{"id":24008,"date":"2010-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-13T18:20:19","modified_gmt":"2018-09-13T12:50:19","slug":"rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs High Court Of J&K And Ors on 22 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court<\/div>\n
Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs High Court Of J&K And Ors on 22 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \nSWP No. 1751 OF 2008    \nRajesh Kumar and ors  \nPetitioners\nHigh Court of J&K and ors\nRespondent  \n!Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Veenu Gupta, Advocate.\n^Mr. A.Kapoor, Advocate for R-1&2. Ms. S.Kour, Advocate for R- 3 to 13.\n\nMr. Justice J. P. Singh, Judge.\nDate: 22.04.2010 \n:J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n
1) Governed by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Staff
\n(Conditions of Service) Rules,1968, the petitioners and
\nrespondent Nos. 3 to 13 are the members of the Jammu
\nand Kashmir High Court Staff Service. They were serving in
\nthe same class and category as Senior Assistants when the
\nHigh Court of Jammu and Kashmir ordered adjustment of
\nrespondent Nos. 3 to 13 as Head Assistant in their own pay
\nand grade, until further orders, entitling them to Charge
\nAllowance for working against the promotional post, vide
\norder No.667 of 24.11.2008.\n<\/p>\n
2) In terms of the High Court order, respondent Nos. 3 to 13
\nwere entitled to consideration for regularization\/
\n2<\/span>
\nappointment to the higher post only if they attained requisite
\nqualification and experience prescribed for the post.\n<\/p>\n
3) Aggrieved by the adjustment of respondent Nos.3 to 13, the
\npetitioners have filed this Writ Petition seeking quashing of
\nthe High Court order No.667 dated 24.11.2008 in so far as it
\ndirects adjustment of respondent Nos. 3 to 13 against the
\npost of Head Assistant, hereinafter to be referred as the
\n“impugned order”, for short, besides for a command to the
\nrespondents to consider and promote them as Head
\nAssistants.\n<\/p>\n
4) The case set up by the petitioners in their Writ Petition, in a
\nnut shell, is that respondent Nos.3 to 13 did not possess
\nDegree of Graduation, the academic qualification,
\nprescribed as such for the post of Head Assistant vide High
\nCourt Order No.579 dated 24.10.2008 issued under Rule 6
\nof the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of
\nService) Rules 1968 and in supersession of all previous
\norders in this behalf, prescribing Mode of recruitment\/
\npromotion to various posts in the High Court, and were thus
\ndisentitled to adjustment against the post of Head Assistant
\nwhich was per se bad because consideration under law,
\nwas available to those alone who were otherwise eligible for
\npromotion under the Rules and the order of the High Court
\nissued under Rule 6 of the High Court Rules.\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
5) Adjustment of the respondents by the High Court has been
\nassailed as wholly unwarranted besides being unjustified, in
\nthat, it had been ordered ignoring the right of consideration
\nof the available eligible Senior Assistants like the petitioners
\nand in violation of the order of the High Court prescribing
\nMode of recruitment, inter alia, for the post of Head
\nAssistant.\n<\/p>\n
6) The High Court Administration responds to the petitioners’
\nWrit Petition questioning its maintainability besides saying
\nthat adjustment of respondent Nos. 3 to 13, who were senior
\nto the petitioners, was only a stop gap arrangement for
\nrunning the affairs of the Registry of the High Court and that
\nit had to continue until such time eligible and suitable
\ncandidates were available to fill up the posts, which
\naccording to it, would not affect any of the petitioners’
\nenforceable right.\n<\/p>\n
The adjustments are stated to have been made by
\nHon’ble The Acting Chief Justice, on the recommendations
\nof the Hon’ble Judges’ Committee.\n<\/p>\n
7) Respondent Nos. 3 to 13 justify their adjustment saying that
\nLord Acting Chief Justice possessed the Authority to relax
\nthe conditions of service, And that the order impugned in the
\nWrit Petition, being in relaxation of the Rules, was not open
\nto question by the petitioners. They justify their adjustment
\nadditionally relying on Circular No.13 of 1980 which allowed
\n4<\/span>
\n25% quota for promotion to matriculate employees of the
\nHigh Court staff.\n<\/p>\n
8) I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for
\nthe parties and perused the records made available by the
\nlearned counsel appearing for the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
9) To consider the issues projected by learned counsel for the
\nparties at the Bar, for determination, following questions
\nneed to be addressed.\n<\/p>\n
i) Whether adjustment of respondent Nos.3 to 13
\nagainst the post of Head Assistant affects any
\nenforceable right of the petitioners entitling them
\nto seek Judicial Review thereof?\n<\/p>\n
ii) In case question No.1 was answered in the
\naffirmative, whether the High Court order No.667
\ndated 24.11.2008, in so far as it pertains to the
\nadjustment of respondent Nos. 3 to 13, was
\njustified and sustainable ?\n<\/p>\n
iii) Whether Lord Acting Chief Justice, possessed
\nthe power to relax the Rules, and if so, whether
\nthe impugned order had been issued in
\nrelaxation of the Rules ?\n<\/p>\n
10) Before addressing the questions aforementioned, reference
\nneeds to be made to some of the provisions of the Jammu
\nand Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules
\n1968, hereinafter to be referred as “the High Court Rules”,
\n5<\/span>
\nfor short, the order passed by Lord Chief Justice, in terms of
\nthe Rule 6 of the High Court Rules, the recommendations
\nmade by the Hon’ble Judges’ Committee, and the approval
\naccorded by Lord Acting Chief Justice thereon.\n<\/p>\n
11) All appointments to the Staff of the High Court including
\npromotions, are made by the Chief Justice of the High Court
\nunless, the power of appointment, other than those of
\nGazetted Officers, was delegated to the Registrar or to any
\nJudge of the High Court in terms of Rule 4 of the High Court
\nRules.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 6 of the High Court Rules, empowers the Chief
\nJustice to lay down the qualifications of the members of
\nservice and determine the Mode of recruitment to the posts
\nborne on the cadre of the service.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court Rules do not contemplate relaxation of
\nthe Rules as such. The decision of Lord Chief Justice, in
\ncase of any doubt regarding the interpretation of Rules is,
\nhowever, indicated to be final by the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
12) The background facts leading to the issuance of High Court
\norders prescribing Mode of Recruitment and Qualification for
\nthe members of the service may now be noticed.
\nActing under Rule 6 of the High Court Rules, the then
\nLord Chief Justice prescribed qualifications and Mode of
\nappointment\/ promotion to the posts on the cadre of the
\nservice vide order No.508 dated 15.10.2008.\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
These Rules were, however, later superseded by the
\nActing Chief Justice when his Lordship, in exercise of the
\npowers under Rule 6 of the High Court Rules and in
\nsupersession of all previous orders on the subject,
\nprescribed fresh qualifications\/Mode of appointment to the
\nposts on the cadre of the service vide order No.579 dated
\n24.10.2008.\n<\/p>\n
13) The Mode of appointment\/ minimum qualification prescribed
\nfor the post of Head Assistant, in terms of order No.579
\ndated 24.10.2008 is indicated as follows:-
\nName of the Post: Head Assistant
\nMode of Appointment: By promotion from amongst Senior
\nAssistants on the basis of seniority cum
\nmerit.\n<\/p>\n
Minimum qualification: Graduation from a recognized
\nRequired University.\n<\/p>\n
Minimum experience, if any,: Two years
\nrequired
\nExisting pay scale : 5000-8000\n<\/p>\n
14) Note Nos. 1 and 2 appearing in the concluding portion of
\norder No.579 dated 24.10.2008 read thus:-
\n“1) If the candidate(s) is\/are not available from the
\nrelevant feeding cadre, then the selection\/appointment shall be
\nmade from amongst the candidate(s) from other equivalent
\ncadre(s).\n<\/p>\n
(2) Since the requirement of graduation for entry into
\nthe High Court service was prescribed vide Notification dated 25-4-
\n1987, at that time officials having qualification less than graduation
\nentered the service. Such official having during this period gained
\nsufficient experience in the working of the administration, the Chief
\nJustice may on his own or on the recommendations of committee, if
\nso constituted, relax the qualification in cases of officers\/officials
\nwho have made their entry into the service on or before the 25th of
\nApril, 1987. Further the minimum period of experience can also be
\nrelaxed in exceptional and appropriate cases. The officials can get
\nonly one relaxation at the time.”\n<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
15) Few more facts, discerned from the official records leading
\nto the issuance of the order impugned in the Writ Petition
\nmay be necessary. These are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
Qualification and Mode of recruitment prescribed for
\nappointment and promotion to the posts in the High Court by
\nLord Acting Chief Justice vide order No.579 dated
\n28.10.2008 in supersession of order No.508 dated
\n15.10.2008, does not appear to have resulted in filling up of
\nthe available vacancies in the High Court.
\nThe Registrar General of the Court, therefore, mooted
\nproposal suggesting further relaxation in the Mode of
\nrecruitment and promotions against the available vacancies
\nin the High Court Staff Service.\n<\/p>\n
Lord Acting Chief Justice directed the matter to be
\nplaced before the already constituted Judges’ Committee,
\nfor examination\/ recommendation and approval.
\nThe Committee, accordingly, considered the Registrar
\nGeneral’s Report\/Note and made various recommendations
\nsuggesting promotions\/adjustments to various posts in the
\nHigh Court. The recommendations made by the Committee
\nat paragraph No. 33, which may be relevant for the purpose
\nof this Writ Petition, are reproduced hereunder for
\nreference:-\n<\/p>\n
“33. Sanjeev Kumar, Abdul Rashid, Shakeel Ahmad, Bhawani
\nPrasad, Molvi Mehboob, Tahira Parveen, Ranjeet Singh,
\nRavi Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Gh. Rasool and Daljit Singh
\n8<\/span>
\nare adjusted as Head Assistants in their own pay and
\ngrade till further orders.”\n<\/p>\n
16) Perusal of the recommendations of the Judges’
\nCommittee indicates that it had made No
\nsuggestion\/recommendation for affecting changes in
\nthe Mode of Recruitment for appointment and promotion
\nto the posts available in the High Court, as proposed by
\nthe Registrar General.\n<\/p>\n
17) The recommendations of the Committee, suggesting
\namongst others the adjustment of the respondents were
\napproved by Lord Acting Chief Justice on November 21,
\n2008.\n<\/p>\n
18) Before entering into discussion on the issues which arise for
\nconsideration in the Writ Petition, it needs to be noticed that
\nthe Registrar General’s note, which had been put to the
\nJudges’ Committee, pursuant to the orders of the Acting
\nChief Justice, neither refers to nor suggests filling up of
\nthe posts of Head Assistant or for that matter change in
\nthe Mode of recruitment therefor appearing in High
\nCourt Order No.579 of 24.10.2008.\n<\/p>\n
DISCUSSION:\n<\/p>\n
19) Perusal of the facts culled from the records of the High Court
\nindicates that the recommendations made by the Registrar
\nGeneral in his note of October 28, 2008, suggesting
\nreconsideration of the Mode of recruitment and appointment
\n9<\/span>
\nto various posts in the High Court, does not appear to have
\nbeen deliberated upon by the Committee which, without
\nsuggesting any changes in the already prescribed Mode of
\nrecruitment for appointment and promotions, recommended
\npromotion\/adjustment of the Head Assistants besides other
\nmembers of the service.\n<\/p>\n
20) The mode of promotion to the post of Head Assistant, in
\nterms of Order No.579 aforesaid, permits consideration for
\npromotion, to only those Senior Assistants, who possessed
\nacademic qualification of Graduation and had two years
\nexperience as Senior Assistant. Respondent Nos. 3 to 13,
\nas admitted by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar,
\ndid not possess the prescribed qualification of Graduation.\n<\/p>\n
21) Consideration for adjustment of those who were otherwise
\nineligible for promotion against the promotional post is not
\ncountenanced by the Service jurisprudence. Adjustment of
\nthe respondents who were admittedly ineligible for promotion
\nfor their not possessing requisite qualification was not thus
\nwarranted particularly when eligible Senior Assistants
\npossessing requisite prescribed qualification and experience
\nwere available with the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
22) The recommendations made by the Judges’ Committee
\nsuggesting adjustment of respondent No.3 to 13 as Head
\nAssistants, were thus not in consonance with Order No.579
\ndated 24.10.2008, which permitted promotion to the post of
\n10<\/span>
\nHead Assistant of only those Senior Assistants who were
\ngraduates with two years’ experience.\n<\/p>\n
23) The records further reveal that the only material which the
\nHon’ble Judges’ Committee had considered while making
\nrecommendations for promotion, was the Registrar
\nGeneral’s note and nothing beyond that. The Registrar
\nGeneral’s note, however, does not contain even a whisper
\nabout the promotion\/adjustment of the Head Assistants.\n<\/p>\n
24) Approval accorded by Lord Acting Chief Justice to the
\nrecommendations of the Hon’ble Judges’ Committee for
\nadjustment of respondent Nos. 3 to 13 as Head Assistants
\ncannot, thus, be justified, on any count whatsoever, in that,
\nthe approval was in clear violation of Order No.579 dated
\n24.10.2008 issued by his Lordship, in terms whereof only
\nthose Senior Assistants could be considered for promotion
\nas Head Assistants, who were graduates and had two years
\nexperience as Senior Assistant.\n<\/p>\n
25) In terms of the Mode of recruitment for appointment and
\npromotions prescribed by Lord Acting Chief Justice, the
\npower to relax the prescribed qualification under Order 579
\ndated 24.10.2008 was restricted only in case of those
\nofficers\/officials, who had made their entry into the High
\nCourt service on or before April 25, 1987.\n<\/p>\n
26) Respondent Nos. 3 to 13, as conceded by the learned
\ncounsel appearing for the High Court, had entered the High
\n11<\/span>
\nCourt service after April 25, 1987, the date prescribed in
\nOrder No.579.\n<\/p>\n
27) To examine the issues projected at the Bar by the
\nrespondents’ learned counsel that Lord Acting Chief Justice
\nhad the power to relax the Rules, the Rules were examined
\nin the light of the Mode of recruitment for appointment and
\npromotions prescribed vide Order No.579 dated 24.10.2008.
\nNo provision was, however, found either in the Rules or in
\nthe Mode of recruitment for appointment and promotions
\nprescribed by Lord Acting Chief Justice, which may be
\nconstrued vesting powers in the Lord Chief Justice to make
\nappointments\/ promotions in relaxation of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
28) Note 2 forming part of Order No.579 too, was found vesting
\nonly a limited discretion in the Lord Chief Justice to consider
\nrelaxation of qualification in case of only those
\nofficers\/officials, who had made their entry in the High Court
\nservice on or before April 25, 1987.\n<\/p>\n
29) Respondent Nos. 3 to 13 having entered service much after
\nthe date appearing in note 2 referred to hereinabove, were
\nthus not entitled to any relaxation in the qualification
\nprescribed vide Order No.579 dated 24.10.2008.\n<\/p>\n
30) Respondent Nos. 3 to 13’s counsel’s next submission that
\nthe adjustment of respondent Nos. 3 to 13 were justified in
\nview of the quota of promotions reserved vide Circular No.13
\nof 1980 needs to be noticed only for rejection, in that, the
\n12<\/span>
\nCircular has no application to the post of Head Assistant and
\nthat apart Order No.579 dated 24.10.2008, does not
\nprescribe any such type of quota for in-service ineligible
\nSenior Assistants for promotion to the post of Head
\nAssistant, as was projected by the learned counsel to justify
\nthe adjustment of respondent Nos.3 to 13, despite their
\nineligibility.\n<\/p>\n
31) The High Court Administration’s learned counsel’s plea that
\nthe adjustment of the private respondents was a stop gap
\narrangement for running the affairs of the Registry too, is
\nfound to be without merit, in that, no material has been
\nplaced on records to support the plea. On the contrary, the
\nRegistrar General’s silence to suggest promotion\/
\nadjustment against the post of Head Assistants, goes a long
\nway in suggesting that the adjustment of respondents had
\nnot been made by way of stop gap arrangement for running
\nthe affairs of the Registry because had there been any such
\nnecessity, the Registrar General’s note should have referred
\nto it.\n<\/p>\n
32) The Judges’ Committee appears to have suggested the
\nadjustment of respondent Nos. 3 to 13 as Head Assistants,
\nmerely on the basis of their seniority.\n<\/p>\n
33) The petitioners possessed requisite qualification of
\nGraduation as also the experience needed for promotion to
\n13<\/span>
\nthe post of Head Assistant; they were, thus, entitled to
\nconsideration for promotion\/adjustment.\n<\/p>\n
34) Omission of the Judges’ Committee to accord consideration
\nto the petitioners, despite their eligibility and experience,
\nonly on the ground that they were junior to the private
\nrespondents is unwarranted, in that, such a course was not
\npermissible under law and was even otherwise in violation of
\nthe High Court Rules and High Court Order No.579 dated
\n24.10.2008.\n<\/p>\n
35) The question that arises for consideration is; whether the
\napproval accorded by Lord Acting Chief Justice to the
\nrecommendations of the Judges’ Committee for adjustment
\nof the respondents, refusing consideration to the eligible
\nSenior Assistants like the petitioners, was justified and
\nwarranted under law ?\n<\/p>\n
36) The answer to the question cannot but, be emphatic ‘No’, in
\nthat, while directing adjustment of the Head Assistants, the
\nMode of recruitment for appointment and promotion
\nprescribed therefor, in exercise of powers vested in Lord
\nChief Justice under Rule 6 of the High Court Rules was
\nrequired to be adhered to, And in this view of the matter,
\nviolation of, the Rules framed under Section 108 of the
\nConstitution of Jammu and Kashmir which were required to
\nbe followed in letter and spirit, cannot be justified.\n<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
37) Seniority is no doubt relevant for considering promotion to
\nthe post of Head Assistant but its relevance was subject to
\nthe candidate’s eligibility for consideration therefor, meaning
\nthereby that ineligible Senior Assistants cannot claim
\nconsideration for promotion only on the basis of their
\nseniority.\n<\/p>\n
38) The approval accorded by Lord Acting Chief Justice for
\nadjustment of the respondents, without commenting on the
\nRegistrar General’s note as to whether or not the existing
\nprescribed qualifications warranted any change, and taking
\nany decision thereon, as to whether the Mode of recruitment
\nand promotion prescribed by Lordship vide Order No.579
\nwarranted any further change\/modification, is found
\nunjustified and illegal, in that, the adjustment of the
\nrespondents ordered vide the impugned High Court order
\nviolates not only the petitioners’ right of consideration to
\npromotion\/adjustment for the post of Head Assistant,
\nguaranteed to them under Article 16 of the Constitution of
\nIndia, but also the Rules governing the service conditions of
\nthe members of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Service
\nread with the High Court Order No.579 which do not permit
\nmanning of the posts in the cadre of the Service by ineligible
\ncandidates.\n<\/p>\n
39) The facts and circumstances of the case, in which the
\nadjustment of respondent Nos. 3 to 13, has been ordered
\n15<\/span>
\nand that too in violation of the Rules governing the service
\njustifies Judicial Review thereof, particularly when note No.2
\nappended to the order impugned, hints at the respondents’
\nregularization\/appointment on the higher posts on their
\nattaining qualification and experience prescribed therefor.\n<\/p>\n
40) Respondents’ learned counsel’s plea that the adjustment of
\nrespondent Nos. 3 to 13 does not violate any enforceable
\nright of the petitioners is found untenable, in that, for making
\nadjustments against higher posts, allowing the incumbents
\nto draw the Charge Allowance, eligibility prescribed therefor,
\ncannot, in my view, be sacrificed to adjust ineligible persons
\nagainst the promotional post, when eligibles therefor were
\navailable for such adjustment, temporary or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
41) Petitioners’ right to consideration for promotion and
\nadjustment having been thereby adversely affected, would
\nnot thus disentitle them to invoke the Extraordinary Writ
\nJurisdiction of the Court, notwithstanding any prior
\nRepresentation against the adjustment, as projected by the
\nHigh Court’s learned counsel, in that, the Rules do not
\ncontemplate any Appeal\/Representation against the orders
\nof promotion\/adjustment.\n<\/p>\n
42) For all what has been said above, question No.1 is
\nanswered by holding that adjustment of respondent Nos. 3
\nto 13 against the post of Head Assistants affects the
\n16<\/span>
\npetitioners’ right to consideration entitling them to invoke the
\nExtra Ordinary Writ Jurisdiction of the Court.
\nSo far as question No.2 is concerned, the High Court
\nOrder No.667 dated 24.11.2008 in so far as it pertains to the
\nadjustment of respondent Nos. 3 to 13 is found unjustified
\nand against the Rules, hence unsustainable.
\nConcluding finding on question No.3, it is held that the
\nHigh Court Rules do not as such vest absolute power in the
\nLord Chief Justice to relax the Rules and the power of
\nrelaxation, in terms of High Court Order No.579 dated
\n24.10.2008, is exerciseable in case of only those officers\/
\nofficials who had entered the service before April 25, 1987.
\nLord Acting Chief Justice had not, thus, relaxed the
\nRules in approving the respondents’ adjustments ordered
\nvide the order impugned in the Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
43) The upshot of the above discussion and the findings is that
\nthe Writ Petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed
\nquashing the High Court Order No.667 of 24.11.2008 in so
\nfar as it orders adjustment of respondent Nos. 3 to 13 as
\nHead Assistants.\n<\/p>\n
Records be returned to the learned counsel for the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
(J. P. Singh)
\nJudge
\nJAMMU:\n<\/p>\n
22.04.2010
\nVinod.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs High Court Of J&K And Ors on 22 April, 2010 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. SWP No. 1751 OF 2008 Rajesh Kumar and ors Petitioners High Court of J&K and ors Respondent !Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Veenu Gupta, Advocate. ^Mr. A.Kapoor, […]<\/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":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajesh Kumar And Ors vs High Court Of J&K And Ors on 22 April, 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\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs High Court Of J&K And Ors on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-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=\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-13T12:50:19+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs High Court Of J&K And Ors on 22 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T12:50:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3260,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs High Court Of J&K And Ors on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T12:50:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs High Court Of J&K And Ors on 22 April, 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":"Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs High Court Of J&K And Ors on 22 April, 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\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs High Court Of J&K And Ors on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-13T12:50:19+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs High Court Of J&K And Ors on 22 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T12:50:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010"},"wordCount":3260,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010","name":"Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs High Court Of J&K And Ors on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T12:50:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-and-ors-vs-high-court-of-jk-and-ors-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs High Court Of J&K And Ors on 22 April, 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\/24008","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=24008"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24008\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}