{"id":241545,"date":"2010-07-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010"},"modified":"2019-01-12T12:46:46","modified_gmt":"2019-01-12T07:16:46","slug":"arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Arjun Singh Kushwaha vs State Of U.P.Through The Secy. &#8230; on 22 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Arjun Singh Kushwaha vs State Of U.P.Through The Secy. &#8230; on 22 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>Court No. - 2\n\nCase :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3381 of 2010\n\nPetitioner :- Arjun Singh Kushwaha\nRespondent :- State Of U.P.Through The Secy. Govt. Of U.P.Lko.And\nOrs.\nPetitioner Counsel :- Alok Mishra\nRespondent Counsel :- C.S.C.\n\nHon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                                       Reserved<br \/>\nHeard learned counsel for parties and perused record.<br \/>\nBy means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ<br \/>\nin the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order<br \/>\ndated 07.05.2010, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ<br \/>\npetition. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ in the<br \/>\nnature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to<br \/>\ngive effect the impugned order dated 07.5.2010 and to<br \/>\nreinstate him with full consequential benefits as well as to<br \/>\nallow him to work on the post of Driver as usual and to pay<br \/>\nhis salary as and when the same falls due.\n<\/p>\n<p>Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the<br \/>\nopposite parties issued an advertisement dated 29.6.2007 for<br \/>\ninviting applications for appointment against 43 vacancies of<br \/>\ndriver. The clause 6 of the advertisement provides that a<br \/>\ncandidate should have driving license to his credit for at least<br \/>\npreceding three years from the date of notification of the<br \/>\nvacancies and he should have also passed Class VIII from the<br \/>\nrecognized institution. The petitioner in pursuance of the<br \/>\nadvertisement applied against the post of driver annexing all<br \/>\nthe relevant documents including the driving license. The<br \/>\n petitioner was called for driving test and at the time of driving<br \/>\ntest his driving license was also examined by the authority<br \/>\nconcerned who conducted the driving test and after passing<br \/>\nthe driving test petitioner was declared successful. The<br \/>\npetitioner was called for interview vide letter dated<br \/>\n28.11.2007 along with the educational certificate and the<br \/>\ndriving license with one extra copy of the same. The<br \/>\npetitioner was issued appointment order on 9.1.2008 under<br \/>\nthe signature of opposite party no. 2 (Vishesh Sachiv Evam<br \/>\nRajya Sampati Adhikari). In para 3 of the Appointment Order<br \/>\nit has been mentioned that if any difference is found in<br \/>\ndocuments or certificates annexed along with the application<br \/>\nform regarding education, age, caste then the appointment<br \/>\nwill be cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing.<br \/>\nThe petitioner in pursuance of the appointment order joined<br \/>\non 16.1.2008 and till date he is working to the entire<br \/>\nsatisfaction of the higher authorities. The petitioner was<br \/>\nshocked to the receive show cause notice on 17.4.2010<br \/>\nrequiring him to submit his reply as to why his services may<br \/>\nnot be terminated on the ground of false declaration regarding<br \/>\nhis fulfilling of his requisite qualification. The petitioner<br \/>\nsubmitted his reply on 26.4.2010 and in para 27 of the same it<br \/>\nhas been specifically mentioned by the petitioner that he has<br \/>\nnot committed any fraud or misappropriation. It was also<br \/>\nsubmitted by the petitioner that all the original records<br \/>\nincluding the driving license were checked at the time of<br \/>\ndriving test and again at the time of interview. But, without<br \/>\nappreciating reply of the petitioner in correct prospective, the<br \/>\n impugned order has been passed terminating the services of<br \/>\nthe petitioner on the basic ground that at the time of<br \/>\nadvertisement dated 29.6.2007 the driving license of the<br \/>\npetitioner was not of three years&#8217; standing. It was essential<br \/>\nthat the driving license of the candidate should have three<br \/>\nyears old. The petitioner did not fulfil the essential eligibility<br \/>\nand as such appointment of the petitioner was void ab initio<br \/>\nand accordingly services of the petitioner were terminated<br \/>\nwith immediate effect.\n<\/p>\n<p>Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the<br \/>\nadvertisement did not prescribe any fix period of experience<br \/>\nof driving.\n<\/p>\n<p>The candidate was only required to have driving license to his<br \/>\ncredit for at least three years standing from the date of<br \/>\nadvertisement. In other words, it can be said that the<br \/>\ncandidate ought to have possessed three years&#8217; old driving<br \/>\nlicense. The petitioner was issued the driving license on 4th<br \/>\nMarch, 2005 and admittedly Driving License of the petitioner<br \/>\nwas not of three years preceding from the date of<br \/>\nadvertisement of the vacancies but in due course of time, the<br \/>\ndriving license of the petitioner has become about five years&#8217;<br \/>\nstanding.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a<br \/>\ndecision of Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court reported in (1979) 1 SCC<br \/>\n168, Ram Sarup V. State of Haryana and Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>Para 3 of the same reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The question then arises as to what was the effect of breach<br \/>\n of clause (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules. Did it have the effect of<br \/>\nrendering the appointment wholly void so as to be completely<br \/>\nineffective or merely irregular, so that it could be regularized<br \/>\nas and when the appellant acquired the necessary<br \/>\nqualifications to hold the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation<br \/>\nOfficer. We are of the view that the appointment of the<br \/>\nappellant was irregular since he did not possess one of the<br \/>\nthree requisite qualifications but as soon as he acquired the<br \/>\nnecessary qualification of five years&#8217; experience of the<br \/>\nworking of Labour Laws in any one of the three capacities<br \/>\nmentioned in clause (1) of Rule 4 or in any higher capacity,<br \/>\nhis appointment must be regarded as having been<br \/>\nregularized.   The    appellant   worked     as   Labour-cum-<br \/>\nConciliation Officer from January 1, 1968 and that being a<br \/>\npost higher than that of Labour Inspector, or Deputy Chief<br \/>\nInspector of Shops or Wage Inspector, the experience gained<br \/>\nby him in the working of Labour Laws in the post of Labour-<br \/>\ncum-Conciliation Officer must be regarded as sufficient to<br \/>\nconstitute fulfillment of the requirement of five years&#8217;<br \/>\nexperience of Rule 4. The appointment of the appellant to the<br \/>\npost of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, therefore, became<br \/>\nregular from the date when he completed five years after<br \/>\ntaking into account the period of about ten months during<br \/>\nwhich he worked as Chief Inspector of Shops. Once his<br \/>\nappointment became regular on the expiry of this period of<br \/>\nfive years on his fulfilling the requirements for appointment<br \/>\nas Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer and becoming eligible<br \/>\nfor that purpose, he could not thereafter be reverted to the<br \/>\n post of Statistical Officer. The order of reversion passed<br \/>\nagainst the appellant, was, therefore, clearly illegal and it<br \/>\nmust be set aside.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>On the strength of the aforesaid observations of the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nSupreme Court it has been submitted by learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner that petitioner&#8217;s appointment cannot be said to<br \/>\nbe void on account of the fact that he was not having driving<br \/>\nlicense of three years prior to the date of advertisement and<br \/>\nthe same at the most can be said to be irregular and with<br \/>\npassage of time that irregularity get cured as now petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\ndriving license has become approximate five years old. It is<br \/>\nalso submitted that appointment of one Pramod Kumar Tharu<br \/>\nwho was also appointed as a Driver like petitioner in Rajya<br \/>\nSamnpatti Vibhag, was challenged by Jagjivan Ram, Kadir<br \/>\nBux and Ishrat Ali, the class IV employees of the Department<br \/>\nby way of filing a writ petition no. 1699 (SS) of 2008 before<br \/>\nthis Court on the ground that he (Pramod Kumar Tharu) was<br \/>\nnot   having    the   requisite   qualification   as   per   the<br \/>\nadvertisement. In the said writ petition, an interim order was<br \/>\npassed on 31.3.2008, directing the opposite parties to file<br \/>\nreply to the averments made in paras 2, 3 and 27 and it was<br \/>\nprovided that the continuance of the opposite parties no. 4 to<br \/>\n9 (Pramod Kumar Tharu was arrayed as opposite party no. 9<br \/>\ntherein) shall abide by the final order passed by the Court.<br \/>\nThe said writ petition is still pending. It is further submitted<br \/>\nby learned counsel for the petitioner that it appears that in the<br \/>\nsaid writ petition personal affidavit of Rajya Sampatti<br \/>\n Adhikari was called for and in order to save his skin a show<br \/>\ncause notice was issued to the petitioner and other similarly<br \/>\nsituated persons and after receipt of their respective replies by<br \/>\nmeans of impugned order petitioner&#8217;s services were<br \/>\nterminated on the ground that the driving license of the<br \/>\npetitioner was not of three years&#8217; standing at the time of<br \/>\nadvertisement.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned Counsel for opposite parties, while opposing the writ<br \/>\npetition, submitted that the petitioner was not having the<br \/>\nprescribed qualification and, as such, his selection was illegal<br \/>\nand therefore before taking any action a show cause notice<br \/>\nwas issued in order to provide opportunity and after<br \/>\nconsidering the reply of the petitioner the impugned order<br \/>\nwas passed. As such there is no illegality in the impugned<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe respective parties and gone through the recall.<br \/>\nIt is admitted position that the petitioner possess education<br \/>\nqualification and he has also possess the driving license but<br \/>\nthe same was not three years old on the date of notification of<br \/>\nthe vacancies. The petitioner is working on the post of driver<br \/>\nsince January, 2008 and now petitioner&#8217;s driving license is<br \/>\nabout 5 years standing. In writ petition no. 1699 (SS) of 2008,<br \/>\nJagjeewan Ram and others V. State of U. P. and others the<br \/>\nappointment of Pramod Kumar Tharu has been challenged<br \/>\nand this Court by means of order dated 31.3.2008 provided<br \/>\nthat the appointment of the Pramod Kumar Tharu (respondent<br \/>\nno. 9) shall abide the final orders passed by this Court in the<br \/>\n said writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the above, I am of the considered view that since<br \/>\nthe petitioner was working as Driver with the opposite parties<br \/>\nw.e.f. January, 2008 without any complaint and presently his<br \/>\ndriving license is about five years&#8217; standing and at the time of<br \/>\ndriving test and joining, the opposite parties themselves<br \/>\nchecked the documents including the driving license and<br \/>\nallowed the petitioner to join on the post of Driver, hence, it<br \/>\ncannot be said that petitioner has concealed any fact or record<br \/>\nfrom the opposite parties. As such, a case for interim relief is<br \/>\nmade out.\n<\/p>\n<p>Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder<br \/>\nAffidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. List<br \/>\nalongwith Writ Petition No. 1699 (SS) of 2008, Jagjeewan<br \/>\nRam &amp; others vs. State of U. P. &amp; others in the month of<br \/>\nSeptember, 2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the meantime, the impugned order dated 07.05.2010,<br \/>\ncontained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition will be kept<br \/>\nin abeyance and petitioner will be allowed to perform his<br \/>\nduties on the post of Driver.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order Date :- 22.7.2010<br \/>\nashok\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Arjun Singh Kushwaha vs State Of U.P.Through The Secy. &#8230; on 22 July, 2010 Court No. &#8211; 2 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. &#8211; 3381 of 2010 Petitioner :- Arjun Singh Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through The Secy. Govt. Of U.P.Lko.And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Alok Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. [&hellip;]<\/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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-241545","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Arjun Singh Kushwaha vs State Of U.P.Through The Secy. ... on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arjun Singh Kushwaha vs State Of U.P.Through The Secy. ... on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-12T07:16:46+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arjun Singh Kushwaha vs State Of U.P.Through The Secy. &#8230; on 22 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-12T07:16:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1688,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Arjun Singh Kushwaha vs State Of U.P.Through The Secy. ... on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-12T07:16:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arjun Singh Kushwaha vs State Of U.P.Through The Secy. &#8230; on 22 July, 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":"Arjun Singh Kushwaha vs State Of U.P.Through The Secy. ... on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arjun Singh Kushwaha vs State Of U.P.Through The Secy. ... on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-12T07:16:46+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arjun Singh Kushwaha vs State Of U.P.Through The Secy. &#8230; on 22 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-12T07:16:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010"},"wordCount":1688,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010","name":"Arjun Singh Kushwaha vs State Of U.P.Through The Secy. ... on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-12T07:16:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-kushwaha-vs-state-of-u-p-through-the-secy-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arjun Singh Kushwaha vs State Of U.P.Through The Secy. &#8230; on 22 July, 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\/241545","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=241545"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241545\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241545"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=241545"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=241545"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}