{"id":220444,"date":"2009-02-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009"},"modified":"2018-05-09T22:09:29","modified_gmt":"2018-05-09T16:39:29","slug":"union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India Through Senior … vs Sunil Kumar And Others on 6 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India Through Senior … vs Sunil Kumar And Others on 6 February, 2009<\/div>\n
CWP No. 17421 of 2007                          1\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                            CWP No. 17421 of 2007\n\n                                            Date of decision: 06.02.2009\n\n\nUnion of India through Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,\n\n\n\n                                                   .....PETITIONER\n\n                  VERSUS\n\n\nSunil Kumar and others\n\n\n                                                   ..... RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA\n       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH\n\n\nPresent:    Mr.S.K.Pipat, Sr. Advocate,\n            with Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate,\n            for the petitioner.\n\n            Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate,\n            for the respondents No. 1 and 2.\n\n            Mr. Atul Mahajan, Advocate,\n            for respondents No. 9 and 10.\n\n\n                  ***\n\n\nAUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order<\/p>\n
dated 27.07.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,<\/p>\n
Chandigarh Bench (Annexure P-3), wherein the Tribunal has allowed the
\n CWP No. 17421 of 2007                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
application filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 and setting aside the same qua<\/p>\n
the private respondents Rajesh Kumar and Vinay Kumar and a direction<\/p>\n
was issued to carry out a review on the basis of the observations made by<\/p>\n
the Tribunal and prepare a fresh panel and make appointments.<\/p>\n
            Mr. Pipat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that<\/p>\n
learned Tribunal has totally overlooked the provisions governing the<\/p>\n
situation, which were prevalent in the present case. He contends that as far<\/p>\n
as the impanelment in a particular category, which has to be considered for<\/p>\n
promotion as per the quota, is concerned, guidelines dated 19.12.2002<\/p>\n
(Annexure A-7) Clause 11.5 would hold the field. But when it comes to<\/p>\n
promotion to the post of Guards, the same would be governed by letter<\/p>\n
dated 06.03.1999, wherein Note-3 states that if in a particular category, the<\/p>\n
requisite number of candidates are not selected, the balance of the<\/p>\n
vacancies, reserved for that category should be filled from other categories<\/p>\n
from amongst those, who have secured higher marks in the order of merit<\/p>\n
without reference to the category, to which they belong. On this basis, he<\/p>\n
submits that the petitioner had promoted Rajesh Kumar and Vinay Kumar<\/p>\n
on the basis of they being higher in merit to Sunil Kumar, Raj Pal, Vijay<\/p>\n
Kumar and Jai Singh-respondents No. 1 to 4 in the present writ petition.<\/p>\n
What was claimed by these four respondents before the Tribunal was that<\/p>\n
they were entitled to be placed higher to Sh. Rajesh Kumar and Vinay<\/p>\n
Kumar in the panel on the ground that they were senior to both of them and,<\/p>\n
therefore, they should have been given precedence over them for promotion<\/p>\n
to the post of Guard. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal has<\/p>\n
proceeded to grant the benefit to respondents No. 1 to 4 on this ground
\n CWP No. 17421 of 2007                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
overlooking the specific conditions, as provided in Note-3 of the letter dated<\/p>\n
06.03.1999, which governs the field with regard to promotion of Guards.<\/p>\n
            Briefly the facts, which are required to understand the<\/p>\n
controversy in the present case, are that the post in question involves<\/p>\n
promotion to the post of Guard. A circular dated 13.10.2004 inviting<\/p>\n
applications for the posts of Goods Guard against 60% rankers’ quota<\/p>\n
amongst Railway Employees working as Train Clerks\/Senior Train<\/p>\n
Clerks\/Commercial Clerk\/Senior Commercial Clerk\/Ticket Collector\/Senior<\/p>\n
Ticket Collector, Assistant Guard, and Switchman\/Yard Staff working in<\/p>\n
the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590, Rs. 3290-4900, Rs. 4000-6000 with three<\/p>\n
years service was issued. As per the circular, 39 vacancies were to be filed<\/p>\n
up.   Written test was conducted and list of 386 candidates was finalized.<\/p>\n
Thereafter the selection was held and a panel was prepared vide Annexure<\/p>\n
A-1. It was alleged by the applicants before the Tribunal that juniors to the<\/p>\n
applicants have been impanelled without declaring result of any written test.<\/p>\n
The quota prescribed for promotion was 60% and there was further quota<\/p>\n
prescribed for each of the categories out of this 60%. Train Clerks had<\/p>\n
22%, Ticket Collectors had 5%, Commercial Clerks had 7%, Shunting<\/p>\n
Sweepers had 12%, Switchman, Cabinman, Leverman and Pointsman with<\/p>\n
specified grades therein had 7% and Assistant Guard and RPS or Senior<\/p>\n
Goods Guards with a specified grade had another 7%. As per the quota<\/p>\n
assigned, the posts were filed up the respective quota after following Clause<\/p>\n
11.5 as per guidelines dated 19.12.2002 (Annexure A-7). There were still<\/p>\n
certain posts, which were available to be filled up.<\/p>\n
             In the present case, the controversy has been narrowed down to
\n CWP No. 17421 of 2007                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
only two posts. Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Vinay Kumar as well as Mr.<\/p>\n
Sunil Kumar and Mr. Raj Pal, who all belong to one category i.e. Senior<\/p>\n
Train Clerks and Train Clerks, which is the first source for recruitment by<\/p>\n
promotion. It was the contention of the applicants before the Tribunal that<\/p>\n
promotions were to be made on the basis of guidelines, which would govern<\/p>\n
the impanelment, according to which the applicants, who were senior to the<\/p>\n
respondents, would be impanelled higher than the respondents irrespective<\/p>\n
of the merit obtained by them during the process of impanelment. Reliance<\/p>\n
was made on Guidelines dated 19.12.2002 (Annexure A-7) Clauses 11.5.1<\/p>\n
to 11.5.4 by the applicants before the Tribunal, which reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
                      \"11.5           Eligibility for Impanelment\n\n                      11.5.1          An employee must secure not less than\n\n<\/pre>\n
                      60% (30 out of 50) in the professional ability and not<\/p>\n
                      less than 60% in the aggregate to be eligible to be<\/p>\n
                      impanelled.<\/p>\n
\n                         (Note (iii) below para 219(g) of IREM)<\/p>\n
                      Note:           (i)      Even if a candidate secures 60% in<\/p>\n
                      overall aggregate but does not secure 60% in<\/p>\n
                      professional ability he cannot be included in the<\/p>\n
                      panel.\n<\/p>\n
                                      (ii)     A person who fails in the psycho\n\n                      test     is   not      eligible       to   be   included   in   the\n\n                      panel\/suitability list.\n\n                                      (Board's letter No. E(NG)1-98\/PM1\/17\n\n                      dated 30.10.2001)\n CWP No. 17421 of 2007                            5<\/span>\n\n\n\n                         11.5.2    The names of candidates selected for\n\n                         impanelment should be arranged in the order of\n\n                         seniority. Those securing 80% marks or more in\n\n<\/pre>\n
                         the aggregate should be classified as outstanding<\/p>\n
                         and allowed to supersede 50% of the number of<\/p>\n
                         his seniors in the field of eligibility.\n<\/p>\n
                                      ( Para 219 (i) of IREM)<\/p>\n
                  11.5.2.1         For example, if for forming a panel for 8<\/p>\n
                  vacancies 24 employees are called for viva. Then<\/p>\n
                  (i)              If the 13th man is categorizer as<\/p>\n
                  outstanding (i.e. he obtains 80% marks) his seniors<\/p>\n
                  are 12 in number and he can gain 6 places and will be<\/p>\n
                  placed at seventh in the panel.\n<\/p>\n
                  (ii)             If the 24th candidate is categorized as<\/p>\n
                  outstanding he will gain 11 places. Since there are<\/p>\n
                  only 8 vacancies he will not find a place on the panel.<\/p>\n
                  (For details, refer to Board’s letter No. E(NG)1-<\/p>\n
\n                  76\/PM1\/142 dated 27\/30.10.79)<\/p>\n
                  11.5.3           After arranging       the   names of   the<\/p>\n
                  candidates in the above manner, a panel equal to the<\/p>\n
                  number of vacancies should be drawn out by the<\/p>\n
                  Selection Board.\n<\/p>\n
                   11.5.4Moderation of results by way of awarding<\/p>\n
                         grace marks to candidates shall not be resorted to<\/p>\n
                         without the authority of the Selection Board or the
\n CWP No. 17421 of 2007                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
                         authority competent to accept therecommendations<\/p>\n
                         of the Selection Board. No grace marks shall be<\/p>\n
                         allowed in individual cases.”\n<\/p>\n
            Basing their contentions on this, the applicants had alleged that<\/p>\n
they should have been placed higher to the respondents and, therefore, had a<\/p>\n
prior right to promotion. The Tribunal had accepted the contentions raised<\/p>\n
by the applicants and held them entitled to be ranked higher in the<\/p>\n
impanelment than the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
            Counsel for the petitioner contends that reliance of the Tribunal<\/p>\n
on these instructions is totally misplaced as these are general guidelines<\/p>\n
issued for Personnel Officers and Members of Selection Board constituted<\/p>\n
for conducting selections for promotion to posts classified as “Selection”.<\/p>\n
As and when a normal process of selection is held, these guidelines would<\/p>\n
hold the field and when it comes to a specified promotion, which again is<\/p>\n
based on selection and if for that particular promotion or selection, special<\/p>\n
guidelines have been framed, the same would have force over and above the<\/p>\n
general guidelines. He, on this basis, contends that the present case would<\/p>\n
be governed by the instructions issued vide letter dated 06.03.1999<\/p>\n
(Annexure R-1) , which provides for channel of promotion of the Guards<\/p>\n
and thereafter, the Note therein prescribes the procedure to be followed for<\/p>\n
making selection for such promotion. He submits that Note-3 of the letter<\/p>\n
dated 06.03.1999 would hold the field when it comes to promotion to the<\/p>\n
post of Guard, the said Note reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “(3) If in a particular category the requisite number of<\/p>\n
                candidate is not selected the balance of the vacancies<\/p>\n
                reserved for that category should be filled from other
\n CWP No. 17421 of 2007                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
                  categories from amongst those who have secured highest<\/p>\n
                  marks in the orders of merit without reference to the<\/p>\n
                  category to which they belong.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               He, on this basis, contends that the petitioner has followed<\/p>\n
these instructions and has, therefore, placed Rajesh Kumar and Vinay<\/p>\n
Kumar (proforma respondents No. 9 and 10 in the present petition) higher in<\/p>\n
the panel than Sunil Kumar and Raj Pal (respondents No. 1 and 2 in the<\/p>\n
present writ petition).\n<\/p>\n
               Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, on the other hand,<\/p>\n
submits that there is a specified procedure prescribed, which needs to be<\/p>\n
followed and, therefore the guidelines dated 19.12.2002 would hold the<\/p>\n
field and guidelines No. 11.5.1 to 11.5.4 would be applicable to the present<\/p>\n
case. He, on this basis, contends that the order passed by the Tribunal is in<\/p>\n
accordance with law and, therefore, deserves to be sustained.<\/p>\n
               We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions<\/p>\n
made by the parties and have gone through the impugned order as well as<\/p>\n
the records.\n<\/p>\n
                There can be no dispute that the guidelines, as issued vide<\/p>\n
letter dated 19.12.2002 (Annexure A-7) , would hold the field, whenever a<\/p>\n
selection is to be held. It would be applicable to a situation where the<\/p>\n
promotion is to be made to a quota assigned to a particular category. In the<\/p>\n
present case, there is no dispute that these guidelines were followed when<\/p>\n
the prescribed quota of 22% assigned to Train Clerks and Senior Train<\/p>\n
Clerks was filled up.      After the quota assigned to this category stood<\/p>\n
exhausted and after taking into consideration the other eligible candidates
\n CWP No. 17421 of 2007                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
belonging to various categories as per their quota some posts were left<\/p>\n
unfilled. It is under these circumstances, that the posts, which now became<\/p>\n
available for promotion, were to be filled up. These posts, which are now to<\/p>\n
be filled up and which are left over, would be governed by the special Note<\/p>\n
appended to the promotion quota assigned for the post of Guards, as per<\/p>\n
letter dated 06.03.1999 (Annexure R-1) .        The said letter provides for<\/p>\n
channel of promotion to the post of Guard, it provides for the quota, it<\/p>\n
provides for the eligibility of promotees and the categories. It, thereafter,<\/p>\n
provides for the procedure to be followed. Note-3, in these circumstances,<\/p>\n
would hold the field. A perusal of the same would show that it clearly<\/p>\n
specifies that if in a particular category the requisite number of candidates<\/p>\n
are not selected, the balance of the vacancies, reserved for that category,<\/p>\n
should be filled from other categories from amongst those who have secured<\/p>\n
highest marks in the orders of merit without reference to the category, to<\/p>\n
which they belong. The merit, therefore, of a candidate is to be looked into<\/p>\n
for putting him higher in the panel. A candidate, who secured higher marks,<\/p>\n
would thus be the candidate who would be placed higher in the panel<\/p>\n
irrespective of the category he belongs to. It is not in dispute that Sh.<\/p>\n
Rajesh Kumar and Sh. Vinay Kumar (proforma respondents No. 9 and 10 in<\/p>\n
the present writ petition) were higher in merit to Sh. Sunil Kumar and Sh.<\/p>\n
Raj Pal (respondents No. 1 and 2 in the present writ petition). That being<\/p>\n
so, Sh. Rajesh Kumar and Sh. Vinay Kumar would rank higher in the panel<\/p>\n
than Sh. Sunil Kumar and Sh. Raj Pal. It is a settled preposition of law that<\/p>\n
general rules\/instructions will have to give way to special rules\/instructions.<\/p>\n
In this situation, the guidelines dated 19.12.2002 (Annexure A-1) would
\n CWP No. 17421 of 2007                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
give way to the instructions issued vide letter dated 06.03.1999 (Annexure<\/p>\n
R-1).    Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.07.2007 passed by the<\/p>\n
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (Annexure P-3) cannot<\/p>\n
be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
                The writ petition is allowed.          The impugned order dated<\/p>\n
27.07.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh<\/p>\n
Bench (Annexure P-3) is hereby quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )                       ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )\n        JUDGE                                       JUDGE\n\n\nFebruary 06, 2009\npj\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Whether referred to Reporters…………………………Yes\/No.\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Union Of India Through Senior … vs Sunil Kumar And Others on 6 February, 2009 CWP No. 17421 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17421 of 2007 Date of decision: 06.02.2009 Union of India through Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, …..PETITIONER VERSUS Sunil Kumar […]<\/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-220444","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India Through Senior ... vs Sunil Kumar And Others on 6 February, 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\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India Through Senior ... vs Sunil Kumar And Others on 6 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-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=\"2009-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-09T16:39:29+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\\\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India Through Senior … vs Sunil Kumar And Others on 6 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T16:39:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1869,\"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\\\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Union Of India Through Senior ... vs Sunil Kumar And Others on 6 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T16:39:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India Through Senior … vs Sunil Kumar And Others on 6 February, 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":"Union Of India Through Senior ... vs Sunil Kumar And Others on 6 February, 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\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India Through Senior ... vs Sunil Kumar And Others on 6 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-09T16:39:29+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\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India Through Senior … vs Sunil Kumar And Others on 6 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T16:39:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009"},"wordCount":1869,"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\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009","name":"Union Of India Through Senior ... vs Sunil Kumar And Others on 6 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T16:39:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-through-senior-vs-sunil-kumar-and-others-on-6-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India Through Senior … vs Sunil Kumar And Others on 6 February, 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\/220444","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=220444"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220444\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220444"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220444"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220444"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}