{"id":234266,"date":"2009-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-04-17T06:48:26","modified_gmt":"2017-04-17T01:18:26","slug":"jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 November, 2009<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH\n\n                               Civil Writ Petition No.11575 of 2008\n                                   Date of Decision: November 10, 2009\n\n\nJagir Singh\n                                                            .....PETITIONER(S)\n\n                                VERSUS\n\nState of Punjab & Others\n                                                        .....RESPONDENT(S)<\/pre>\n
                           .       .        .\n\n\nCORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA\n\n\nPRESENT: -      Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate, for the\n                petitioner.\n\n                Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy\n<\/pre>\n
                Advocate General, Punjab, for the
\n                respondents.\n<\/p>\n
                            .      .        .\n\n\nAJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)\n\n                Jagir           Singh,                Head       Constable,\n\n<\/pre>\n
serving in Punjab Police has filed this petition<\/p>\n
under    Article   226\/227             of       the    Constitution        of<\/p>\n
India    praying   for     issuance              of     a    writ     in   the<\/p>\n
nature    of   certiorari,              quashing              Order    dated<\/p>\n
1.10.2007 (Annexure P-9) whereby benefits given<\/p>\n
under Order, Annexure P-1 have been withdrawn.<\/p>\n
                Substance of order dated 28.1.2005,<\/p>\n
Annexure P-1 reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                “….The name of Head Constable Jagir Singh No.759\/PTL
\n                hereby exempted from passing intermediate School Course
\n                at PPA, Phillaur and his name is approved for admission
\n                to promotion list D-II (Exemptee) with immediate effect.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                His name is further approved for promotion to the rank of
\n CWP No.11575 of 2008                                          [2]<\/p>\n
                   Officiating Assistant Sub-Inspector, by exercising powers
\n                   under P.P.R.13.21, in view of his outstanding
\n                   performance.\n<\/p>\n
                   2. Formal orders in this regard will be issued by Dy.
\n                   Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala, if the
\n                   above said official is not facing any Departmental\/
\n                   Vigilance enquiry or criminal proceedings.”<\/p>\n
                   It     has       been       pleaded          that       the<\/p>\n
petitioner joined Punjab Police on 16.12.1980.<\/p>\n
After passing Lower School Course, the petitioner<\/p>\n
was granted promotion as Head Constable w.e.f.<\/p>\n
21.9.1989 and was confirmed as such on 21.9.1991.<\/p>\n
Vide    Order    dated      28.1.2005,           Annexure           P-1,   the<\/p>\n
petitioner      was     granted        exemption          from       passing<\/p>\n
Intermediate School Course. Further the name of<\/p>\n
the    petitioner       was      approved         for     admission          to<\/p>\n
promotion list D-II. The petitioner further was<\/p>\n
approved for promotion to the rank of Assistant<\/p>\n
Sub Inspector (Officiating) by respondent No.2<\/p>\n
i.e. Director General of Police, Punjab, while<\/p>\n
exercising       powers       under      Rule      13.21       of     Punjab<\/p>\n
Police Rules, 1934 (for short, `the Rules’).<\/p>\n
                   Further details are not required to<\/p>\n
be given in so much as Order dated 28.1.2005<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-1) has been withdrawn by virtue of<\/p>\n
subsequent order passed by the Director General<\/p>\n
of Police, Punjab, on 1.10.2007 (Annexure P-9).<\/p>\n
                   Gist        of        the        first           argument<\/p>\n
addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner
\n CWP No.11575 of 2008                                          [3]<\/p>\n
is    that     as    per     law       laid    down,     the        Director<\/p>\n
General of Police is required to assign reasons<\/p>\n
for    invoking        powers      under       Rule    13.21         of     the<\/p>\n
aforesaid Rules. Although Annexure P-1 discloses<\/p>\n
no reason, the order is legal in so much as the<\/p>\n
reasons have been noticed and recorded on the<\/p>\n
file.\n<\/p>\n
                     The        second     argument          of      learned<\/p>\n
counsel is that after passing of order, Annexure<\/p>\n
P-1,    the    petitioner          has    been       serving.        Service<\/p>\n
rendered by the petitioner is exemplary as is<\/p>\n
made     out        from     Orders,          Annexure        P-5         dated<\/p>\n
30.7.2005, passed by the Deputy Superintendent of<\/p>\n
Police, Sub Division, Rajpura; and Annexure P-6<\/p>\n
dated        17.8.2005            passed         by         the       Senior<\/p>\n
Superintendent             of     Police,        Patiala.            On     the<\/p>\n
strength       of    these       two     documents,         it      has    been<\/p>\n
argued that the petitioner is entitled to retain<\/p>\n
the benefits arising out of order, Annexure P-1.<\/p>\n
                     The        third    contention          of      learned<\/p>\n
counsel is that once the benefit has been given<\/p>\n
under     Annexure         P-1,     the       same    could         only     be<\/p>\n
withdrawn       in     accordance         with       law,    under         Rule<\/p>\n
13.12(2) of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
                     Learned counsel for the respondent<\/p>\n
has pointed out that in a very whimsical manner<\/p>\n
without assigning any reasons, the exemption was
\n CWP No.11575 of 2008                                              [4]<\/p>\n
given     as    is     evident          from       perusal          of      order<\/p>\n
Annexure P-1. It has further been contended that<\/p>\n
Division Bench of this Court while dealing with<\/p>\n
CWP No. 18254 of 2004 decided on 15.10.2008, Vibhor Kumar Vs.<\/p>\n
State of Punjab and Others has held in the following<\/p>\n
terms:-\n<\/p>\n
                       “We now proceed to deal with the rival contentions of
\n                       the counsel. A perusal of Rule 13.21 of the Punjab Po-
\n                       lice Rules shows that the power of relaxation con-
\n                       tained in the said Rule can be exercised “with respect
\n                       to any class or category of persons”. This apart, while
\n                       exercising this power, certain reasons have to be re-
\n                       corded in writing. However, the order passed by the
\n                       DGP in the present case shows that the power has
\n                       been exercised not in respect of any class or category
\n                       but in respect of an individual. Besides, the order
\n                       passed by the DGP does not specify the reasons for
\n                       granting the relaxation except that it was in recogni-
\n                       tion of his outstanding performance. On the other
\n                       hand, learned counsel for the State has contended that
\n                       illegal benefit had been conferred upon the petitioner
\n                       dehors the mandate of statutory rules.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          From a perusal of the record it is clear that the peti-
\n                       tioner was granted out of turn promotion while on
\n                       deputation. However, the order whereby the said rule
\n                       was invoked, does not given any reasons for exercise
\n                       of power under the said rule. Needless to say that the
\n                       DGP could not have invoked rule 13.21 to grant re-
\n                       laxation to the petitioner, at his whim. The order mush
\n                       show valid reasons for exercise of this power for pro-
\n                       moting a police official to a higher rank. In the present
\n                       case, however, no such reason is discernible from a
\n                       perusal of the impugned order.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     It transpires from the judgment of<\/p>\n
this    Court     that       the      order       passed         under        Rule<\/p>\n
13.21 of PPR needs to assign reasons within the<\/p>\n
scope of the provisions of the Rule.<\/p>\n
                     Learned counsel for the respondent-\n<\/p>\n
 CWP No.11575 of 2008                                   [5]<\/p>\n
State, on the strength of original record brought<\/p>\n
to Court for its consideration, states that the<\/p>\n
facts revealed from the file are surprising. The<\/p>\n
case of the petitioner for giving benefits under<\/p>\n
Annexure P-1 was not forwarded by any officer<\/p>\n
under     whom     the    petitioner       had    been       serving.<\/p>\n
Rather, the matter was put up on the same day<\/p>\n
i.e. 28.1.2005 and order Annexure P-1 was passed.<\/p>\n
                   No reasons have been assigned for<\/p>\n
giving benefit to the petitioner while invoking<\/p>\n
Rule 13.21 of the Rules. It has also been pointed<\/p>\n
out that it is a cyclostyled order. Rather the<\/p>\n
noting     sheet       indicates    that    it    originates       on<\/p>\n
25.5.2005 when the application was sent back from<\/p>\n
the    office     of     Director    General      of     Police    to<\/p>\n
Deputy     Inspector       General     of     Police.        It   has<\/p>\n
further been pointed out that the then Director<\/p>\n
General of Police namely Mr. A. Siddiqui passed a<\/p>\n
number     of    orders     of      similar      nature      without<\/p>\n
consideration of merit of individual case, before<\/p>\n
the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.1.2005.<\/p>\n
Order Annexure P-1, in the present case is one<\/p>\n
such order and had been passed on 28.1.2005.<\/p>\n
                   Learned counsel for the petitioner,<\/p>\n
faced with the original record, concedes that no<\/p>\n
reasons have been assigned for giving benefits to<\/p>\n
the petitioner under Order, Annexure P-1.\n<\/p>\n
 CWP No.11575 of 2008                                 [6]\n\n\n\n                   I      have       considered             various\n\n<\/pre>\n
contentions made on behalf of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
                   The    short      question        posed       is,<\/p>\n
legality of order, Annexure P-1, per-se, which<\/p>\n
has   subsequently        been    withdrawn    vide        impugned<\/p>\n
order, Annexure P-9.\n<\/p>\n
                   Considering       the     facts         as   they<\/p>\n
emanate from the record viz. no reasons have been<\/p>\n
assigned for giving benefits to the petitioner,<\/p>\n
out of turn, I find that the matter is covered by<\/p>\n
judgment dated 15.10.2008 rendered in Civil Writ<\/p>\n
Petition       No.18254    of    2004,     `Vibhor    Kumar     vs.<\/p>\n
State     of    Punjab    &     Others’,    relevant        portion<\/p>\n
whereof has been extracted above.<\/p>\n
                   In view of the above, I hold that<\/p>\n
the Director General of Police could not have<\/p>\n
invoked Rule 13.21 of the Rules to give approval<\/p>\n
to the petitioner for promotion to the post of<\/p>\n
officiating Sub Inspector.\n<\/p>\n
                   I am further constrained to observe<\/p>\n
that order Annexure P-1 is whimsical and without<\/p>\n
any basis. The petitioner had never served under<\/p>\n
the Director General of Police who passed Order,<\/p>\n
Annexure P-1, and therefore, had no occasion to<\/p>\n
see the work and conduct of the petitioner so as<\/p>\n
to term it as “outstanding performance”. The case<\/p>\n
was put up by the Personal Assistant whereupon
\n CWP No.11575 of 2008                                         [7]<\/p>\n
the order had been passed. There are no reasons<\/p>\n
assigned on the file so as to relax the condition<\/p>\n
and    promoting        the    petitioner         to    the         rank    of<\/p>\n
Assistant Sub Inspector (Officiating). Although<\/p>\n
Order Annexure P-1 records that the performance<\/p>\n
of the petitioner was outstanding, the Director<\/p>\n
General of Police had no inputs in regard to the<\/p>\n
work    and     conduct       of    the    petitioner              from    the<\/p>\n
officers under whom the petitioner had served.<\/p>\n
                   In     view       of     the        above,         order<\/p>\n
Annexure P-1 is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable<\/p>\n
and      unjustifiable.              In     such            facts          and<\/p>\n
circumstances,          the    first      argument          of      learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner holds no merit and the<\/p>\n
same is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                   So far as the second argument of<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned,<\/p>\n
Orders Annexure P-5 and P-6 are dated 30.7.2005<\/p>\n
and 17.8.2005 respectively. Subsequent conduct of<\/p>\n
the petitioner shall not entitle the petitioner<\/p>\n
to a benefit granted earlier in point of time by<\/p>\n
virtue     of    Annexure          P-1    dated    28.1.2005.              The<\/p>\n
conduct and quality of service and performance of<\/p>\n
the    petitioner       was    required       to       be     considered<\/p>\n
before passing of order. This having not done,<\/p>\n
subsequent good conduct of the petitioner will<\/p>\n
not attach reasons and legitimacy to action of
\n CWP No.11575 of 2008                                            [8]<\/p>\n
the respondents i.e. to an order passed earlier<\/p>\n
i.e. Annexure P-1.\n<\/p>\n
                   So     far     as     the      third       argument          is<\/p>\n
concerned, reference has been made to Rule 13.12<\/p>\n
(2) of the Rules, relevant portion of which, when<\/p>\n
extracted, reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                         (2) The conduct and efficiency of men on lists D
\n                   and E shall be at all times watched with special care. Any
\n                   officer, who, whether in his substantive rank or while
\n                   officiating as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Sub-Inspector,
\n                   is guilty of misconduct of a nature reflecting upon his
\n                   character or fitness for responsibility, or who shows either
\n                   by specific acts or by his record as a whole, that he is unfit
\n                   for promotion to higher rank shall be reported to the
\n                   Deputy Inspector-General for removal from list D or list E,
\n                   as the case may be…..”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   Learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
contends      that      in    the      intervening            period,         the<\/p>\n
petitioner has not been guilty of any misconduct<\/p>\n
of   a   nature        reflecting        upon       his     character           or<\/p>\n
fitness         for          responsibility.                    In          such<\/p>\n
circumstances, name of the petitioner cannot be<\/p>\n
removed from List D-II.\n<\/p>\n
                   I      have         considered             this        third\n\ncontention.\n\n                   The issue has to be considered in\n\n<\/pre>\n
the context of benefit initially granted to the<\/p>\n
petitioner vide Annexure P-1. In view of the fact<\/p>\n
that it has already been held that Annexure P-1<\/p>\n
is without any application of mind; dehors the<\/p>\n
record of the petitioner; in violation of rules;\n<\/p>\n
 CWP No.11575 of 2008                                          [9]\n\n\n\nand   therefore         is     arbitrary,        the    contention           of\n\nlearned       counsel          cannot        be        accepted.            The\n\n<\/pre>\n
petitioner was promoted as officiating Assistant<\/p>\n
Sub Inspector vide an illegal order in arbitrary<\/p>\n
exercise of power. Exemption was given to the<\/p>\n
petitioner from passing intermediate course and<\/p>\n
his name was approved for ptomotion List D-II<\/p>\n
(Exemptee) vide an illegal order passed without<\/p>\n
recording        reasons       and       basis.    Order        does        not<\/p>\n
disclose      as       to    what        weighed       with     the        then<\/p>\n
Director General of Police to grant exemption to<\/p>\n
the petitioner from passing intermediate course.<\/p>\n
Since      the         order        is      illegal,           no         legal<\/p>\n
consequences,           as     prayed       on     behalf            of     the<\/p>\n
petitioner would flow. Subsequent conduct will<\/p>\n
not make the order Annexure P-1 legitimate.<\/p>\n
                   There        is       another       aspect        of     the\n\nmatter.     By     virtue       of   giving        benefits           to    the\n\n<\/pre>\n
petitioner out of turn and in a discriminatory<\/p>\n
exercise      of    power,       the      persons       who         could    be<\/p>\n
considered instead, could not be considered.<\/p>\n
                   Under the circumstances, it would<\/p>\n
be    against      principle         of      equity       to        make     an<\/p>\n
illegitimate           order    legitimate,            that     has        been<\/p>\n
procured      through          arbitrary         and     injustifiable<\/p>\n
action. If the order itself is found to be result<\/p>\n
of colourable exercise of power, the petitioner
\n CWP No.11575 of 2008                                            [10]<\/p>\n
cannot claim that subsequent events, such as the<\/p>\n
good    service         rendered       by    the       petitioner         after<\/p>\n
passing      of    order       Annexure       P-1,       be     taken        into<\/p>\n
account to sustain the order (Annexure P-1).<\/p>\n
                     Perusal of impugned order Annexure<\/p>\n
P-9 shows that while passing the order, relevant<\/p>\n
facts       and   circumstances             have       been     taken        into<\/p>\n
account       viz;       a    number    of        senior      intermediate<\/p>\n
school course qualified Head Constables on list<\/p>\n
`D’ are waiting their turn for promotion to the<\/p>\n
rank of ASIs; there is no outstanding work of<\/p>\n
professional             merit     on        official           record         of<\/p>\n
petitioner which would justify his exemption and<\/p>\n
out    of    turn       promotion;          the    case       needs      to    be<\/p>\n
reviewed          for        withdrawal           of     exemption            and<\/p>\n
promotion in the light of High Court direction<\/p>\n
dated       5.5.1970         passed    in     Civil        Writ        Petition<\/p>\n
No.1692 of 1969, `Sardul Singh vs. I.G. State<\/p>\n
Police       Punjab’.         Order     Annexure          P-9<\/a>     has        been<\/p>\n
passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to<\/p>\n
the     petitioner.            Under    the        circumstances,              no<\/p>\n
illegality can be traced in the action of the<\/p>\n
respondents         in       passing    order          Annexure        P-9    and<\/p>\n
review of order Annexure P-1.\n<\/p>\n
                     In view of the above, the petition<\/p>\n
is dismissed.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                     It is however made clear that the
\n CWP No.11575 of 2008                                     [11]<\/p>\n
petitioner would be entitled to promotion on his<\/p>\n
own turn.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                      (AJAI LAMBA)\nNovember 10, 2009                                       JUDGE\navin\n\n<\/pre>\n
1.     To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n<\/p>\n
2.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11575 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 10, 2009 Jagir Singh …..PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others …..RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA […]<\/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-234266","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJagir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 November, 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\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-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=\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-17T01:18:26+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-17T01:18:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2042,\"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\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-17T01:18:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 November, 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\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-17T01:18:26+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-17T01:18:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009"},"wordCount":2042,"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\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009","name":"Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-17T01:18:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagir-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 10 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/234266","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=234266"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234266\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234266"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234266"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234266"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}