Of J&amp;K And Ors on 2 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-11T10:16:30+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\\\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Anuradha Bharti And Anr vs State Of J&amp;K And Ors on 2 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-11T10:16:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1937,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Dr. Anuradha Bharti And Anr vs State Of J&amp;K And Ors on 2 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-11T10:16:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Anuradha Bharti And Anr vs State Of J&amp;K And Ors on 2 March, 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":"Dr. Anuradha Bharti And Anr vs State Of J&amp;K And Ors on 2 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Anuradha Bharti And Anr vs State Of J&amp;K And Ors on 2 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-11T10:16:30+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\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Anuradha Bharti And Anr vs State Of J&amp;K And Ors on 2 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-11T10:16:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009"},"wordCount":1937,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009","name":"Dr. Anuradha Bharti And Anr vs State Of J&amp;K And Ors on 2 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-11T10:16:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bharti-and-anr-vs-state-of-jk-and-ors-on-2-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Anuradha Bharti And Anr vs State Of J&amp;K And Ors on 2 March, 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\/205369","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=205369"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205369\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}