{"id":231529,"date":"2009-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-01T01:26:05","modified_gmt":"2017-09-30T19:56:05","slug":"mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mohan Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Mohan Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 September, 2009<\/div>\n
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND\n        HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.\n\n                         LPA No.96 of 2009(O&M)\n                          Date of decision: 1.9.2009\n\nMohan Lal and others\n                                     -----Appellants\n                        Vs.\nState of Haryana and others\n                                   -----Respondents\n\n                        LPA No.103 of 2009(O&M)\nPardeep Kumar and others\n                                    -----Appellants\n                        Vs.\nState of Haryana and others\n                                  -----Respondents\n\n                        LPA No.118 of 2009(O&M)\nRavish Kumar and others\n                                    -----Appellants\n                        Vs.\nState of Haryana and others\n                                  -----Respondents\n\n                        LPA No.119 of 2009(O&M)\nSatender and another\n                                     -----Appellants\n                        Vs.\nState of Haryana and others\n                                   -----Respondents\n\n                        LPA No.137 of 2009(O&M)\nBijender Singh and another\n                                    -----Appellants\n                        Vs.\nState of Haryana and others\n                                  -----Respondents\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                          2\n\n\n                        LPA No.258 of 2009(O&M)\nJaswant Singh and others\n                                    -----Appellants\n                        Vs.\nState of Haryana and others\n                                  -----Respondents\n\n                                          LPA No.259 of 2009(O&M)\nSarabjit Kaur and others\n                                                     -----Appellants\n                        Vs.\nState of Haryana and others\n                                                   -----Respondents\n\n                        LPA No.331 of 2009(O&M)\nSandeep Hooda and others\n                                    -----Appellants\n                        Vs.\nState of Haryana and others\n                                  -----Respondents\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL\n        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY\n\n\nPresent:- Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the appellants\n          in LPA Nos.96, 103, 118, 119, 137 of 2009.\n\n             Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr.Advocate\n             with Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Advocate for the\n             appellants in LPA Nos.258 and 259 of 2009.\n\n             Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for the appellants\n             in LPA No.331 of 2009.\n\n             Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate\n             General, Haryana for the State.\n                 -----\n\nAdarsh Kumar Goel,J.\n<\/pre>\n
 LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                3<\/span><\/p>\n
1.           This order will dispose of Letters Patent<\/p>\n
Appeal Nos.96, 103, 118, 119, 137, 258, 259 and 331 of<\/p>\n
2009, which have been preferred against judgment of<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge dismissing a group of writ<\/p>\n
petitions against orders of termination from service on<\/p>\n
the ground of abolition of posts and on the ground that<\/p>\n
appointments were illegal. LPA No.96 of 2009 has been<\/p>\n
preferred by 12 persons and total number of appellants<\/p>\n
in all the eight appeals is 43.\n<\/p>\n
2.           Advertisement dated 7.8.2004 was issued by<\/p>\n
the Haryana Staff Selection Commission inviting<\/p>\n
applications for 80 posts of Sub inspectors of Police in<\/p>\n
Haryana Police from the eligible candidates. The<\/p>\n
procedure for selection was written test followed by<\/p>\n
interview. After the appellants qualified the written test,<\/p>\n
they were called for interview and finally, letter of<\/p>\n
appointment dated 12.12.2004 or thereabout were given<\/p>\n
to them. In pursuance thereof, the appellants joined<\/p>\n
service and underwent training but after about six<\/p>\n
months, vide letters dated 5.7.2005 and around the said
\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
date, appointments were rescinded on the ground that<\/p>\n
Haryana State Industrial Security Force Act, 2003 was<\/p>\n
repealed and Haryana State Industrial Security Force<\/p>\n
(HSISF) Battalions was disbanded w.e.f 29.6.2005.\n<\/p>\n
3.           Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitions were<\/p>\n
filed in this Court and were disposed of on different<\/p>\n
dates including by order dated 8.8.2005 on the short<\/p>\n
ground that no Show Cause Notice had been given<\/p>\n
before passing of the impugned order. Liberty was given<\/p>\n
to pass a fresh order. Accordingly, vide order dated<\/p>\n
3.10.2005 or other similar orders, the services of the<\/p>\n
appellants were again dispensed with by repeating the<\/p>\n
same ground. It was mentioned that posts of Sub<\/p>\n
Inspectors were sanctioned in the HSISF in pursuance of<\/p>\n
sanction granted by Central Government vide letter<\/p>\n
dated 7.10.2003. The concept of appointments in HSISF<\/p>\n
was that it did not cast any financial burden on the State<\/p>\n
exchequer as expenditure                  incurred by the State was<\/p>\n
reimbursed in the form of user charges recovered from<\/p>\n
the Industrial houses for whom the security was
\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
deployed. Though, requisition was for Sub Inspectors in<\/p>\n
HSISF, the Staff Selection Commission made a mistake<\/p>\n
in mentioning that appointments were to the posts of<\/p>\n
Sub Inspectors in Haryana Police as per advertisement<\/p>\n
dated 7.8.2004 and for the same reason, there was a<\/p>\n
mistake in the letters of appointment and in the giving of<\/p>\n
training to the appointees. This mistake was noticed and<\/p>\n
the order was passed, after disbanding the HSISF.\n<\/p>\n
4.           In the second round of litigation challenging<\/p>\n
order dated 3.10.2005 and other similar orders,<\/p>\n
contention         raised       by        the   aggrieved   terminated<\/p>\n
employees was that their appointments were for<\/p>\n
Haryana Police Force under the provisions of the Punjab<\/p>\n
Police Rules, 1934 and the development of disbanding<\/p>\n
of HSISF could not be a ground to dispense with their<\/p>\n
services. Real reason was that they were appointed by<\/p>\n
the previous government.\n<\/p>\n
5.           The contention was opposed by filing reply<\/p>\n
submitting that the posts which were advertised and to<\/p>\n
which appointments were made, were infact meant for
\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
HSISF cadre, though by mistake in the advertisement as<\/p>\n
well as in the appointment letters, it was mentioned that<\/p>\n
the appointments were for Haryana Police Force. In<\/p>\n
doing so, there was a fraud to appoint pre-selected<\/p>\n
candidates. The State Government had appointed a<\/p>\n
Commission of Enquiry headed by a former Judge on<\/p>\n
following terms of reference:-\n<\/p>\n
              “1. Whether the Legislature was misled on the
\n              issue of demand and necessity for the creation
\n              of Haryana State Industrial Security Force.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              2. Whether circumstances prevailed upon the
\n              Government to hurriedly go through the
\n              recruitment         of      Haryana    State   Industrial
\n              Security Force even without notifying the
\n              commencement                of   the   Haryana     State
\n              Industrial Security Force Act, 2003.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              3. Whether any financial loss has been caused
\n              to the State Exchequer due to acts of omission
\n              and commission. If so, the persons responsible
\n              for the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
              4.Whether any extraneous factors have played
\n              role in the selection\/recruitment of the
\n              candidates         of       Haryana   State   Industrial
\n              Security Force, if so, persons responsible for
\n              the same.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Commission submitted its report dated 29.1.2007.<\/p>\n
The Commission observed that creation of Haryana<\/p>\n
State Industrial Security Force was without any<\/p>\n
occasion. It was further observed that recruitment was<\/p>\n
made in a hurry. Financial loss was caused by putting<\/p>\n
unnecessary burden on the State exchequer by recruiting<\/p>\n
Sub Inspectors. Persons responsible for the above acts<\/p>\n
were the then Chief Minister, the then Finance Minister<\/p>\n
and Director General of Police. However, it was held<\/p>\n
that no extraneous factor was suggested against any<\/p>\n
person. Elections to the State Assembly were announced<\/p>\n
on 17.12.2004 and the Model Code of Conduct came<\/p>\n
into force. Appointments were made in violation of the<\/p>\n
Code of Conduct. The list of candidates was received on<\/p>\n
18.12.2004. Reliance was also placed on judgment of
\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals               8<\/span><\/p>\n
this Court dated 9.1.2006 in CWP No.248 of 2006<\/p>\n
(Sanjay Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and<\/p>\n
others<\/a>) upholding order of termination of Constables<\/p>\n
recruited for HSISF, which force was later disbanded.<\/p>\n
In the said judgment, it was observed that in absence of<\/p>\n
any requirement for employment by the State,<\/p>\n
appointments were illegal and could be cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
6.           The writ petitions came up for hearing on<\/p>\n
18.10.2006 when it was directed that a detailed affidavit<\/p>\n
be filed disclosing the number of vacancies of Sub<\/p>\n
Inspectors of Haryana Police existing on the date of<\/p>\n
advertisement dated 7.8.2004 and number of vacancies<\/p>\n
in October 2005 when order terminating services of<\/p>\n
appellants was passed. Accordingly, an affidavit dated<\/p>\n
8.10.2006 was filed by the Principal Secretary to the<\/p>\n
Government of Haryana, Home Department, inter-alia,<\/p>\n
stating that there were only 9 vacancies of Sub<\/p>\n
Inspectors as on 7.8.2004 but as in October 2005, 62<\/p>\n
posts meant for direct recruitment under Rule 12.3 of<\/p>\n
the Police Rules were available. Requisition sent to the
\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
Staff Selection Commission was for 80 posts for the<\/p>\n
HSISF and India Reserve Battalion out of which seven<\/p>\n
posts were for Sub Inspectors in Haryana Police. The<\/p>\n
Staff Selection Commission wrongly advertised posts<\/p>\n
for Sub Inspectors for Haryana Police. Clarification was<\/p>\n
sought from the Staff Selection Commission on<\/p>\n
6.11.2006 to which the said Commission vide letter<\/p>\n
dated 8.11.2006 replied that though, requisition received<\/p>\n
was for appointments to State Industrial Security Force<\/p>\n
and India Reserve Battalions, apart from seven posts of<\/p>\n
Sub Inspectors in Police Force, in the advertisement,<\/p>\n
inadvertently, all the posts were mentioned as being for<\/p>\n
Haryana Police.              Thereafter on 22.11.2006, further<\/p>\n
direction was issued by this Court requiring explanation<\/p>\n
for the variance in different affidavits about the vacancy<\/p>\n
position. As per affidavits filed by various Inspector<\/p>\n
Generals of Police in the State under the direction of this<\/p>\n
Court, the figure of vacancies of Sub Inspectors in the<\/p>\n
Haryana Police was worked out to be 92 on the date of<\/p>\n
appointment for the direct quota while as per affidavit of
\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
the Home Secretary, number was different. In further<\/p>\n
affidavit dated 12.12.2006, clear and precise figure of<\/p>\n
vacancies is not mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
7.           The learned Single Judge held that though<\/p>\n
seven of the writ petitioners were entitled to be<\/p>\n
reinstated on the ground that they had resigned from<\/p>\n
regular government service for applying for these jobs,<\/p>\n
there was no illegality in termination of services of the<\/p>\n
appellants. Reliance was placed on judgment of this<\/p>\n
Court in Sanjay Kumar (supra).\n<\/p>\n
8.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
9.           Learned counsel for the appellants submitted<\/p>\n
that there was no scope for any mistake as pleaded. The<\/p>\n
advertisement was clear and specific. After holding<\/p>\n
written      test,     interview          and   selection,   not   only<\/p>\n
appointment letters were given, training for about six<\/p>\n
months was also imparted. In any case, the appellants<\/p>\n
were not party to any such mistake and even as per the<\/p>\n
report of the Commission of Enquiry, there was no<\/p>\n
extraneous consideration in their appointments. Posts<\/p>\n
were available on the date of appointment as well as on
\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
the date of passing of order of termination. The said<\/p>\n
vacancies were sought to be filled up by fresh<\/p>\n
advertisement,          after      terminating   services   of   the<\/p>\n
appellants. Advertisement notifying 100 vacancies was<\/p>\n
placed on record vide C.M.No.19548 of 2007 as<\/p>\n
mentioned in para 18 of LPA No.96 of 2009. There was<\/p>\n
no justification for passing the order of termination. Plea<\/p>\n
of Model Code of Conduct could also not be a ground to<\/p>\n
justify the termination of services of appellants. The<\/p>\n
object of Model Code is to regulate the conduct of<\/p>\n
persons contesting elections. Violation thereof may be a<\/p>\n
ground to take any action by the Election Commission<\/p>\n
but will not per se invalidate the appointments. In any<\/p>\n
case, the appointments were not terminated immediately<\/p>\n
after     election.       Once        appointments   were   openly<\/p>\n
advertised and made, posts were available, appointees<\/p>\n
were qualified and were duly selected, they had not<\/p>\n
committed any misconduct or fraud, the same could not<\/p>\n
be annulled. In such a case, concept of estoppel was<\/p>\n
attracted. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied
\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                            12<\/span><\/p>\n
upon       following         judgments        in   support    of   his<\/p>\n
submissions:-<\/p>\n
\ni) H.C.Puttaswamy and                     To submit that appointment\nothers v. The Hon'ble                     having     been      made,\nChief      Justice     of                 termination was not called\nKarnataka High Court,                     for    if  vacancy     was\nBangalore and others,                     available.\nAIR 1991 SC 295, Para 13.\nii) Director S.C.T.I. for                 To submit that even if there\nMed. Sci. and Tech. and                   was no right to seek\nanother                v.                 appointment against a\nM.Pushkaran,AIR 2008                      vacancy, there should be\nSC 559                                    some reason for not giving\n                                          appointment.\niii) State of Punjab and                  To submit that after the\nothers v. Harcharan                       election,   the    selected\nSingh and others, Civil                   persons could not be\nAppeal No.3521 of 2006,                   denied appointment on the\n<\/pre>\n
decided on 7.2.2007.                      ground of Model Code of
\n                                          Conduct.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.          Learned counsel for the State supported the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment by submitting that the State had<\/p>\n
absolute right to abolish the posts and that appointments<\/p>\n
having been made for HSISF and the said force having<\/p>\n
been disbanded, orders of termination were fully<\/p>\n
justified. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon<\/p>\n
following judgments in support of his submissions:-<\/p>\n
\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                           13<\/span>\n\n\ni) M.Ramanatha Pillai v.                  To submit that abolition of\nThe State of Kerala and                   posts was exercise of\nanother, (1973) 2 SCC                     sovereign power and was\n650;                                      not hit by principle of\n                                          estoppel.\nii) State of Haryana v.\nShri Des Raj Sangar and<\/a>\nanother,(1976) 2 SCC\n844;\n\niii) Rajendra and others\nv. State of Rajasthan and\nothers<\/a>, (1999) 2 SCC 317;\n\niv) Avas Vikas Sansthan\nand another v. Avas\nVikas             Sansthan\nEngineers Assn. and\nothers, (2006) 4 SCC 132;\n\nv)All     India     ITDC\nWorkers' Union and\nothers v. ITDC and\nothers<\/a>, (2006) 10 SCC 66.\n\nvi) State of Haryana and\nothers v. Navneet Verma,<\/a>\n(2008) 2 SCC 65.\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                 14<\/span>\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
vii) Hoshiar Singh v. To submit that appointment
\nState of Haryana and beyond advertised posts
\nothers, 1993 Supp (4) SCC was not permissible.\n<\/p>\n
377.<\/p>\n
viii)Virender      Singh\nHooda and others v. State\nof Haryana and<\/a> another,\n(2004) 12 SCC 588.\n\nix) Jitendra Kumar and\nothers    v.   State   of\nHaryana and another,\n(2008) 2 SCC 161.\n<\/pre>\n
x) P.V.Jagannath Rao v. To submit that exercise of
\nState of Orissa, AIR 1969 power for a purpose not
\nSC 215                    authorized by law was
\n                          without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.          The question which arises for consideration is<\/p>\n
whether the impugned order of termination could be<\/p>\n
upheld on the ground that requisition by the<\/p>\n
State was for Industrial Security Force and not for the<\/p>\n
Police Force and the Industrial Security Force stood<\/p>\n
disbanded.\n<\/p>\n
12.          Having duly considered the rival submissions,<\/p>\n
we are of the opinion that appointments having been<\/p>\n
made in pursuance of an open advertisement for posts<\/p>\n
of Sub Inspectors in Haryana Police by following the
\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                      15<\/span><\/p>\n
procedure of written test and interview and vacancies<\/p>\n
for the said posts being available, the persons appointed<\/p>\n
who had also undergone training could not be thrown<\/p>\n
out on the ground of disbanding of the Industrial<\/p>\n
Security Force. It is not the case of the State that the<\/p>\n
selection process was fraudulent or that the appellants<\/p>\n
are not eligible or were not qualified. As regards the<\/p>\n
Commission of Enquiry, there is no finding of<\/p>\n
extraneous consideration. In any case, the posts of Sub<\/p>\n
Inspectors in Police also being available, merely because<\/p>\n
Industrial Security Force was disbanded, could not by<\/p>\n
itself be a ground to terminate services of the appellants.<\/p>\n
The      judgment          in     Sanjay   Kumar   (supra)    is<\/p>\n
distinguishable as in the advertisement for the posts of<\/p>\n
Constables, the recruitment was for the Industrial<\/p>\n
Security Force while in the present case, advertisement<\/p>\n
was for police force.\n<\/p>\n
13.          We may now refer to the judgments relied<\/p>\n
upon by learned counsel for the parties.
\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals               16<\/span><\/p>\n
14.          In HC Puttaswamy (supra), it was observed<\/p>\n
that the appointment having been made, hardship in<\/p>\n
passing order of termination ought to be taken into<\/p>\n
account even if there was any irregularity. In<\/p>\n
M.Pushkaran (supra), it was observed that even if there<\/p>\n
was no right to seek appointment, there should be valid<\/p>\n
reason for not giving appointment to a person duly<\/p>\n
selected.           In Harcharan Singh (supra), it was<\/p>\n
observed that after the election, plea of Model Code of<\/p>\n
Conduct did not survive.\n<\/p>\n
15.          We need not discuss the judgments in greater<\/p>\n
detail in view of our finding that decision to terminate<\/p>\n
only on the ground that Industrial Security Force was<\/p>\n
disbanded, was not valid.\n<\/p>\n
16.          Coming now to the judgments relied upon by<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the State, we hold that no doubt it<\/p>\n
was a matter of administrative policy to create or abolish<\/p>\n
posts, the said judgments are not applicable to the<\/p>\n
present case. Even if HSISF was disbanded, the<\/p>\n
appointment and selection of the appellants was not for
\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                   17<\/span><\/p>\n
the said posts. We are not concerned with the validity of<\/p>\n
decision of the authority regarding the said posts but to<\/p>\n
the termination of the appellants who were never<\/p>\n
appointed to the said posts but to the police force. As<\/p>\n
regards judgments dealing with the question of there<\/p>\n
being no right to posts which were not advertised, the<\/p>\n
posts in question were duly advertised and appointment<\/p>\n
of the appellants was against the advertised posts. The<\/p>\n
judgments are, thus, distinguishable.\n<\/p>\n
17.                 The question has, thus, to be answered in<\/p>\n
favour of the appellants and against the State. The<\/p>\n
impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants fairly stated that in case of<\/p>\n
reinstatement, the appellants will not insist on financial<\/p>\n
benefits but only continuity of service.\n<\/p>\n
18.          Accordingly, these appeals are allowed, the<\/p>\n
impugned orders are set aside and the State is directed<\/p>\n
to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within one<\/p>\n
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.<\/p>\n
\n LPA No.96 of 2009 and connected appeals                           18<\/span>\n\n\n                                          (Adarsh Kumar Goel)\n                                                  Judge\n\n\nSeptember 1, 2009                              (Daya Chaudhary)\n'gs'                                             Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Mohan Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.96 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 1.9.2009 Mohan Lal and others —–Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others —–Respondents LPA No.103 of 2009(O&M) Pardeep Kumar and others […]<\/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-231529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohan Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 September, 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\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohan Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-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=\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-30T19:56:05+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohan Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-30T19:56:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2215,\"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\\\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Mohan Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-30T19:56:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohan Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 September, 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":"Mohan Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 September, 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\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohan Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-30T19:56:05+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohan Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-30T19:56:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009"},"wordCount":2215,"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\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009","name":"Mohan Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-30T19:56:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohan Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 September, 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\/231529","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=231529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231529\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}