{"id":25118,"date":"2008-07-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-09-14T10:01:56","modified_gmt":"2017-09-14T04:31:56","slug":"lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Lakhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Lakhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, V.S. Sirpurkar<\/div>\n
                              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n      SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO.8501 OF 2007\n\n\n\n     Lakhwinder Singh                           ...\n     Petitioner\n\n\n                                  Vs.\n\n\n     Union of India & Ors.                 ...Respondents\n\n\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR,J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.    This     Special    Leave      Petition   is     directed<\/p>\n
      against      the   judgment    and   order     dated   22nd<\/p>\n
      March, 2007 passed by the Delhi High Court<\/p>\n
      dismissing Writ Petition No. 899 of 2006 filed<\/p>\n
      by     the    petitioner    herein    challenging      the<\/p>\n
      decision of the Central Government, to reject<\/p>\n
      the     recommendation        made   by   two     Special<\/p>\n
      Selection Boards for promoting the petitioner<\/p>\n
      to the rank of Lieutenant General.
\n                                                                           2<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
2.   The   petitioner,       who    was    commissioned          as    a<\/p>\n
     Second Lieutenant in the Indian Army on 16th<\/p>\n
     December, 1967, was promoted to the rank of<\/p>\n
     Major    General     in       the     year    2001.          Two<\/p>\n
     successive    Special      Selection         Boards    of    the<\/p>\n
     Indian   Army     recommended        the     petitioner      for<\/p>\n
     promotion to the rank of Lt. General, but the<\/p>\n
     Central Government did not approve the said<\/p>\n
     recommendations. General.              The said decision<\/p>\n
     of the Central Government was challenged by<\/p>\n
     the petitioner in the aforesaid Writ Petition<\/p>\n
     on the ground that such denial of promotion to<\/p>\n
     the petitioner to the rank of Lt. General was<\/p>\n
     arbitrary,    discriminatory,          whimsical       and       in<\/p>\n
     violation    of   the     rules      and   the    established<\/p>\n
     procedure of selection and it also offended<\/p>\n
     the principles laid down in various judicial<\/p>\n
     pronouncements both by the High Courts as well<\/p>\n
     as this Court.\n<\/p>\n
3.   According    to    the        case    made       out   by    the<\/p>\n
     petitioner, he was engaged in active combat at<\/p>\n
     Dera Baba Nanek in the Punjab Sector during
\n                                                                         3<\/span>
\n     the Indo-Pakistan War and was recommended for<\/p>\n
     Vir    Chakra     award.        He    also      took    part   in<\/p>\n
     various      operations,          including           operations<\/p>\n
     relating      to     counter-insurgency,               such    as<\/p>\n
     operation Blue Star, in Punjab in 1984.                        In<\/p>\n
     1999, he was posted to command an Artillery<\/p>\n
     Brigade     in     the   active       insurgency        area   in<\/p>\n
     Kashmir.      The Brigade under the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
     command     was    mobilized         to    fight   the    Kargil<\/p>\n
     War\/Operation Vijay in Drass-Kargil Sector in<\/p>\n
     1999. For the petitioner’s participation in<\/p>\n
     the Kargil War he was awarded the Yudh Sewa<\/p>\n
     Medal in August, 1999.\n<\/p>\n
4.   On    account      of    his    service         profile,       the<\/p>\n
     petitioner was promoted to the rank of Major<\/p>\n
     General     and    was   posted       as    General      Officer<\/p>\n
     Commanding 40 Artillery Division, which was<\/p>\n
     the only Artillery Division of the Indian Army<\/p>\n
     at    the   relevant     time    and       he   led    Operation<\/p>\n
     Parakram in 2002.          In 2003 he was posted to<\/p>\n
     the Northern Command and participated in the<\/p>\n
     Operational Command, which was responsible for
\n                                                                              4<\/span>
\n     the     insurgency-affected           Jammu         and     Kashmir<\/p>\n
     Sector.\n<\/p>\n
5.   It is the further case of the petitioner that<\/p>\n
     all promotions above the rank of Colonel are<\/p>\n
     made not on the length of service put in by an<\/p>\n
     officer but on the basis of selection.                        It is<\/p>\n
     the petitioner’s case that he was promoted on<\/p>\n
     first    consideration       right       from       the     rank    of<\/p>\n
     Colonel    to    Major     General       on     a    competitive<\/p>\n
     basis.     For selection, from the rank of Major<\/p>\n
     General to Lt. General, a Special Selection<\/p>\n
     Board is constituted by the Chief of the Army<\/p>\n
     Staff,    hereinafter        referred         to     as     “COAS”,<\/p>\n
     under     powers     delegated        to      him     under        the<\/p>\n
     authority of the President.                   The said Board<\/p>\n
     comprises the Chief of Army Staff, the Vice-<\/p>\n
     Chief of Army Staff and the six senior-most<\/p>\n
     Lt.   Generals,      who     make    recommendations               for<\/p>\n
     promotion       to   the   rank     of     Lt.      General        and<\/p>\n
     appointments           are          made            after          the<\/p>\n
     recommendations are approved by the Ministry<\/p>\n
     of Defence and other competent authorities.
\n                                                                       5<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
6.   It is the petitioner’s case that the Special<\/p>\n
     Selection   Boards      are      expert        bodies     which<\/p>\n
     consist of the COAS, the Vice-Chief of Army<\/p>\n
     Staff and the six Corp-Commanders representing<\/p>\n
     different    fields\/      branches        of     the      Army,<\/p>\n
     including   officers      from    technical        and     non-<\/p>\n
     technical    fields.             According          to      the<\/p>\n
     petitioner, a person who has been recommended<\/p>\n
     by the Special Selection Board can hardly be<\/p>\n
     ignored by the Government for promotion.<\/p>\n
7.   As far as the petitioner is concerned, the<\/p>\n
     first Board for Selection was held on 27th of<\/p>\n
     February,   2004,    in    which        four     names     were<\/p>\n
     unanimously recommended, including the name of<\/p>\n
     the petitioner.         Before promotions could be<\/p>\n
     given in terms of the recommendations made,<\/p>\n
     one of the four candidates superannuated on<\/p>\n
     31st   August,   2004     and     one     of     the     others<\/p>\n
     expired on 3rd September, 2004.                 According to<\/p>\n
     the petitioner, without, however, applying its<\/p>\n
     mind to the aforesaid facts, the Government<\/p>\n
     returned the recommendations of the Board on
\n                                                                           6<\/span>
\n     the     ground        that     four      names      had        been<\/p>\n
     recommended          when    there       were     only       three<\/p>\n
     vacancies, though, at the relevant time, there<\/p>\n
     were    only    two     officers      left      against      three<\/p>\n
     vacancies.       Despite the above, only one of the<\/p>\n
     recommended          candidates,        Major     General        A.<\/p>\n
     Vasudeva       was    promoted     to    the     post     of   Lt.<\/p>\n
     General    by    the     Central      Government        but     the<\/p>\n
     petitioner’s case for promotion was rejected<\/p>\n
     and the said decision was declared after a<\/p>\n
     period    of    10     months.        The     petitioner       has<\/p>\n
     contended that he was the only officer amongst<\/p>\n
     the General Officers recommended for promotion<\/p>\n
     as Lt. General in the Staff Stream.<\/p>\n
8.   Aggrieved by his non-selection to the post of<\/p>\n
     Lt.     General,      the    petitioner         filed    a     non-<\/p>\n
     statutory complaint with the COAS on 17th<\/p>\n
     January, 2005.          The same remained unattended<\/p>\n
     to and ultimately on 1st April, 2005, a second<\/p>\n
     Board    was    held.          Once      again,     the      Board<\/p>\n
     recommended      the    name     of     the   petitioner       for<\/p>\n
     promotion to the rank of Lt. General.                     It has
\n                                                                              7<\/span>
\n     been emphasised by the petitioner that both<\/p>\n
     the   Boards      were    headed      by     the     functioning<\/p>\n
     Chiefs of Army Staff. In the list recommending<\/p>\n
     the names of five officers for promotion to<\/p>\n
     the rank of Lt. General, the petitioner’s name<\/p>\n
     was shown at serial No.1. When the result of<\/p>\n
     the second Board was declared on 30th June,<\/p>\n
     2005, the petitioner found that he had once<\/p>\n
     again been superseded and the recommendation<\/p>\n
     of    the      second    Board,       as    far     as    he      was<\/p>\n
     concerned,       was    not    approved       by    the   Central<\/p>\n
     Government.\n<\/p>\n
9.   It is also the case of the petitioner that two<\/p>\n
     of the recommended candidates, Major General<\/p>\n
     Utpal     Bhattacharya         and    Major        General     A.K.<\/p>\n
     Saini, were to superannuate on 1st July, 2005<\/p>\n
     and     31st    August,       2005,        respectively,           and<\/p>\n
     consequently       in    the    vacancy       arising        on    1st<\/p>\n
     February, 2006 only two officers, namely, the<\/p>\n
     petitioner and Major General Y.K.Jain should<\/p>\n
     have been promoted.            However, on 29th\/30th July,<\/p>\n
     2005,    two     vacancies      were       created       and      just
\n                                                                                 8<\/span>
\n      before    the    retirement             of    Major       General     U.<\/p>\n
      Bhattacharya,            the   rank     of     Lt.       General     was<\/p>\n
      conferred on them.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Aggrieved       by       the    aforesaid           action     of    the<\/p>\n
      respondent,          the       petitioner           filed      another<\/p>\n
      statutory complaint on 29th August, 2005 with<\/p>\n
      the   Ministry           of     Defence        challenging           his<\/p>\n
      supersession, but the same was rejected by a<\/p>\n
      cryptic order on 29th December, 2005.                             It is<\/p>\n
      the petitioner’s case that although there were<\/p>\n
      vacancies in the rank of Lt. General to which<\/p>\n
      the petitioner was entitled to be promoted,<\/p>\n
      the respondents did not fill up the available<\/p>\n
      vacancies as the petitioner was due to retire<\/p>\n
      on 31st May, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
11.   The grievance made out by the petitioner in<\/p>\n
      his   Writ       Petition          is        that       despite      his<\/p>\n
      excellent       service         profile           and     unblemished<\/p>\n
      service   for        a    period      of     38     years      and   two<\/p>\n
      successive recommendations for promotion, he<\/p>\n
      was   denied     promotion            to     the        rank   of    Lt.
\n                                                                           9<\/span>
\n      General     in     an        arbitrary   and         high-handed<\/p>\n
      manner.\n<\/p>\n
12.   Appearing for the petitioner,                learned senior<\/p>\n
      counsel, Mr. Patwalia, repeated and reiterated<\/p>\n
      the case made out by the petitioner in his<\/p>\n
      Writ   Petition     and       emphasised     the      fact    that<\/p>\n
      despite     the    recommendation          of    two     Special<\/p>\n
      Selection Boards, consisting of the COAS, the<\/p>\n
      Vice-Chief of Army Staff and the six senior<\/p>\n
      Lt.    Colonels         in     the   Army,       the     Central<\/p>\n
      Government had wrongly withheld promotion to<\/p>\n
      the petitioner from the rank of Major General<\/p>\n
      to the rank of Lt. General.                      Mr. Patwalia<\/p>\n
      submitted that the senior-most officers of the<\/p>\n
      Indian    Army,     who       were   acquainted        with    the<\/p>\n
      qualities of the officers under consideration,<\/p>\n
      had made the recommendations for promotion of<\/p>\n
      the petitioner to the post of Lt. General, and<\/p>\n
      accordingly,        such        recommendation          by     two<\/p>\n
      successive        Boards,       should     not       have     been<\/p>\n
      rejected.        It was submitted that except for<\/p>\n
      indicating       that    in    comparison       to    the    other
\n                                                                       10<\/span>
\n      recommended candidates, the petitioner had a<\/p>\n
      weak profile, no other satisfactory reason had<\/p>\n
      been given by the respondents for rejecting<\/p>\n
      the     recommendation       made    by     the     Special<\/p>\n
      Selection Boards in the petitioner’s favour.<\/p>\n
13.   Mr. Patwalia urged that while the petitioner<\/p>\n
      may not have obtained the grading of 9 in the<\/p>\n
      box grading, for the purpose of promotion, of<\/p>\n
      the recommendees, he was the only officer who<\/p>\n
      had seen active combat during the Kargil War<\/p>\n
      and had been decorated for the same.                      Mr.<\/p>\n
      Patwalia urged that despite the fact that the<\/p>\n
      petitioner did not possess any Box Grading of<\/p>\n
      “9”,    the     Special     Selection      Boards        still<\/p>\n
      recommended him for promotion to the rank of<\/p>\n
      Lt. General, not once, but on two occasions,<\/p>\n
      which     surely    reflected     the     fact    that     Box<\/p>\n
      Grading       of “9” was not of such significance<\/p>\n
      as to deny promotion to the petitioner to the<\/p>\n
      rank    of    Lt.   General.        Referring       to    the<\/p>\n
      criteria\/factors,         which   are     considered       for<\/p>\n
      selection to the post of Lt. General, in terms
\n                                                                      11<\/span>
\nof     the     policy       devised        by     the      Central<\/p>\n
Government, Mr. Patwalia submitted that only<\/p>\n
the Annual Confidential Report profile of the<\/p>\n
officer      appears        to   have      been        taken    into<\/p>\n
consideration               while          rejecting            the<\/p>\n
recommendation of the Special Selection Board<\/p>\n
to promote the petitioner to the rank of Lt.<\/p>\n
General. He pointed out that one of the 7<\/p>\n
criteria       was    consistent         recommendations        for<\/p>\n
promotion to the next higher rank.                         It was<\/p>\n
submitted that such criteria appears to have<\/p>\n
not been given due importance by the Central<\/p>\n
Government       while       rejecting          the     successive<\/p>\n
recommendations          made       in     the        petitioner’s<\/p>\n
favour.        Although, no case of malafides had<\/p>\n
been    made    out    on    behalf       of    the     petitioner<\/p>\n
either before the High Court or before this<\/p>\n
Court, it was submitted that despite the fact<\/p>\n
that the petitioner’s case for promotion was<\/p>\n
rejected,        two        posts        were         created    to<\/p>\n
accommodate          two officers as a special favour<\/p>\n
to promote them to the rank of Lt. General
\n                                                                     12<\/span>
\n      just    before      they     retired      from    service.<\/p>\n
      Accepting the position that promotion was not<\/p>\n
      a matter of right, Mr. Patwalia concluded by<\/p>\n
      urging that an officer who had been selected<\/p>\n
      by the Special Selection Board consisting of<\/p>\n
      the highest officers in the Indian Army was<\/p>\n
      entitled to request the Court to look into the<\/p>\n
      records     to    ascertain    the     reason    for    such<\/p>\n
      rejection.\n<\/p>\n
14.   Appearing for the respondents, learned senior<\/p>\n
      counsel,     Mr.    Doabia,        submitted     that    the<\/p>\n
      petitioner was first recommended for promotion<\/p>\n
      to the rank of Lt. General, along with three<\/p>\n
      other officers, by the Special Selection Board<\/p>\n
      on   27th   February,      2004,    but   when   the    said<\/p>\n
      recommendation was taken up for consideration<\/p>\n
      by the Central Government, it was discovered<\/p>\n
      that the Special Selection Board had presumed<\/p>\n
      four vacancies when only three vacancies were<\/p>\n
      available.       Thereafter, on a comparison of the<\/p>\n
      profiles of all the officers, the petitioner<\/p>\n
      was found to have the weakest profile and was
\n                                                                            13<\/span>
\ngraded “unfit” for promotion.                       Even when the<\/p>\n
second recommendation was made by the Special<\/p>\n
Selection      Board       on     1st    April,       2005,      on    a<\/p>\n
comparison      of    the       profiles       of    the     officers<\/p>\n
recommended,         the    petitioner          was    once      again<\/p>\n
found     to    have        the     weakest           profile         and<\/p>\n
accordingly graded “unfit”.                    It was submitted<\/p>\n
that such consideration to hold the petitioner<\/p>\n
“unfit”        in     comparison              to      the        others<\/p>\n
recommended officer, was a decision taken not<\/p>\n
by the COAS alone, in his individual capacity,<\/p>\n
but     by     the    Ministry           of        Defence       in    a<\/p>\n
representive         capacity,          which       also     included<\/p>\n
the COAS.       In fact, it was submitted that as<\/p>\n
names of five officers had been recommended<\/p>\n
against three vacancies, the cases of all the<\/p>\n
officers wee considered on a comparative basis<\/p>\n
and since the petitioner was found to have the<\/p>\n
weakest      profile        amongst       all       the      officers<\/p>\n
recommended,         he    was     once       again        graded      as<\/p>\n
“unfit”.        It    was       submitted          that     no   undue<\/p>\n
preference had been shown or given to any of
\n                                                                            14<\/span>
\n      the   concerned       officers,      but    since       from    the<\/p>\n
      records the petitioner was found to have the<\/p>\n
      weakest profile, he had been graded as “unfit”<\/p>\n
      since     only      three    vacancies      were        available<\/p>\n
      while    five       names   had     been    recommended         for<\/p>\n
      promotion.\n<\/p>\n
15.   It was lastly submitted that Para 108 of the<\/p>\n
      Regulations for the Army, 1987, which provides<\/p>\n
      for the constitution and duties of Selection<\/p>\n
      Boards, clearly indicates that the assessment<\/p>\n
      of the Selection Board shall be recommendatory<\/p>\n
      in nature and not binding until approved by<\/p>\n
      the Competent Authority namely, the COAS or<\/p>\n
      the Central Government as the case may be. The<\/p>\n
      said Regulation also provides that both the<\/p>\n
      Central       Government      and     the       COAS    have     an<\/p>\n
      inherent power to modify, renew, approve with<\/p>\n
      variation or repeal the recommendations of the<\/p>\n
      Selection.           It     was   urged         that    it     was,<\/p>\n
      therefore, evident that the recommendation of<\/p>\n
      the Special Selection Board was not binding<\/p>\n
      and     had    to     be    approved       by     the    Central
\n                                                                15<\/span>
\n       Government or the Chief of the Army Staff.          In<\/p>\n
       support of his aforesaid submission learned<\/p>\n
       counsel referred to the decision of this Court<\/p>\n
       in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Lt. General<\/p>\n
       Rajinder Singh Kadyan [2000 (6) SCC 698] in<\/p>\n
       which    this    Court,     inter   alia,    held   as<\/p>\n
       follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Of course, considering the nature of
\n      rigorous standards adopted in the matter
\n      of selection of officers from the stage of
\n      Lt. Colonel onwards up to the stage of Lt.
\n      General, in the usual course it may be
\n      that the senior-most officer is selected
\n      as the Army Commander. But that does not
\n      debar the Chief of the Army Staff or the
\n      Union of India from making the selection
\n      of any other person for good reasons who
\n      fulfils the necessary criteria.”<\/p>\n
16.    Reliance was also placed on another decision<\/p>\n
       of the Delhi High Court in the case of Union<\/p>\n
       of India vs. Col. Shyam Kumar,<\/a> 1982 (3) DRJ<\/p>\n
       225, in which it was held that the assessment<\/p>\n
       of      the     Selection     Board     is     purely<\/p>\n
       recommendatory in character and that the power<\/p>\n
       of the appointing authority to accept or even
\n                                                                  16<\/span>
\n      vary the recommendation of the Selection Board<\/p>\n
      is implicit.\n<\/p>\n
17.   It was urged that since the petitioner’s case<\/p>\n
      had been considered at the highest level of<\/p>\n
      the appointing body, in which the COAS was<\/p>\n
      also present, no interference was called for<\/p>\n
      with the decision either of the said authority<\/p>\n
      or the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
18.   Having   considered    the    submissions      made    on<\/p>\n
      behalf of the respective parties, we are not<\/p>\n
      inclined to interfere with the decision of the<\/p>\n
      High Court impugned in this proceeding.<\/p>\n
19.   It is no doubt true, that the name of the<\/p>\n
      petitioner     had    been   recommended       on     two<\/p>\n
      occasions by two successive Special Selection<\/p>\n
      Boards   for   promotion     to   the   post   of     Lt.<\/p>\n
      General, but on each occasion, he was declared<\/p>\n
      unfit, on account of the fact that there were<\/p>\n
      lesser number of vacancies available than the<\/p>\n
      number of candidates recommended and it was<\/p>\n
      found on a comparative assessment that of all<\/p>\n
      the recommended officers, he had the weakest
\n                                                                    17<\/span>
\nprofile.     It is also no doubt true that the<\/p>\n
Special     Selection       Board        consists       of   the<\/p>\n
highest-ranking officers of the Indian Army,<\/p>\n
but its suggestions are only recommendatory in<\/p>\n
nature and under the Army Regulations, can be<\/p>\n
varied or interfered             with by the Appointing<\/p>\n
Authority, as has been done in the instant<\/p>\n
case.         It     is     unfortunate            that       the<\/p>\n
recommendations      were    made        in    excess   of   the<\/p>\n
vacancies     available          which        necessitated      a<\/p>\n
comparison to be made of the profiles of the<\/p>\n
recommended candidates in which process the<\/p>\n
petitioner    got    eliminated,          but     having     gone<\/p>\n
through     the    official       records,        which      were<\/p>\n
produced before us, we find that the entire<\/p>\n
question was       considered and dealt with by the<\/p>\n
Central     Government      in     a     manner    which      was<\/p>\n
completely free from bias and based on the<\/p>\n
service    records    of    the        different    officers.<\/p>\n
The active service of an officer during War<\/p>\n
and Battle Awards and Honours earned during<\/p>\n
such action, is one of the several factors to
\n                                                                            18<\/span>
\n      be    taken    into       consideration      by    the    Special<\/p>\n
      Selection Board in recommending promotion from<\/p>\n
      the    post    of    Major    General       to    Lt.    General.<\/p>\n
      While the petitioner may have better records<\/p>\n
      in the said category, the Board has also to<\/p>\n
      take      into        consideration          various        other<\/p>\n
      categories       which      have    been    set    out    in    the<\/p>\n
      judgment of the High Court impugned in this<\/p>\n
      Special Leave Petition.                It is only on an<\/p>\n
      overall       assessment      that    the    profile       of    an<\/p>\n
      officer is prepared and had been so prepared<\/p>\n
      in the instant case where a comparison had to<\/p>\n
      be made in filling up the available vacancies.<\/p>\n
20.   Apart     from      the     two    decisions      referred       to<\/p>\n
      hereinabove         which    support       the    case    of    the<\/p>\n
      respondents, various other decisions were also<\/p>\n
      referred to on behalf of the parties, but the<\/p>\n
      same are not really relevant for a decision in<\/p>\n
      this case, having regard to the view taken by<\/p>\n
      us on the basis of the materials available to<\/p>\n
      us.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                  19<\/span><\/p>\n
21.   In the circumstances indicated hereinabove, no<\/p>\n
      interference is called for with the impugned<\/p>\n
      judgment of the High Court and the Special<\/p>\n
      Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.<\/p>\n
22.   There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                   ………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (Altamas Kabir)<\/p>\n
                                   ………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (V.S.Sirpurkar)
\nNew Delhi
\nDated: July 10,2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Lakhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008 Author: A Kabir Bench: Altamas Kabir, V.S. Sirpurkar IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO.8501 OF 2007 Lakhwinder Singh … Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. …Respondents J U D G M […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25118","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLakhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008 - 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\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lakhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-14T04:31:56+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lakhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-14T04:31:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2766,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Lakhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-14T04:31:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lakhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Lakhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008 - 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\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lakhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-14T04:31:56+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lakhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-14T04:31:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008"},"wordCount":2766,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008","name":"Lakhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-14T04:31:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhwinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lakhwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/25118","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=25118"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25118\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25118"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}