{"id":234800,"date":"2000-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000"},"modified":"2015-09-20T23:18:09","modified_gmt":"2015-09-20T17:48:09","slug":"rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000","title":{"rendered":"Rajiv Kapoor & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 March, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rajiv Kapoor & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 March, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: D Rajil.<\/div>\n
Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Doraiswamy Raju<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAJIV KAPOOR & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t28\/03\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nR.C.  Lahoti, Doraiswamy Raju\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      Doraiswamy Rajil.\t J.\n<\/p>\n
      The  method and criteria to be followed in the  matter
\nof  selection  of candidates for admission to Post  Graduate
\nDegree\tand Diploma courses in Medicine from amongst Haryana
\nCivil  Medical Service (for short ‘HCMS’) candidates for the
\nacademic  session 1997 in Pt.  B.  D.  Sharma Post  Graduate
\nInstitute  of  Medical\tSciences   affiliated  to  Maharishi
\nDayanand  University is the subject matter of controversy in
\nthese  appeals.\t The controversy is limited to admission  of
\n19  and\t 14 candidates respectively to Post Graduate  Degree
\nand Diploma courses, in Medicine during the academic year in<\/p>\n
      question\tfor HCMS candidates and does not include any
\nconsideration of candidates either in open merit category or
\nto be filled up on Ail India basis.\n<\/p>\n
      The  petitioners before the High Court claimed that as
\nper  the  norms\t and criteria proclaimed in  the  Prospectus
\nissued\tby  the\t medical college m question,  selection\t for
\nadmission  could be made only on the basis of marks obtained
\nby  a  candidate  in the entrance examination held  for\t the
\npurpose.   But the contesting respondents, some of whom\t are
\nthe  appellants\t before this court as well as the  State  of
\nHaryana\t contended  that the marks obtained in the  entrance
\nexamination  only entitled them to be called tor  interview,
\nbeing  only  a\tqualifying  test  rendering  the  candidates
\neligible  for admission and that the final selection of\t the
\nHCMS  candidates against the reserved seats- was required to
\nbe  made  by  the Selection Committee  constituted  for\t the
\npurpose on the basis of the specified criteria stipulated by
\nthe  Government\t from  time to time, based on  the  academic
\ncareer,\t experience,  rural   service,\tannual\tconfidential
\nreports and marks obtained at the interview.\n<\/p>\n
      The  claim  of  die writ petitioners before  the\tHigh
\nCourt  found  favour  with the Division Bench  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\twhich  allowing\t their Writ  Petition  directed\t the
\ncancellation   of   the\t admission   given   to\t  contesting
\nrespondents before the High Court and directed selections of
\nHCMS<\/p>\n
      candidates for admission to PG courses to be made only
\non  the\t basis\tof merit, as per the marks obtained  in\t the
\nwritten\t entrance  examination\tand to admit  the  selectees
\nwithin\tthe stipulated time.  in coming to such a conclusion
\nthe  High Court appears to have been influenced by the\ttact
\nthat  the  Prospectus, once issued had the force of law\t and
\nthe  Government had no right to issue any contrainstructions
\nin  the\t matter.   It  was found .that .the  orders  of\t the
\nGovernment dated 21.5.1997 issued in restatement of the pre-
\nexisting  criteria  stipulated\tby the\tGovernment  had\t the
\nconsequence  of upsetting the entire criteria for  selection
\nof  HCMS candidates, as prescribed in the Prospectus and was
\nimpermissible.\t Consequently,\tC.W.P.\tNos-8158.  8259\t and
\n833^  of  1997 filed by respondents 4 to 8 in these  appeals
\nwere allowed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
      These  appeals by special leave have been filed by the
\naffected  contesting  private  respondents before  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\t The  State as well as the University did  not\tfile
\nappeals\t against impugned order but they have supported\t the
\nstand  taken by the appellants, so far as the criteria to be
\nadopted for selection and admission of HCMS Cadre candidates
\ntoP.G- courses is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
      When the SLPs came up bcfore this court for hearing on
\n6.2.1998, learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana
\nstated\tthat  the  orders  of  tile  High  Court  have\tbeen
\nimplemented  and that the State does not intend to  unsettle
\nthe  position insofar as the already selected candidates are
\nconcerned  but\tthat thejlidgmentofthe High Court  needed  a
\nsecond look fo settle the law.\tNo interim orders\/directions
\nwere therefore granted.\n<\/p>\n
      The  learned  counsel fur the  appellants\t strenuously
\ncontended  that the provisions contained in Chapter V of the
\nProspectus issued by the University for the academic session
\n1997  related to selection of eligible candidates at two and
\na  half times the number of seats available tor the  purpose
\nof  interview  before  the  Committee  constituted  for\t the
\npurpose\t of admission as against the seats reserved for HCMS
\ncandidates  in accordance with the policy criteria laid down
\ntherefor.   This  procedure and practice was said to  be  in
\nvogue  and being consistently followed ever since 1988, with
\nmodifications,\tif any, issued from time to time but without
\ndispensing   with  the\trequirement  of\t interview  by\t the
\nCommittee  and\tselection of candidates according  to  their
\nassessment  of\tmerit on the basis of the criteria  so\tlaid
\ndown  by  the  Government.  To substantiate  the  same,\t the
\nrelevant  Government  orders issued from time to time,\twere
\nreferred to in great detail.\n<\/p>\n
      It  was  also  highlighted  before us  that  the\tsaid
\npractice  was  uniformly  followed from 1988  onwards,\twhen
\nsimilar\t Prospectuses had been issued during those years, in
\naccordance  with  the  orders of  the  Government  governing
\nselections  for admission.  According to the appellants\t and
\nthe  respondent-State, the orders of the High Court had\t the
\neffect\tof rendering redundant the orders of the Government,
\ngoverning such selections.\n<\/p>\n
      The  learned  counsel for the other  respondents,\t who
\nwere  petitioners  before  the High Court and  who  had\t got
\nrelief,\t drawing  sustenance  from   the  reasoning  of\t the
\nDivision  Bench of the High Court, contended before us\tthat
\nso  far as selection for admission to the course in question
\nis  concerned..\t  it  is only the Prospectus issued  by\t the
\nUniversity  for\t the academinc year in question which  could
\ngovern\tand that the orders of the Government would have  no
\napplication.   Therefore,  it  was submitted that  the\tHigh
\nCourt  did  not commit any error in directing results to  be
\nfinalised and admissions accorded solely on the basis of the
\nprocedure proclaimed in the Prospectus.\n<\/p>\n
      We  have\tcarefully  considered\tthe  submissions  of
\nlearned counsel appearing on either side.\n<\/p>\n
      In  our view, the High Court tell into a serious error
\nin  sustaining the claim of the petitioners before the\tHigh
\nCourt  that  selection\tand  admissions for  the  course  in
\nquestion  have\tto  be\tonly in terms  of  the\tstipulations
\ncontained  in  Chapter\tV of the Prospectus  issued  by\t the
\nUniversity.   Such an error came to be committed in assuming
\nthat the Government had no authority to issue any directions
\nlaying down any criteria other than the one contained in the
\nProspectus  and\t that  the  marks obtained  in\tthe  written
\nEntrance  Examination alone constituted proper assessment of
\nthe  merit  performance\t of   the  candidates  applying\t for
\nselection  and admission.  The further error seems to be  in
\nomitting to notice the fact that the orders dated 21.5.1997,
\nwhich  came to be issued after the declaration of results of
\nwritten\t  Entrance  Examination,  even\t if  eschewed\tfrom
\nconsideration the orders dated 20.3.96 and 21.2.97 passed in
\ncontinuation  of the orders of the earlier years,  continued
\nto  hold the field, since the orders dated 21.5.97 were only
\nin  continuation  thereof.  Those orders dated\t20.3.96\t and
\n21.2.97\t had,  admittedly been forwarded to the\t University,
\nwith   a   request  to\tmake   necessary  entries   Ln\t the
\nProspectus\/syllabus.\n<\/p>\n
      The  High\t Court..   in allowing\tthe  Writ  Petitions
\npurported to follow an earlier judgment of the Full Bench of
\nthe very High Court reported in Amar<\/p>\n
      iep  Singh Sahota vs State of Punjab.  etc.   [1993(2)
\nPLR  212].  On carefully going through that judgment we find
\nthat  the  Full\t Bench\tdid  not  doubt\t the  competency  or
\nauthority  of  the  Government to  stipulate  procedure\t tor
\nadmission  relating  to\t courses in  professional  colleges,
\nparticularly  in respect of reserved category of seats,\t but
\non  the other hand, it specifically deprecated the  decision
\nto do away with the requirement of minimum marks criteria in
\nrespect\t of seats reserved for sports category and that\t too
\nby  passing orders after the examinations were lield under a
\nscheme\tnotified in the Prospectus.  As a matter of fact the
\nFull   Bench,  ultimately  directed  in\t that  case,   tliat
\nselections  for\t admission be finalised in the light of\t the
\ncriteria specified in the Government orders already in force
\nand   the   Prospectus,\t after\t  ignoring   the   offending
\nnotification introducing a change at a later stage.\n<\/p>\n
      So  far as the cases before us are concerned, the High
\nCourt, not only held that the Government order dated 21.5.97
\nissued\tafter the declaration of the results of the entrance
\nexamination held pursuant to the Prospectus issued for 1997,
\ncould  not be followed but went a step further to hold\tthat
\nexcept\tthe  Prospectus\t in question nothing else  could  be
\nlooked into and that the Government orders had the effect of
\nvarying the criteria laid in the Prospectus in the matter of
\n.selections to the seats reserved for HCMS<\/p>\n
      candidates.    We\t are  unable   to  appreciate\tthis
\nreasoning.   The  Government  orders dated 21.5.97  did\t not
\nintroduce,  for die first time, either the constitution of a
\nSelection  Committee or evolving the system of interview for
\nadjudging  the\tmerits of the candidates in accordance\twith
\nthe  laid down criteria.  It merely modified the pattern for
\nallotment  of  marks  under variousi heads  from  the  total
\nmarks.\tTherefore..  even if the modified criteria envisaged
\nunder  the  orders  dated  21.5.97 is to  be  eschewed\tfrom
\nconsideration, the earlier orders and the criteria laid down
\ntherein\t and  the  manner  of assessment  of  merit  by\t the
\nSelection Committee after interview.  were still required to
\nbe  complied  with  and\t they could not have  been  given  a
\ncomplete go-bye, as has been done by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
      Both  the\t orders of the Government dated 20.3.96\t and
\n21.2.97 in unmistakable terms stipulated that after issue of
\nno  objection certificate againt reserved seats to the\tHCMS
\nMedical\t Officers, they had to appear not only in the common
\nEntrance Test and obtain at least 20^0 of inarks or above to
\nbecome\teligible  for  consideration but the  merit  of\t the
\ncandidates  had to be determined by the Selection  Committee
\nconstituted  for the purpose, as per the criteria  specified
\nin Annexure ‘A.’, thereto after interview.  Chapter V of the
\nProspectus, apart from envisaging the preparation of a<\/p>\n
      merit  list,  at\ttwo and a half times the  number  of
\nseats  available  in cach category on the basis\t of  written
\nexamination;   contemplates  also  the award  of  marks\t and
\ndetermination  of merit in respect of open seats and so\t far
\nas  candidates\tof  HCMS rescued seats are  concerned  after
\nspecitving the marks stipulated for the written examination,
\nleaves\tthe  matter for further assessment of merit  without
\nspecifying  any further marks, apparently on account of\t the
\napplicability’\tof  the\t Government orders  notified  above,
\nwhich  takes  care  of\tthe weightage to be  given  to\tsuch
\ncandidates  in\trespect\t of the assessment  of\ttheir  merit
\nbefore\tactual selection for admission against the  reserved
\ncategory of seats earmarked tor HCMS candidates.\n<\/p>\n
      The  fact that the list to be prepared on the basis of
\nmarks  in  written test had to be two and a half  times\t the
\nnumber\tof  seats  available  in each category\talso  is  an
\nindicator  that\t it  was not by itself, the  final  list  of
\nselection  for\tadmission  to\tprofessional  courses  in  a
\ncollege.   Even if there had been any default on the part of
\nthe  University\t in properly specifying this aspect  despite
\ncommunication  of  the Government orders every time  to\t the
\nUniversity  with  a  direction to incorporate  them  in\t the
\nProspectus\/syllabus,  the efficacy and binding force of\t the
\nGovernment  orders  and the necessity to apply the  criteria
\nlaid down therein to finally determine the merit of the<\/p>\n
      candidates  to  be selected for admission against\t the
\nseats  reserved for HCMS candidates in terms of the criteria
\nlaid  down in those orders cannot be overlooked or given  up
\nonce  for all.\tThe Prospectus as well as the orders of\t the
\nGovernment in our view have to be construed in such a manner
\nthat  the  infer  se  merits of the  sendee  candidates\t are
\nproperly  assessed  on\tthe basis of their  credentials\t and
\nperformance  in\t service  and\tnot  merely  of\t theoretical
\nknowledge  of  the  subject as in the  case  of\t non-service
\ncandidates   belonging\tto  the\t  other\t  categories.\t The
\nconstruction  placed  by  the High Court,  if  accepted\t may
\nresult\tin  discrimination on account of applying  different
\ncriteria  of total marks for open candidates and in  service
\ncandidates  without  noticing  the  distinguishing  features
\nrelevant  for the purpose of assessment of merit in the case
\nof  HCMS candidates.  We find no reason or justification  to
\nallow  any deviation from the method of assessment uniformly
\nfollowed  in all the previous years for such selection.\t For
\nall  the  reasons  stated above, we have  no  hesitation  in
\nholding\t that  the High Court committed a serious  error  in
\ntills  regard  which vitiates its judgment and the  same  is
\naccordingly  set aside.\t We hold that the merits ot the HCMS
\ncandidates  are\t required  to be adjudged in  terms  of\t the
\ncriteria  contained  in the Government orders noticed  above
\nand  the  selections  can bemade for admission\tagainst\t the
\nreserved<\/p>\n
      seats,  as  per  the  determination of  merit  by\t the
\nSelection Committee constituted for the purpose.\n<\/p>\n
      The next question to be considered is about the relief
\nwhich  may  be granted in thege appeals.  Reliance has\tbeen
\nplaced by iearnedco’insci tor the appellants on the decision
\nreported  in  Punjab  EW!S.  College  Chandigarh  vs,  Sajay
\nGulati\tAIR 1983 SC 580] and an unreported judgment of\tthis
\ncourt  in  Civil Appeal No.6896 of 1997 dated 29.9.1997\t (R.
\nNithyapriya vs Revenue.\t Divisional Officer & Ors.), wherein
\nconsequential directions were found to liave been issued for
\nadmitting those students who had succeeded before the court,
\nin  the\t subsequent  academic year, if need be\tby  creating
\nadditional  seats.   Leaving  aside the fact that  in  those
\ndecisions  the\tstudents who had succeeded before the  Court
\nwere  found to be victims of irregularities and illegalities
\ncommitted  by  the  authorities entrusted with the  task  of
\nselections  for admissions or on ac-count of some wrong done
\nto  the candidate by an officer of the State in refusing  to
\nissue  a certificate which disabled the concerned  candidate
\nfrom joining the course to which the candidate concerned was
\nactually  selected  for admission in those cases  the  court
\ngave  interim  orders by issuing a direction to reserve\t one
\nseat  to  facilitate  her  admission.  It  was\tan  entirely
\ndifferent fact situation.  So far as<\/p>\n
      the  case\t on  hand  is  concerned.,  the\t authorities
\nconcerned  with\t selection for admission could not be  found
\nfault  with  in\t any  manner.\tIt  was\t due  to  the  wrong
\ninterpretation\tplaced on Hie rules governing admissions  by
\nthe court that they could not get admission for the academic
\nyear  in  question  in\ttime.  We  are\tunable\tto  persuade
\nourselves to accord a similar treatment lo the appellants in
\nthese  appeals,\t as was granted to the appellants  in  those
\ncases relied upon before us.\n<\/p>\n
      We  are not, at this point of time, inclined to accede
\nto  the claim of the appellants for issuing any direction to
\nthe  respondent\t authorities  to  accord  admission  to\t the
\nappellants  to\tthe Post Graduate Degree course in  question
\nfor more than one reason.\n<\/p>\n
      The  dispute  relates to the academic session  of\t the
\nyear  1997  and we are in 2000.\t To utilise the seats  meant
\nfor   the  next\t academic   year,  by  accommodating   those
\ncandidates  of 1997 vintage, would amount to deprivation  of
\nthe  legitimate rights of those who would be in the fray  of
\ncontest\t for selection, on the basis of their inter se merit
\nfor the session of 2000, taking into account the performance
\nof  the candidates of 1997 in that year.  The suggestion  to
\ncreate additional seats, apart from the objections<\/p>\n
      frorn  the  State, cannot also be acceded to  for\t the
\npurpose\t of admitting only the appellants in as much as\t any
\nadditional  seats  even\t if allowed to be created  during  a
\nparticular  year must be filled up only on the basis of\t the
\nstandards   and\t  merit\t performance   of   the\t  candidates
\nparticipating in the contest tor the said year.\t That apart,
\nsome  of  die  appellants appear to have got  admitted\tinto
\nDiploma courses, having not been selected for degree courses
\nand  there is no scope for adjusting the period of study put
\nby  them while pursuing Diploma course, as one spent for  PG
\nDegree\tcourse.\t There is also a positive prohibition tor  a
\ncandidate  pursuing  PG\t Diploma   course  in  a  particular
\ndiscipline  to claim to do PG Degree course in a  di.ffercnt
\ndiscipline.\n<\/p>\n
      The  mess\t that  has occurred leading to\tthe  present
\nlitigation  seem to be more on account of the inept  drawing
\nand  publication of the Prospectus by the University and not
\nproperly  carrying out the binding orders of the  Government
\nand  of\t too  many orders passed from time  to\ttime,  being
\nallowed\t to  stand piecemeal independently.  The  Government
\nwould do well in future lo publish at the beginning of every
\nacademic   year,  even\tbefore\t inviting   applications   a
\ncompendium  of\tthe  entire scheme and basis  for  selection
\ncarrying  out amendments up-to-date anid the Prospectus also
\nspecifically<\/p>\n
      adopting\tthem  as  part of the Prospectus,  to  avoid
\ncontusion in the matter of selections, every year.\n<\/p>\n
      Consequently,  though  the appeals are allowed to\t the
\nextent\tof setting aside the judgment of the High Court\t and
\nsettling the principles which should govern the selection of
\ncandidates for admission to the PG Degree\/Diploma courses in
\nMedicine  in respect of seats reserved for candidates of HCM
\nServices;   the\t appellants cannot be granted any relief  in
\ntheir favour.  In view of the statement made at the stage of
\nSLP  by\t learned counsel on 6.2.1998, the admission  of\t the
\nrespondents, however, is not interfered with.  Having regard
\nto  the role of the University in the matter which only lead
\nto all these confusions, the appellants would be entitled to
\ncosts  in  a  sum  of Rs.  10,000\/-‘- (one  set)  from\tthe
\nUniversity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rajiv Kapoor & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 March, 2000 Author: D Rajil. Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Doraiswamy Raju PETITIONER: RAJIV KAPOOR & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/03\/2000 BENCH: R.C. Lahoti, Doraiswamy Raju JUDGMENT: Doraiswamy Rajil. J. The method and criteria […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-234800","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRajiv Kapoor & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 March, 2000 - 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\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajiv Kapoor & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-20T17:48:09+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajiv Kapoor & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 March, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-20T17:48:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2897,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000\",\"name\":\"Rajiv Kapoor & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-20T17:48:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajiv Kapoor & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 March, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajiv Kapoor & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 March, 2000 - 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\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajiv Kapoor & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-20T17:48:09+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajiv Kapoor & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 March, 2000","datePublished":"2000-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-20T17:48:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000"},"wordCount":2897,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000","name":"Rajiv Kapoor & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-20T17:48:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajiv-kapoor-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-28-march-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajiv Kapoor & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 March, 2000"}]},{"@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\/234800","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=234800"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234800\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234800"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234800"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234800"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}