{"id":215806,"date":"2008-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-09-27T02:41:00","modified_gmt":"2017-09-26T21:11:00","slug":"rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rajinder Kumar Karmakar vs Union Of India And Others on 23 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Rajinder Kumar Karmakar vs Union Of India And Others on 23 July, 2008<\/div>\n
CWP No. 2062-CAT of 2002                                  (1)\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                        CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                     CWP No. 2062-CAT of 2002\n                                     Date of Decision: 23-07-2008\n\n\n  Rajinder Kumar Karmakar                       ....Petitioner\n\n                Versus\n\n  Union of India and others                     .....Respondents\n\n\n  Coram:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA\n                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI\n\n\n  Present:      Shri H.S. Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner.\n\n                Shri Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the\n                respondents.\n\n\n  1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the\n     judgment?\n  2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n  3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\n\n  HEMANT GUPTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                      The challenge in the present writ petition is to<\/p>\n
  the   order   passed    by   the    Central   Administrative     Tribunal,<\/p>\n
  Chandigarh Bench, Chandgiarh (for short `the Tribunal’), on<\/p>\n
  11.1.2002 (Annexure P.24), whereby an original application filed by<\/p>\n
  Rajinder Kumar Karamakar was dismissed. Challenge is also to the<\/p>\n
  order dated 24.5.2002 (Annexure P.26), whereby the review<\/p>\n
  application seeking review of the earlier order was dismissed.<\/p>\n
                It is the case of the applicant that he was appointed as<\/p>\n
  peon in the Mechanical Branch in the Office of Divisional<\/p>\n
  Mechanical Engineer, Ambala on 11.12.1982. The petitioner was<\/p>\n
  appointed against the handicapped quota and is also a scheduled<\/p>\n
  caste. A circular was issued to seek option from the persons, who<\/p>\n
  were working on Class-IV post to work as photocopier machine
\n CWP No. 2062-CAT of 2002                                  (2)<\/p>\n
  operator. In pursuance of the said circular (Annexure P.1), the<\/p>\n
  petitioner gave his option to work as photocopier machine operator.<\/p>\n
  All seniors to the petitioners gave in writing that they do not want<\/p>\n
  to work as photocopier machine operator and have no objection if<\/p>\n
  the petitioner is appointed on such post. A written test was held.<\/p>\n
  The petitioner appeared in the written test and was also subjected<\/p>\n
  to viva-voce test vide letter dated 22.8.1989. The petitioner was<\/p>\n
  appointed as photocopier machine operator. Such appointment was<\/p>\n
  on adhoc basis. The petitioner also relies upon the communication<\/p>\n
  dated   3.3.1992,    whereby    his   services   were    regularised   as<\/p>\n
  photocopier machine operator against an existing vacancy. Later<\/p>\n
  the seniority of the petitioner was fixed at Serial No. 26-A, vide<\/p>\n
  communication       dated   26.8.1993.   Vide    communication    dated<\/p>\n
  22.9.1993, the petitioner was promoted as senior clerk after it was<\/p>\n
  found that 22 employees junior to the petitioner have been<\/p>\n
  promoted.\n<\/p>\n
                      However, subsequently a show cause notice was<\/p>\n
  given to the petitioner on 24.12.1996 on the ground that the<\/p>\n
  petitioner has neither passed the written suitability test for the post<\/p>\n
  of senior clerk nor has passed ranker quota selection test from<\/p>\n
  Class-IV to Class-III category i.e. for the post of clerk.         After<\/p>\n
  considering the reply, an order was passed on 27.3.1997 (Annexure<\/p>\n
  P.19) reverting the petitioner to the post of peon. It was found that<\/p>\n
  the petitioner has not produced any documentary proof of the fact<\/p>\n
  that he has passed any selection test before his promotion from<\/p>\n
  Class-IV to Class-III. The said reversion was challenged by the<\/p>\n
  petitioner before the Tribunal, which remained unsuccessful. Even<\/p>\n
  the review was dismissed. The Tribunal found that the petitioner<\/p>\n
  has not produced any document in respect of creation of post of<\/p>\n
  photocopier machine operator and that the petitioner has not
\n CWP No. 2062-CAT of 2002                                   (3)<\/p>\n
  produced any document in respect of having qualified the selection<\/p>\n
  test. The review application on the basis of additional documents,<\/p>\n
  remained unsuccessful.\n<\/p>\n
              Before this Court, the petitioner has relied upon<\/p>\n
  communication dated 18.12.1991 (Annexure P.23) issued by the<\/p>\n
  Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt,<\/p>\n
  converting one permanent post of office clerk in the pay scale of<\/p>\n
  Rs.950-1500\/- of mechanical department into one permanent post<\/p>\n
  of photocopier machine operator in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500\/-<\/p>\n
  for   mechanical    department.     On    the    basis         of   the    said<\/p>\n
  communication, it is contended that the petitioner was regularised<\/p>\n
  on    3.3.1992     as   photocopier      machine     operator,            which<\/p>\n
  communication was produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
  finding recorded by the Tribunal that no post of photocopier<\/p>\n
  machine operator was in existence, is incorrect.<\/p>\n
              Still further, it was pointed out on the strength of the<\/p>\n
  communication Annexure P.27 dated 17.9.1992 written by the the<\/p>\n
  Director, Establishment (W) Railway Board, addressed to the<\/p>\n
  General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi to the effect that<\/p>\n
  the Board has decided that if an employee, who has qualified for<\/p>\n
  the post of office clerk-cum-photo-machine operator is again ready<\/p>\n
  to sit in the selection for the post of clerk, need not be allowed to sit<\/p>\n
  in the selection for the post of office work. It was thus,<\/p>\n
  communicated that the petitioner may not be required to appear in<\/p>\n
  the selection for the post of office clerk as he was declared<\/p>\n
  successful in the selection for the post of photo machine operator-<\/p>\n
  cum-office clerk on 22.8.1989 and 6.9.1989.\n<\/p>\n
              Learned counsel for the petitioner           also relies upon<\/p>\n
  Annexure R.2 dated 23.2.1999, wherein it has been communicated<\/p>\n
  to the General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi that the
\n CWP No. 2062-CAT of 2002                              (4)<\/p>\n
  petitioner has already passed the suitability test for the post of<\/p>\n
  clerk-cum-photocopier operator, but no post of photocopier has<\/p>\n
  been got sanctioned. It was also communicated that there is no<\/p>\n
  need to allow the petitioner to sit in the selection for the post of<\/p>\n
  office clerk as he has already qualified the due suitability for the<\/p>\n
  post of photocopier machine operator. It is contended that though<\/p>\n
  the authenticity of letter dated 10.2.1999 (Annexure R.1) is<\/p>\n
  disputed by the respondents, but the validity of Annexure R.2 is<\/p>\n
  not in dispute. Though Annexures R.1 and R.2 have been declared<\/p>\n
  to be null and void vide Annexure R.3, but the fact remains that<\/p>\n
  passing of the test before his appointment as a photocopier<\/p>\n
  machine operator is not controverted even in communication<\/p>\n
  Annexure R.3. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner has qualified<\/p>\n
  the test and was not permitted to sit in the qualifying test<\/p>\n
  subsequent to his appointment as photocopy machine operator for<\/p>\n
  the post of clerk.\n<\/p>\n
              In the written statement before this Court, it has been<\/p>\n
  averred that the letters dated 10.2.1999 and 23.2.1999, produced<\/p>\n
  by the petitioner before the Tribunal along with the miscellaneous<\/p>\n
  application are forged and fabricated documents and so is<\/p>\n
  Annexure P.5 i.e. the order of declaration of result. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
  petitioner, who has taken recourse to forged and fabricated<\/p>\n
  documents is not entitled to any relief from this Court.<\/p>\n
              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We<\/p>\n
  are of the opinion that the stand of the respondents that the<\/p>\n
  petitioner has relied upon forged and fabricated documents is not<\/p>\n
  really material for determining the controversy between the parties.<\/p>\n
  Though the petitioner has produced number of documents in the<\/p>\n
  replication explaining that such documents are not forged and<\/p>\n
  fabricated documents on various grounds including the reason that
\n CWP No. 2062-CAT of 2002                              (5)<\/p>\n
  Mahabir Singh, the signatory of such documents has admitted his<\/p>\n
  signatures on such documents during the course of inquiry. It has<\/p>\n
  also been pointed out that the documents were endorsed to him<\/p>\n
  and later the attested copies were supplied. However, since the<\/p>\n
  issues raised in the present petition, are not really dependent upon<\/p>\n
  the validity of these letters, therefore, without going into the<\/p>\n
  authenticity of these documents, we are examining the contentions<\/p>\n
  of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
               The respondents have not controverted the document<\/p>\n
  Annexure P.23 in respect of creation of the post. The respondents<\/p>\n
  have also not controverted the communication dated 3.3.1992<\/p>\n
  (Annexure P.9), whereby the service of the petitioner were<\/p>\n
  regularised as a machine operator in the pay scale of Rs.950-<\/p>\n
  1500\/-. Documents Annexures P.23 and P.9 read together show<\/p>\n
  that the services of the petitioner were regularised against a post of<\/p>\n
  photocopier machine operator, which was duly created. Therefore,<\/p>\n
  the first reasoning given by the Tribunal is not tenable. The second<\/p>\n
  reasoning given by the Tribunal that the petitioner has not qualified<\/p>\n
  the test for appointment to the post of clerk is again not tenable.<\/p>\n
  Annexure P.27 is not in dispute i.e. the communication from the<\/p>\n
  Director, Establishment Railway Board. The petitioner was not<\/p>\n
  permitted to appear in the test as he has already qualified the test<\/p>\n
  for the post of photocopier machine operator. Annexure R.2, an<\/p>\n
  admitted document shows that the petitioner has passed the<\/p>\n
  suitability test. Though communication Annexure R.2 has been<\/p>\n
  declared as null and void, but this aspect has not been<\/p>\n
  controverted or explained. Thus, even the second reasoning given<\/p>\n
  by the Tribunal is not tenable in law.\n<\/p>\n
               In view thereof, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal<\/p>\n
  has erred in law in holding that neither there was any post nor the
\n CWP No. 2062-CAT of 2002                            (6)<\/p>\n
  petitioner has qualified the test for promotion to the post of<\/p>\n
  photocopier machine operator.\n<\/p>\n
             Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The<\/p>\n
  impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Accordingly,<\/p>\n
  the Original Application filed by the petitioner is allowed and the<\/p>\n
  reversion order dated 27.3.1997 is quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     (HEMANT GUPTA)
\n                                         JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                      (AJAY TEWARI)
\n                                           JUDGE<\/p>\n
  July 23, 2008
\n    ds\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Rajinder Kumar Karmakar vs Union Of India And Others on 23 July, 2008 CWP No. 2062-CAT of 2002 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2062-CAT of 2002 Date of Decision: 23-07-2008 Rajinder Kumar Karmakar ….Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …..Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-215806","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajinder Kumar Karmakar vs Union Of India And Others on 23 July, 2008 - 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\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajinder Kumar Karmakar vs Union Of India And Others on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-26T21:11:00+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajinder Kumar Karmakar vs Union Of India And Others on 23 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-26T21:11:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1386,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Rajinder Kumar Karmakar vs Union Of India And Others on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-26T21:11:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajinder Kumar Karmakar vs Union Of India And Others on 23 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajinder Kumar Karmakar vs Union Of India And Others on 23 July, 2008 - 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\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajinder Kumar Karmakar vs Union Of India And Others on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-26T21:11:00+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajinder Kumar Karmakar vs Union Of India And Others on 23 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-26T21:11:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008"},"wordCount":1386,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008","name":"Rajinder Kumar Karmakar vs Union Of India And Others on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-26T21:11:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-kumar-karmakar-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajinder Kumar Karmakar vs Union Of India And Others on 23 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/215806","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=215806"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215806\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215806"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215806"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215806"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}