{"id":233486,"date":"2010-09-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-05T16:40:21","modified_gmt":"2017-02-05T11:10:21","slug":"ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ashok Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
Ashok Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010<\/div>\n
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                          CWJC No.11528 of 2004\n                   ASHOK KUMAR MANDAL S\/O LATE MEDI PRASAD MANDAL\n                   R\/O VILL-BHAKHARPUR, PS-PIRPAITI, DISTT-\n                   BHAGALPUR, BIHAR----------------PETITIONER\n                                  Versus\n                   1. THE STATE OF BIHAR\n                   2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA\n                   3. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF\n                      PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR,PATNA\n                   4. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THROUGH THE REGISTRAR\n                      GENERAL,PATNA, BIHAR.---------RESPONDENTS.\n                                    -----------\n<\/pre>\n
                      For the Petitioner: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate
\n                                          Mr. Ram Binod Singh,Advocate
\n                      For the State:      Mr. S.S.Mishra, Advocate
\n                      For the High Court: Mr. Piyush Lal, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
                                     ———-\n<\/p>\n
5   7 \/9\/2010                  Petitioner wants a direction upon the respondent<\/p>\n
                authority to appoint him on the post of peon in the Civil Court,<\/p>\n
                Saharsa pursuant to the advertisement No. 8\/41-8\/01-02 published in<\/p>\n
                a local newspaper AAJ on 14.1.2002. The above mentioned<\/p>\n
                advertisement was issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Saharsa<\/p>\n
                for appointment on the posts of clerks and peons in the Civil Court<\/p>\n
                at Saharsa.\n<\/p>\n
                               Petitioner states that he was an eligible candidate<\/p>\n
                belonging to Scheduled Tribes (S.T), fulfilling all the requirements<\/p>\n
                and he made an application. He was issued an Admit Card and was<\/p>\n
                even given an interview call which was scheduled to be held on<\/p>\n
                22.8.2002. Petitioner is supposed to have appeared in the said<\/p>\n
                interview and as per his assessment he performed rather well before<\/p>\n
                the Interview Board. Result of the exercise for recruitment was<\/p>\n
                published on 9.10.2002 and list was forwarded by the District &<\/p>\n
                Sessions Judge, Saharsa to the High Court for approval. According<\/p>\n
                to the petitioner the list contained recommendation of 56 candidates
\n                         -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
however the High Court approved only 43 for appointment.<\/p>\n
                Petitioner’s name did not figure in the list of<\/p>\n
recommended candidates for appointment. It is his case that he<\/p>\n
enquired into the matter and he learnt that the petitioner was denied<\/p>\n
the benefit of appointment because the respondents applied a new<\/p>\n
reservation policy notified by the State of Bihar in the official<\/p>\n
gazette on 27.8.2002. By virtue of the said gazette notification the<\/p>\n
quota for reservation of Scheduled Tribes candidates was brought<\/p>\n
down from 10% to 1% which could not be done in case of the<\/p>\n
present appointment.\n<\/p>\n
                The stand of the counsel is that since the<\/p>\n
advertisement was issued in January, 2002 the subsequent gazette<\/p>\n
notification effecting change in the quota for Scheduled Tribes<\/p>\n
issued on 27.8.2002 could not be applied retrospectively. The<\/p>\n
process of appointment should have been carried out on the basis of<\/p>\n
the old rule and application of new reservation policy has proved<\/p>\n
detrimental to the interest of the petitioner’s right for appointment.<\/p>\n
                 The petitioner has brought on record letter no. 477<\/p>\n
dated 11.10.2003 issued by the Department of Personnel and<\/p>\n
Administrative Reforms, which shows that the reservation policy<\/p>\n
prevalent at the time of sending the requisition to the BPSC, before<\/p>\n
bifurcation of the State, would govern the issue and not the changed<\/p>\n
reservation policy. According to the petitioner since the requisition<\/p>\n
for advertisement was issued prior to the changes brought about in<\/p>\n
the reservation quota meant for Scheduled Tribes, the respondents
\n                          -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
could not have reduced the percentage of reservation of Scheduled<\/p>\n
Tribes to 1% as per the new reservation policy.\n<\/p>\n
                Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the<\/p>\n
State as well as the High Court. Their stand is that the old<\/p>\n
reservation policy in existence in the State of Bihar applied to the<\/p>\n
undivided Bihar. The quota for Scheduled Tribes was fixed on the<\/p>\n
basis of population in existence before the division of Bihar and<\/p>\n
creation of Jharkhand as a separate State. The ground reality is that<\/p>\n
after the division of the State, majority population of Scheduled<\/p>\n
Tribes fell within the jurisdiction of newly created Jharkhand. This<\/p>\n
compelled the State authority to rework the benefit of reservation for<\/p>\n
the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. After due<\/p>\n
diligence and deliberation the State of Bihar came to a considered<\/p>\n
opinion that looking at the tribal population left in the State of Bihar,<\/p>\n
the benefit of reservation for Scheduled Tribes have to be brought<\/p>\n
down to 1% from 10%.\n<\/p>\n
                The exercise of filling up of the post was carried out<\/p>\n
after the bifurcation of the State of Bihar and only the advertisement<\/p>\n
was issued before the amendment was notified. The actual selection<\/p>\n
and appointment has been made after the new reservation policy was<\/p>\n
notified and the benefit of reservation has to be extended at the point<\/p>\n
of appointment and not during the course of selection. The<\/p>\n
respondents have applied the reservation policy which was in<\/p>\n
operation. Even according to the petitioner, the notification was<\/p>\n
notified on 27.8.2002 and the result was published and appointment
\n                         -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
made on 9.10.2002. The respondents have done no wrong in<\/p>\n
applying the policy in existence at the time of appointment. Not<\/p>\n
continuing with earlier reservation policy was the need of the hour<\/p>\n
as it would have given undue representation to the Scheduled Tribes,<\/p>\n
even though their proportionate representation in the State had<\/p>\n
drastically gone down after the bifurcation.\n<\/p>\n
                Further submission on behalf of the respondents is<\/p>\n
that there is no material or pleading in the writ application which<\/p>\n
would show that the petitioner was denied appointment only due to<\/p>\n
change in the reservation policy. There is nothing to show that he<\/p>\n
came within the zone of consideration in terms of the result<\/p>\n
published after selection. The claim of the petitioner is based more<\/p>\n
on hypothesis. It is a presumption that he would have come in the<\/p>\n
select list, as one of the successful candidate, if 10% reservation was<\/p>\n
extended to candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes category. The<\/p>\n
advertisement issued by the respondents did not indicate as to what<\/p>\n
would be reservation policy which would apply in the matter of<\/p>\n
selection. However selection is one aspect and appointment is<\/p>\n
another. Benefit of reservation comes into play only after the<\/p>\n
selection and not during the process of selection.<\/p>\n
                It is also the stand of the High Court that the<\/p>\n
selection and recommendation for appointment made by the High<\/p>\n
Court would show that there is wide representation from all<\/p>\n
categories of persons who are getting benefit of reservation policy.<\/p>\n
The claim of the petitioner that continuance of the reservation policy
\n                          -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
would have expanded his chance for appointment is more<\/p>\n
hypothetical rather than actual state of affairs.<\/p>\n
                The benefit of reservation is based on the<\/p>\n
demographic representation of the populace and the historical<\/p>\n
discrimination which they have socially suffered over many a<\/p>\n
century. The benefit of reservation and fixing of percentage thereof<\/p>\n
is based on demographic distribution as well as the data gathered by<\/p>\n
the State, before a policy decision is notified, extending such a<\/p>\n
benefit. The fact that the State of Bihar came to be divided on 15th<\/p>\n
November, 2000 and a separate State of Jharkhand came to be<\/p>\n
created primarily on the basis of long struggle and demand of<\/p>\n
Scheduled Tribes of that area for a separate State. In this<\/p>\n
background the State of Bihar has had to relook at the changed<\/p>\n
ground reality. The percentage of reservation to be made available to<\/p>\n
the left over population of the State had to be reworked. The ground<\/p>\n
reality has been reflected by the notification dated 27.8.2002 and it<\/p>\n
cannot be ignored only to allow benefit of expanded zone of<\/p>\n
consideration to some persons including the present petitioner.<\/p>\n
                In fact, the Court is of the opinion that applying the<\/p>\n
old principle of reservation which was in existence before<\/p>\n
bifurcation and extending the benefit of reservation beyond the<\/p>\n
percentage of the population of Scheduled Tribes would be<\/p>\n
prejudicial to the interest of other castes and community who<\/p>\n
remained in Bihar, after the bifurcation. In addition to that the Court<\/p>\n
has taken note of the fact that the benefit of reservation is to be
\n                                   -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
      applied at the time of appointment and not during the process of<\/p>\n
      selection. After the selection process is gone through, the question<\/p>\n
      would arise as to how many posts are to be offered to which castes<\/p>\n
      depending on the reservation policy existing at the time of<\/p>\n
      appointment.\n<\/p>\n
                      Since the new reservation policy was already in<\/p>\n
      place on 27.8.2002 and the appointment came to be made on<\/p>\n
      9.10.2002, the respondents have done no wrong by applying the new<\/p>\n
      policy.\n<\/p>\n
                      The Court is also in agreement with the submission<\/p>\n
      of the respondents that the case of the petitioner is based more on<\/p>\n
      hypothesis than the ground reality. In absence of any empirical<\/p>\n
      evidence that continuance with the old reservation policy would<\/p>\n
      have brought the petitioner within the zone of consideration for<\/p>\n
      selection and appointment the writ seems to be misplaced.<\/p>\n
      Petitioner’s name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the<\/p>\n
      respondents either in the category of selected candidates or in the<\/p>\n
      category of wait listed candidates. This writ application is more of a<\/p>\n
      fishing kind of application without any substantive facts and law in<\/p>\n
      favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                      This writ application is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
RPS                            (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders Ashok Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11528 of 2004 ASHOK KUMAR MANDAL S\/O LATE MEDI PRASAD MANDAL R\/O VILL-BHAKHARPUR, PS-PIRPAITI, DISTT- BHAGALPUR, BIHAR—————-PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, […]<\/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":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-233486","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nAshok Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010 - 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\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashok Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-05T11:10:21+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\\\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashok Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-05T11:10:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1438,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Ashok Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-05T11:10:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashok Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Ashok Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010 - 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\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashok Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-05T11:10:21+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\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashok Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-05T11:10:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010"},"wordCount":1438,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010","name":"Ashok Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-05T11:10:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-mandal-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-7-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashok Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/233486","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=233486"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233486\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233486"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233486"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233486"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}