{"id":250002,"date":"2010-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-01-18T21:56:03","modified_gmt":"2018-01-18T16:26:03","slug":"r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"R.P.S.C.,Ajmer vs Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr on 23 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Rajasthan High Court &#8211; Jodhpur<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R.P.S.C.,Ajmer vs Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr on 23 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">                               1\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                          JODHPUR.\n                              :::\n                          JUDGMENT\n                              :::\n    D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.89\/2005\n\n         Rajasthan Public Service Commission.\n                         vs.\n            Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr.\n\nDate : 23rd July, 2010\n\n\n        HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI PRAKASH TATIA\n    HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI\n\nMr.Tarun Joshi, for the appellant.\nMr.MS Singhvi          ) for the respondents.\nMr.GR Punia, AAG       )\n                         - - - - -\n\nBY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE TATIA, J.) :<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">    Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">    This special appeal is against the judgment<br \/>\ndated 27.2.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge<br \/>\nin SBCWP No.4275\/1997 whereby the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge allowed the writ petition and quashed the<br \/>\norder Annex.6 and directed the appellant RPSC to<br \/>\nmodify   the    select    list      in   the   light   of   the<br \/>\nobservations    made     in   the    judgment    and   provide<br \/>\nappointment to the writ petitioner on the post of<br \/>\nAssistant Professor if he is otherwise eligible<br \/>\nfor the same.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">       The learned Single Judge principally was of<br \/>\nthe view that the RPSC itself in earlier round of<br \/>\nlitigation          admitted          the      fact        that    the     writ<br \/>\npetitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste and his<br \/>\nresult      was     kept    in     the       sealed       cover    and     after<br \/>\nopening the sealed cover, it was found that his<br \/>\nname    is     in    the        merit        list    of    the     candidates<br \/>\nbelonging to the Scheduled Caste for appointment<br \/>\non    the    post    of     Lecturer\/Assistant                  Professor     in<br \/>\nOrthopedics.         The        learned         Single         Judge     issued<br \/>\nspecific directions to RPSC that it should declare<br \/>\nthe result of the writ petitioner and include his<br \/>\nname    in    the    select           list    as     per    the    merit     and<br \/>\nforward       the    same        to     the     State      Government        for<br \/>\nmaking       appointment         in     accordance          with    law.    The<br \/>\nsaid     decision          of     this        Court       in     petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nearlier writ petition no.3101\/1995 dated 30.1.1996<br \/>\nwas challenged before the Division Bench of this<br \/>\nCourt in DB Civil Special Appeal No.253\/1996 which<br \/>\nwas    dismissed       vide           order     dated          17.5.1996    and<br \/>\nthereafter, the decisions were challenged before<br \/>\nthe    Hon&#8217;ble       Supreme          Court     in    Special       Leave    to<br \/>\nAppeal      (Civil)        No.12599\/96,             the    Hon&#8217;ble     Supreme<br \/>\nCourt held as under :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>            &#8220;Having regard to the fact that the<br \/>\n       respondents have already been considered<br \/>\n       and selected for appointment on the post<br \/>\n       of Assistant Professor in respective<br \/>\n       specialities and they have also been<br \/>\n       appointed, we do not consider it a fit<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      case to go into the question that has<br \/>\n      been raised by the petitioner in these<br \/>\n      special leave petitions. We, however,<br \/>\n      clarify that the direction contained in<br \/>\n      order dated June 5, 1995 in Civil Appeals<br \/>\n      arising out of special leave petitions<br \/>\n      Nos.12740-41\/95 were given in the facts<br \/>\n      and circumstances of those cases only and<br \/>\n      the said directions cannot be treated as<br \/>\n      laying down the law regarding selection<br \/>\n      for appointment by the Rajasthan Public<br \/>\n      Service Commission which has to be made<br \/>\n      in accordance with the relevant rules.<br \/>\n      The special leave petitions are disposed<br \/>\n      of accordingly.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_3\">      In view of the above decision, RPSC cannot<br \/>\ndispute      the    factual     position             and     cannot       deny<br \/>\nappointment to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">      The    learned        Single       Judge        also       held     that<br \/>\nDr.Ratan Lal Dayama, a SC candidate, was eligible<br \/>\nfor appointment in general category and inclusion<br \/>\nof    his   name    in   general         category          candidate       was<br \/>\nwrong and, therefore, also, there is one vacancy<br \/>\nwhich was available for the petitioner. On these<br \/>\ngrounds,     the     writ    petition          was    allowed.          Hence,<br \/>\nthis special appeal by RPSC.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">      During       the   pendency         of     this       appeal,       some<br \/>\norders      were    passed    and        in    pursuance           of    those<br \/>\norders,     affidavits       were        filed       by    the     RPSC    and<br \/>\nState and counter was filed by the writ petitioner<br \/>\nand    supplementary         affidavit          was        filed    by     the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>State. However, the State has not challenged the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment whereby directions were issued<br \/>\nto    the    RPSC     to    forward       the    name    of    the     writ<br \/>\npetitioner      to     the    State       Government         for     making<br \/>\nappointment to the post.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">      Learned        counsel       Mr.Tarun       Joshi        for    RPSC<br \/>\nvehemently submitted that in the year 1996, when<br \/>\nSBCWP       No.3101\/1995       was       decided,       in    total     the<br \/>\nresult of 3 SC candidates was kept in sealed cover<br \/>\nand, therefore, the RPSC stated before the High<br \/>\nCourt admitting the inclusion of the name of the<br \/>\nwrit petitioner in the merit list on the basis of<br \/>\nfacts       which     were     available          with        RPSC     and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the RPSC has not committed any mistake<br \/>\nas admission was made in ignorance of the fact<br \/>\nthat the other candidates whose names have been<br \/>\nkept in sealed cover, will stand where. It is also<br \/>\nsubmitted        that        the         last     candidate           given<br \/>\nappointment in general category secured 55 marks<br \/>\nwhereas the writ petitioner secured only 51 marks.<br \/>\nIt is also submitted that Ratan Lal Dayama was not<br \/>\nhaving marks more than any of the candidate who<br \/>\nhas     been    put    in    merit        list    of     the       selected<br \/>\ncandidates and, therefore, he was not eligible to<br \/>\nget      appointment         in      general        category           and,<br \/>\ntherefore,       there       was     no     vacancy      in     reserved<br \/>\ncategory wherein only the petitioner could have<br \/>\nbeen given appointment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">      Learned counsel for the RPSC further submitted<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>that    not   only       that    the       writ    petitioner       in    the<br \/>\nabove circumstances could not have got appointment<br \/>\nbut one Arun Kumar, who was kept in the reserve<br \/>\nlist,    secured         more    marks      than    Ratan     Lal    Dayama<br \/>\nand, therefore, had there been any vacancy due to<br \/>\nshifting of Ratan Lal Dayama to general category<br \/>\ncandidate, the seat could have been given to Arun<br \/>\nKumar but the writ petitioner could not have got<br \/>\nthe seat.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">       Learned      counsel        for        appellant        RPSC      has<br \/>\nprovided      the    photostat             copy    of   the   record       to<br \/>\njustify the action of RPSC.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">       Learned counsel Mr.MS Singhvi appearing for<br \/>\nrespondent no.1 vehemently submitted that whatever<br \/>\nhas been argued was not the case of RPSC before<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge when SBCWP No.3101\/1995<br \/>\nwas decided nor it was a case of the RPSC before<br \/>\nthe    Division      Bench       where       the    judgment    of       this<br \/>\nCourt dated 30.1.1996 was challenged nor it was<br \/>\nthe case of RPSC before the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court<br \/>\nwhere the special leave to appeal was dismissed as<br \/>\nlate as on 17.8.1998. It is also submitted that<br \/>\nthe writ petitioner is appointee of the year 1991.<br \/>\nHe sought relief from the Court that he may not be<br \/>\nsubjected to screening for the post of Lecturer<br \/>\nand he be called for interview straightaway by the<br \/>\nRPSC for consideration of his case on merit for<br \/>\nappointment         to     the    post        concerned.       The       writ<br \/>\npetitioner was granted full relief by High Court<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_4\">                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>and judgment dated 30.1.1996 attained finality and<br \/>\nthe writ petitioner is in service obviously from<br \/>\n1991 and after judgment of Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court<br \/>\ndated 17.8.1998, the petitioner&#8217;s entitlement to<br \/>\nappointment cannot be questioned as the issue is<br \/>\nbarred by principle of res judicata. Looking to<br \/>\nthe dates on which DB Special Appeal by the High<br \/>\nCourt and Leave to Appeal by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\nCourt     were    decided,     it       is   clear    that       the    writ<br \/>\npetitioner could         not   have          even   applied       for    the<br \/>\npost afresh or again in view of the judgment of<br \/>\nthis Court and, therefore, it does not lie in the<br \/>\nmouth of RPSC now to say that there was any error<br \/>\nof fact. It is also submitted that not only the<br \/>\nRPSC want to resile from its own admission but it<br \/>\nis   in   appeal    seeking      relief        which       may   be     just<br \/>\ncontrary     to    the   final      judgment         of    the    highest<br \/>\ncourt of the land.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">     Learned counsel for writ petitioner also drew<br \/>\nour attention to the merit list submitted along<br \/>\nwith one application and affidavit filed by the<br \/>\nwrit petitioner in this appeal to show that the<br \/>\nlast person given appointment in general category<br \/>\nafter     Shyoji     Lal     Sharma          has    been     placed       in<br \/>\nseniority list at S.No.29 whereas Babu Lal Khajoti<br \/>\nhas been placed at S.No.26 and Babu Lal Khajoti<br \/>\nand Shyoji Lal Sharma both had equal marks i.e. 53<br \/>\nand that also falsifies the facts which now the<br \/>\nappellant RPSC wants to show to this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_5\">                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">      Learned AAG Mr.GR Punia stated that the State<br \/>\nhas not given appointment to the writ petitioner<br \/>\nbecause     of    the    reason         that   his    name    was   not<br \/>\nrecommended by the RPSC for appointment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">      We    considered        the       submissions      of   learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the parties and perused the record of<br \/>\nwrit petition as well as Commission shown to us.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">      The    petitioner         was        already       in   service<br \/>\nobviously as ad hoc appointee. He was eligible to<br \/>\nbe appointed for the post of Lecturer\/Assistant<br \/>\nProfessor in Orthopedics. He was asked to face the<br \/>\nscreening test and that decision was challenged by<br \/>\nthe   petitioner        by    filing      SBCWP      No.3101\/95.    In<br \/>\npursuance    of    the       directions of        this    Court,    the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s        sealed          cover      was       opened     and<br \/>\nconsidering the facts of the case, this Court very<br \/>\nspecifically directed by judgment dated 31.1.1996<br \/>\nas under :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>      &#8220;As a result of the aforesaid discussion,<br \/>\n      the instant writ petition is allowed with<br \/>\n      a direction to respondent No.2-Commission<br \/>\n      to declare the result of the petitioner<br \/>\n      on the post of Assistant Professor in<br \/>\n      Orthopedics and include his name in the<br \/>\n      select list as per merit and forward the<br \/>\n      same to the State Government for making<br \/>\n      appointment in accordance with law. Costs<br \/>\n      easy.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_6\">                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">       The said judgment dated 30.1.96 was challenged<br \/>\nbefore the Division Bench and the Division Bench<br \/>\napproved the findings of the learned Single Judge.<br \/>\nThereafter, the above judgments were challenged in<br \/>\nSLP    No.12599\/96      with   connected       SLPs    before     the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">       It is clear from the above facts that the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble    Apex   Court      decided    SLP    on    7.8.98.     Till<br \/>\n7.8.98, the fact position before the Court as we<br \/>\ncan notice from the order of Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court<br \/>\nwas that even the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court noticed that<br \/>\nthe respondent along with others have already been<br \/>\nconsidered and selected for the post of Assistant<br \/>\nProfessor in respective specialities and he has<br \/>\nalso    been    given    appointment.         As    late    as   till<br \/>\n7.8.98, the appellant did not question the issue<br \/>\nabout the eligibility of the writ petitioner for<br \/>\nthe said post on the basis of merits. Therefore,<br \/>\nthe appellant at this belated stage cannot take<br \/>\nhelp of any mistake if it was committed by it<br \/>\nafter such a long period which certainly denied<br \/>\nthe     writ      petitioner          opportunity          to    seek<br \/>\nappointment subsequently. The appellant cannot say<br \/>\nthat it had no knowledge of the fact which now it<br \/>\nwant to place before this Court when the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nApex Court dismissed the SLP of the appellant in<br \/>\nthe    year    1998.    It   is   not    a    case    of    estopple<br \/>\nsimplicitor as estopple binds the parties only and<br \/>\nnot to the Court but resjudicata binds the Court<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_7\">                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       and in the facts of the case, we do not find any<br \/>\n       justification for passing any order in appellate<br \/>\n       jurisdiction so as to render the final judgment<br \/>\n       upheld     upto   the   Hon&#8217;ble      Apex   Court   to     become<br \/>\n       ineffective       and    inoperative         and    deny      the<br \/>\n       appointment to a person who is in service since<br \/>\n       1991     and   was    found    validly      selected     by   the<br \/>\n       Commission for appointment to the post.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">               In view of the above discussion, there is no<br \/>\n       merit     in   this   appeal   and    the    same   is     hereby<br \/>\n       dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">       [KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI], J.              [PRAKASH TATIA], J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">S.Phophaliya\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Rajasthan High Court &#8211; Jodhpur R.P.S.C.,Ajmer vs Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr on 23 July, 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ::: JUDGMENT ::: D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.89\/2005 Rajasthan Public Service Commission. vs. Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr. Date : 23rd July, 2010 HON&#8217;BLE JUSTICE SHRI PRAKASH [&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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-250002","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R.P.S.C.,Ajmer vs Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr on 23 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\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.P.S.C.,Ajmer vs Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-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=\"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-18T16:26:03+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\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.P.S.C.,Ajmer vs Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr on 23 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-18T16:26:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1765,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010\",\"name\":\"R.P.S.C.,Ajmer vs Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-18T16:26:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.P.S.C.,Ajmer vs Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr on 23 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R.P.S.C.,Ajmer vs Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr on 23 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\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.P.S.C.,Ajmer vs Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-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":"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-18T16:26:03+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\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.P.S.C.,Ajmer vs Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr on 23 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-18T16:26:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010"},"wordCount":1765,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010","name":"R.P.S.C.,Ajmer vs Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-18T16:26:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-p-s-c-ajmer-vs-dr-mahendra-kumar-aseri-anr-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.P.S.C.,Ajmer vs Dr.Mahendra Kumar Aseri &amp; Anr on 23 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250002","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=250002"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250002\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}