{"id":210287,"date":"2009-03-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-03-11T11:59:51","modified_gmt":"2016-03-11T06:29:51","slug":"prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Prem Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Prem Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 March, 2009<\/div>\n
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.\n                       W.P. (S) No. 1667 of 2008\n                with W.P. (S) No. 1574 of 2008\n                with W.P. (S) No. 3354 of 2008\n                                      ...\n        Prem Ranjan                           ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No.1667 of 2008]\n        Amit Kumar Mishra                     ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S). 1574 of 2008]\n        Swapan Kumar                          ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 3354 of 2008]\n                                      -V e r s u s-\n        The State of Jharkhand & Others       ...      Respondents [In all the cases].\n                                              ...\nCORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.\n                                              ...\nFor the Petitioners     : - Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. [In W.P. (S) No. 1574 of 2008]\n                                                     and [In W.P. (S) No. 3354 of 2008]\nFor the Petitioner     : - M\/s. Suresh Kumar\n                & Ranjeet Kumar, Advocates. [In W.P. (S) No. 1667 of 2008]\n\nFor the Respondent-State            : - Mr. P. K. Prasad, Sr. Adv.-A.G.\n                            & Mr. Pratyush Kumar, J.C. to A.G.[In all the cases]\n                                            ...\n              C.A.V. On :- 27\/01\/2009                     Delivered On: - 20\/03\/2009\n                                            ...\n6\/ 20 .03 .2009             Petitioners in these writ applications, have commonly challenged\n              the Advertisement No. 01 of 2008 (Annexure-2), issued by the Respondent No. 5,\n              taking objection to the maximum age limit of 24 years fixed as one of the\n              eligibility criterias for recruitment of candidates to the post of the Sub-Inspectors\n              of the Police in the Jharkhand Police Service. The main questions raised for\n              determination are: -\n                              (i)     Whether the vacancies and the posts accumulated since\n                      1999 of Sub-Inspector and the equivalent posts accumulated in the year\n                      1999, have been included in the impugned advertisement which remained\n                      vacant for a long time?\n                              (ii)    Whether by fixing the upper age limit as 24 years for the\n                      General Category candidates as on 01.01.2008, candidates, who were\n                      eligible for appointment on the post in question in the year 1999, can be\n                      debarred from their appointment?\n                              (iii)   Whether the action of the Respondents in fixing the cut off\n                      date as 01.01.2008 instead of 01.01.1999, is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide\n                      and an act of discrimination?\n                              (iv)    Whether the action of the Respondents is violative of\n                      Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, deserving interference by\n                      this Court in the interests of justice?\n              2. The common contention of the petitioners in these writ applications is that the\n                  last examination for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector when the process of\n                  recruitment was taken up by the Respondents-State in the State's Police\n                  Service was held in the year 1994. After the bifurcation of the erstwhile State\n                  of Bihar when the State of Jharkhand came into existence with\n                                [2]                   [W.P. (S) No. 1667 of 2008\n                                      with W.P.(S) Nos. 1574 and 3354 of 2008]\n\n\neffect from 15.11.2000, the State of Jharkhand had not taken any initiative to fill\nup the vacancies whatsoever to the post of Sub-Inspectors and equivalent posts.\n               The State of Jharkhand adopted the Bihar Police Manual with\ncertain amendments vide Memo No. 3300 dated 12.11.2001 and in one of the\nmodified clauses, the upper age limit for the General Category candidates in the\nPolice Service has been fixed from 19 years to 35 years.\n               Pursuant to the requisition of the State Government, the Jharkhand\nPublic Service Commission had issued a Notification No. 11 of 2007 by which\ntheir Civil Services Examination was conducted by the J.P.S.C. for the\nappointment in the Jharkhand Police Service and in the corresponding\nadvertisement issued by the J.P.S.C., the upper age limit has been fixed as 35\nyears for the General Category Candidates.\n               In spite of the above, the impugned advertisement has now fixed\nthe upper age limit for the General Category candidates as 24 years as on\n01.01.2008<\/pre>\n
 besides the other requisite eligibility criteria of being a Graduate from
\nany recognised university or the equivalent.\n<\/p>\n
3.             The grievance of the petitioners is that they had completed their
\nGraduation way back in the year 2002 and had thereby become eligible for
\nappointment to the post of Sub-Inspector but the State of Jharkhand did not
\ninitiate any effort to fill up the vacant posts by recruitment since, 2002 and it is
\nonly now in 2008 that the Respondent-State has taken the initiative but in doing
\nso, they have tried to discriminate the candidates by fixing the upper age limit at
\n24 years in the General Category, thereby debarring the petitioner and other
\nsimilar candidates, from the employment opportunity on account of their having
\ncrossed the upper age limit.\n<\/p>\n
4.             Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
\nargues that the State of Jharkhand had adopted the Bihar Police Manual and
\ncertain amendments were carried out vide Memo No. 3300 dated 12.11.2001 in
\nRule 658 of the Manual. The modification carried out vide the amendment, had
\ndeclared that the upper age limit for the General Category candidates for
\nappointment be fixed at 35 years.\n<\/p>\n
                      Pursuant to the requisition of the State Government, the
\nJharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi had issued a Notification No. 11
\nof 2007 by which the third Civil Services Examination was conducted for
\nappointment of candidates in the Jharkhand Police Service. The Notification also
\nmaintained the upper age limit for the General Category candidates as 35 years.\n<\/p>\n
                      Learned counsel submits further that in spite of the above
\nupper age limit fixed at 35 years for General Category candidates in the Police
\nManual, the Respondent No. 5 has issued the impugned Advertisement for
\n                            [3]                        [W.P. (S) No. 1667 of 2008
\n                                       with W.P.(S) Nos. 1574 and 3354 of 2008]<\/p>\n
appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in the State Police Service fixing the
\nmaximum upper age limit as 24 years as on 01.01.2008 and by a supplementary
\nadvertisement increasing the age limit to 25 years as on 01.01.2009. Learned
\ncounsel argues that the process for selection of candidates to the post of Sub-
\nInspectors is now being sought to be taken for the first time after creation of the
\nState of Jharkhand and after more than 13 years from the date of last selection
\ntests. Learned counsel argues that by accumulating the vacancies for more than 5
\nyears since after the creation of the State of Jharkhand and proceeding to fill up
\nthe accumulated vacancies now by reducing the upper age limit for the General
\nCategory candidates is an act, totally arbitrary and discriminatory on the part of
\nthe Respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n
                        Learned counsel argues further that by fixing the eligibility
\ncriteria of minimum educational qualification of Graduate, the age at which a
\nmajority of candidates appear at the Matriculation Examination is around 16 years
\nand adding five more years counted to complete Graduation, a candidate normally
\nacquires the Graduate Degree in between the age of 21\/22 years. The petitioner
\nand such other candidates like him, had acquired the Graduate Degree in year
\n2002 and according to the eligibility criteria, had become eligible for appointment
\non the post of Sub-Inspector. The State Government by its inaction has failed to
\nfill up the vacancies eversince the year 2000 when the State of Jharkhand came
\ninto existence and has now for the first time after accumulating the vacancies, has
\ndecided to fill up the vacancies but by fixing the upper age limit at 25 years, the
\npetitioner and several other candidates like him, have been debarred from their
\nappearance at the Selection Test on the ground of exceeding the maximum age
\nlimit.\n<\/p>\n
               Referring in this context to the judgments of the Supreme Court in
\nA.I.R. 1994 SC 736 and to the judgment of the Patna High Court in 2000 (3)
\nP.L.J.R. 231, learned counsel argues that the aforesaid judgments declare that no
\namendment can be brought about by administrative action to change the service
\nconditions and ignoring the service conditions as laid down in the State Policy.\n<\/p>\n
               Referring to the modification in Rule 658 of the State Police
\nManual by way of amendment carried out on 12.11.2001, whereby the upper age
\nlimit for the General Category candidates for appointment in the post in the
\nJharkhand Police Service was declared as 35 years, learned counsel explains that
\nthe aforesaid modification declares the State Policy. This is also reflected in the
\nAdvertisement issued by the J.P.S.C., vide Advertisement No. 11 of 2007 for
\nrecruitment of candidates in the Jharkhand Police Service in which, the upper age
\nlimit has been fixed at 35 years for the General category candidates. Learned
\n                               [4]                     [W.P. (S) No. 1667 of 2008
\n                                       with W.P.(S) Nos. 1574 and 3354 of 2008]<\/p>\n
counsel argues that the policy as declared by the State Government could not have
\nbeen altered by the Respondent No. 3 by reducing the upper age limit to 25 years.\n<\/p>\n
                       Learned counsel argues further that Articles 14, 12 and 48
\nA of the Constitution of India must be applied both in relation to Executive
\nAction as also in relation to a legislation and therefore, it is within the scope of
\nthe powers of this Court to make a judicial review of the administrative action of
\nthe Respondent-State Government.\n<\/p>\n
5.             Counter affidavit has though been filed by the Respondents but it
\ndoes not specifically controvert the grounds advanced by the petitioners. On the
\ncontrary, the counter affidavit acknowledges the fact that the examinations for
\nappointment to the post of Sub-Inspectors in the State Police Service could not be
\nconducted since after 1994. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State
\nacknowledges that a modification in Rule 658 of the Police Manual was made
\nvide Memo No. 3300 dated 12.11.2001 by the State Government in the matter of
\nappointment to the post of Constables, under which the upper age limit to the post
\nof Constables in the General Category has been fixed at 35 years. The counter
\naffidavit does not assign or explain the reasons as to why despite the aforesaid
\nModification in Rule 658 of the Police Manual, the upper age limit for selection
\nof the candidates for appointment to the posts of Sub-Inspectors in the General
\nCategory, has now been limited to 25 years and what is the rationale behind the
\nreduction in the upper age limit.\n<\/p>\n
6.             Mr. P. K. Prasad, learned Advocate General has, however, tried to
\nexplain that the amendment in Rule 658 of the Police Manual fixing the upper age
\nlimit for the General Category candidates at 25 years, has been made by the State
\nGovernment under the orders of the State Government in exercise of the
\nGovernor’s power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and under the
\nprovisions of Section 46 of the Police Act, 1861.\n<\/p>\n
                       The impugned Advertisement (Annexure-2) is accordingly
\nissued by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No. 3),
\nwherein the upper age limit has been fixed as per the modification carried out in
\nRule 658 of the Police Manual.\n<\/p>\n
7.             It needs to be noted that the impugned Notification\/Advertisement
\n(Annexure-2), does not declare that the recruitment is to be made for any special
\ncategory of Officers in the Police Service or to fulfill any particular objective. The
\nNotification only declares the total vacancies in each of the categories of service,
\nincluding the post of Sub-Inspectors both in the General Category as well as in the
\nreserved categories.\n<\/p>\n
8.             It is not disputed that in the Advertisement issued by the State
\nGovernment through the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for appointment
\n                                 [5]                     [W.P. (S) No. 1667 of 2008
\n                                        with W.P.(S) Nos. 1574 and 3354 of 2008]<\/p>\n
to the vacant posts of Civil Services including the State Police Service, an
\nadvertisement for conducting the Third Civil Services Examination for
\nrecruitment to the post of administrative services as well as the Police Services
\nwas issued as recently as in the month of November, 2007. The upper age limit
\nfor the General Category candidates in respect of the services advertised, was
\nfixed at 35 years.\n<\/p>\n
9.              Learned Advocate General would want               to interpret the
\nModification\/amendment made in Rule 658 of the Police Manual as a legislative
\nAct within the competence of the Governor under the provisions of Article 309 of
\nthe Constitution of India and would submit that the Modification by which the
\nupper age limit has been fixed at 25 years, cannot be subject of judicial review.\n<\/p>\n
10.             By a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court has laid down the
\nprinciples of judicial review applicable in case of administrative as well as in
\nlegislative action. In cases where constitutionality and\/or interpretation of any
\nlegislation, which is made by the legislative body or by executive authority by
\nway of their authority is in question, the writ Court can certainly exercise the
\npower of judicial review. In the case of Union of India-versus-Pushpa Rani and
\nother, A.I.R. SCW (39) 6564, the Supreme Court has observed that even though
\nthe matter relating to prescribing the mode of recruitment and qualifications,
\ncriteria of selection etc. fall within the exclusive domain of the employer, yet the
\npower of judicial review can be exercised in such matters, if it is shown that the
\naction of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions or
\nis absolutely arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides.\n<\/p>\n
                         The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of
\nthe State Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the
\ncitizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution or opposed to any
\nstatutory provision or manifestly arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n
11.             The petitioner in the instant case has questioned the legality of the
\nimpugned Notification, wherein the upper age limit of the General Category
\ncandidates has been fixed at 25 years and thereby, has also challenged the legality
\nof the modification made in the relevant Rule of the Police Manual by the
\nauthority of the Governor in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the
\nConstitution of India. Challenge is made on the ground that reducing of the upper
\nage limit from 35 years to 25 years is arbitrary, and against the State Policy,
\ntherefore is in violation of the provisions of Article 14, 12 and 48 A of the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
12.             The issue relating to fixation of upper age limit, in the matter of
\nrecruitment to the Government posts came up for consideration before the Patna
\nHigh Court in the case of Dr. Rabindra Kumar Singh and others-versus-State of
\n                                [6]                    [W.P. (S) No. 1667 of 2008
\n                                       with W.P.(S) Nos. 1574 and 3354 of 2008]<\/p>\n
Bihar & Others, 2000 (3) P.L.J.R. 231 and more recently before the Jharkhand
\nHigh Court in the Case of Sanjeev Kumar Sahay & 3 others-versus-State of
\nJharkhand & Others, 2008 (3) J.C.R. 267. In both the cases, though the
\nAdvertisements were for appointment to the posts of Health Officers and to the
\npost of Civil Judge, Junior Division, the facts of the case were identical as in the
\npresent case in as much as no prompt steps were taken by the Respondents-
\nauthorities for filling up the vacant posts and such vacancies were allowed to
\naccumulate and finally after several years such vacancies were sought to be filled
\nup and the upper age limit was fixed with reference to a stipulated cut off date.
\nTaking note of the abnormal delay in filling up the vacancies, which has
\naccumulated through out the several years, the Court in the case of Dr. Rabindra
\nKumar Singh & others (Supra) has observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                       “Although there is no compulsion on the part of the
\n               Government to make appointment even though vacancies are
\n               available, but if vacancies are allowed to accumulate and bulk
\n               appointments are made at a time, there may be possibility of
\n               candidates possessing inferior merit coming in–where
\n               examinations are held periodically, the chances are that the best of
\n               the available lot would be appointed–candidates, otherwise
\n               eligible becoming overage is the inevitable fall-out of not making
\n               recruitment periodically.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.            The same situation arises in the present case. As admitted in the
\ncounter affidavit of the Respondent-State, no effort for recruitment in the State
\nPolice services was made ever since after 1994. Even after the creation of the
\nState of Jharkhand in the year 2000, the vacancies accumulated for several years
\nand it is only now that by the impugned Notification\/Advertisement, the State
\nGovernment has decided to fill up the vacancies. By fixing the upper Age limit at
\n25 years for the General Category Candidates, those who were otherwise eligible
\nduring the preceding years, have become over age and therefore not qualified in
\nterms of the eligibility criteria fixed in the impugned Advertisement.\n<\/p>\n
14.            As observed above, in the earlier modification in Rule 658 of the
\nPolice Manual by way of amendment in the Police Act carried out on 12.11.2001,
\nthe State Government had declared the upper age limit for recruitment in the State
\nPolice Service at 35 years in the General Category. If this was a declaration of the
\nState Policy, then, in absence of any reason assigned or explanation offered, it is
\nnot understood as to why the upper age limit has been reduced to 25 years and
\nwhat purpose which such reduction in the upper age limit would serve?\n<\/p>\n
15.            Under such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the
\nreduction of the upper age limit as indicated in the impugned Advertisement, is
\narbitrary and in violation of the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
\nof India, is not without substance. The decision to fix the upper age limit at   25
\n                                           [7]                   [W.P. (S) No. 1667 of 2008
\n                                                 with W.P.(S) Nos. 1574 and 3354 of 2008]<\/p>\n
          years has apparently not taken into consideration the fact that the recruitment
\n          process is sought to be initiated for filling up such vacancies, which had
\n          accumulated during the past several years, after a considerable delay and that
\n          during this period of delay, several candidates who could have been otherwise
\n          eligible, would be disqualified on account of becoming over age.\n<\/p>\n
          16.            Even though, the recruitment relates to posts in the Police Service
\n          for which standards of eligibility criteria, different from the standards in respect
\n          of recruitment to other Government services may have to be reasonably fixed, yet
\n          the criteria laid down for recruitment to the posts in the Police Services, must
\n          satisfy the test of reasonableness and cannot under any circumstance reflect
\n          arbitrariness and discrimination. A reasonable balance has to be maintained in the
\n          light of the fact that the candidates, who could have been otherwise eligible,
\n          cannot be deprived of the employment opportunities on account of the delay made
\n          by the State Government in filling up the vacant posts in the Police Service.\n<\/p>\n
          17.            Considering the above facts and circumstances, since the matter
\n          relating to prescribing the mode of recruitment, criteria of selection etc. is within
\n          the domain of the State Government, the matter is referred back to the State
\n          Government to consider a review of its policy in the matter of fixing the upper
\n          age limit taking into consideration the fact that by the earlier policy decision of
\n          the State Government as declared in the amendment carried out in Rule 658 of the
\n          Police Manual notified vide Memo No. 3300 dated 12.11.2001, the upper age
\n          limit was fixed at 35 years and also taking into account the fact that the vacancies,
\n          which have been allowed to accumulate for several years are now being sought to
\n          be filled up after a considerable delay of more than eight years of the creation of
\n          State of Jharkhand, thereby affecting the rights of several candidates, who could
\n          have been otherwise eligible for appointment after having acquired the prescribed
\n          educational qualifications during the preceding years in terms of the earlier State
\n          Policy. Till such time a review is made, the process of recruitment in terms of the
\n          impugned advertisement shall be kept in abeyance by the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
          18.            With these observations, these writ applications [W.P. (S) No.
\n          1667 of 2008 with W.P. (S) Nos. 1574 and 3354 of 2008] are disposed of at the
\n          stage of admission itself.\n<\/p>\n
          19.            Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
\n          Respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       (D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
\nAPK\/AFR\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Prem Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (S) No. 1667 of 2008 with W.P. (S) No. 1574 of 2008 with W.P. (S) No. 3354 of 2008 … Prem Ranjan … Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No.1667 of 2008] Amit […]<\/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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-210287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrem Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 March, 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\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prem Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-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=\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-11T06:29:51+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prem Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-11T06:29:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2629,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Prem Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-11T06:29:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prem Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 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":"Prem Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 March, 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\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prem Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-11T06:29:51+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prem Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-11T06:29:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009"},"wordCount":2629,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009","name":"Prem Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-11T06:29:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-ranjan-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prem Ranjan vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 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\/210287","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=210287"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210287\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}