{"id":251356,"date":"2010-10-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-31T05:22:10","modified_gmt":"2017-08-30T23:52:10","slug":"shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shamma Bhat vs Parvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; Ors on 11 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jammu High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shamma Bhat vs Parvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; Ors on 11 October, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \nLPASW No. 64 OF 2007 AND LPASW No. 61 OF 2007         \n1.Shamma Bhat   \n2.Nirmala Devi &amp; ors\nPetitioners\nParvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; ors.\nRespondent  \n!Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Veenu Gupta, Advocate\n^M\/s. Tashi Rabstan &amp; D. S. Thakur, Advocates \n\nHonble Mr. Justice Dr. Aftab H. Saikia, Chief Justice\nHonble Mr. Justice Sunil Hali, Judge.\nDate: 11.10.2010 \n:J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">Dr. Saikia, CJ:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        Heard Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Veenu Gupta,<br \/>\nthe learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Rajneesh Oswal, learned<br \/>\ncounsel representing the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">2.      By consent of the parties, both these appeals are taken up for  final disposal,<br \/>\nas the issue raised in both the appeals is common, based on almost similar facts<br \/>\nsituation.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">3.      Judgment and order dated April 10, 2007, rendered by the Writ Court in<br \/>\nSWP no. 1520\/2004 is under challenge in both these Letters Patent Appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">The appellants herein were engaged by the Board of School Education vide its<br \/>\norder no. 483-B of 2004 dated June 23, 2004 to do Desk Job for a transitory period<br \/>\nof 60 (sixty days) on consolidated salary of Rs. 1900\/- per month providing that the<br \/>\ninitial engagement should be extended from time to time depending on the need<br \/>\nand  satisfactory accomplishment of the Job.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\"> These engagements were challenged by the writ petitioners-respondents herein on<br \/>\nthe ground that appointments were bad, illegal and in total violation of established<br \/>\nnorms of service jurisprudence. The Writ Court by the impugned judgment and<br \/>\norder accepted the writ petition and quashed the engagements of all the appellants<br \/>\nholding that engagements of appellants were unjustified and unwarranted inasmuch<br \/>\nas no administrative fairness was displayed in making such engagements.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">Being aggrieved by findings recorded by the learned Single Judge so as to cause<br \/>\ndisengagement of the appellants, these appeals have been preferred.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The entire records so placed<br \/>\nbefore us by the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents have also<br \/>\nbeen closely scrutinised.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">On thorough examination of the records, it is found that no norms as required and<br \/>\nnecessary under the law have been followed for such selection. Even the<br \/>\nrecommendation of the Interview Committee, as has been recorded in its order<br \/>\ndated 483-B of 2004 dated June 23, 2004, have also not been  found in the record.<br \/>\nMoreso, the recommendation made by the Committee also did not reflect any marks<br \/>\ngiven by the Committee against those candidates. Besides, we find no other records<br \/>\nto demonstrate that appellants were adjudged better in merit to the other<br \/>\ncandidates.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">Mr. Sethi, learned Senior counsel has forcefully submitted that all the appellants had<br \/>\nduly appeared in the interview and they got selection in the due process in<br \/>\naccordance of law. As regards non-marking to show the merit of the appellants, it is<br \/>\nfurther submitted that if no marks were being given, it is not the fault of the<br \/>\nappellants, who have been duly engaged  on their proper interview.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">On careful examination of the records, we are disinclined to approve the<br \/>\nsubmissions of the learned Senior counsel.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">Having considered the impugned judgment, we fully agree with the findings<br \/>\nrecorded by the learned Single Judge in arriving at the impugned decision. For<br \/>\nbetter appreciation of the reasons assigned in the impugned  judgment, we feel it<br \/>\nnecessary to reproduce the relevant portions of the same which are as under:<br \/>\nPerusal of the selection record of the Board of School Education indicates that<br \/>\ninterview for engagement of persons for Desk and Menial Jobs had been conducted<br \/>\nby a Committee constituted of M\/s. H. K. Gupta, Joint Secretary Administration, I.<br \/>\nK. Kotwal, Accounts Officer and Chand Rani, Joint Secretary Administration, on<br \/>\n26th \/28th of February, 2004 when out of 103 candidates applying for the Desk Job<br \/>\nand 300 candidates applying for the Menial Jobs, only 87 had appeared for the<br \/>\nDesk Job and 230 for the Menial Jobs. The selection records contain a copy of order<br \/>\nNo. 483-B of 2004 dated 23rd of June, 2004, a note sheet shown to have been<br \/>\nsinged on 10th June, 2004 and an unsigned list of candidates who had applied for<br \/>\nthe Desk\/Menial Jobs in the Board of School Education with some notings on the<br \/>\nlist of 24th of February, 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">                There is nothing in the records to indicate as to how the Committee<br \/>\nhad assessed the merit of the candidates who had appeared before the Committee<br \/>\non 26th and 28th of February, 2004. The Board of School Education does not appear<br \/>\nto have prepared any criteria for selection of candidates for the Desk and Menial<br \/>\nJobs. It is not discernable from the records as to how the selection would recollect<br \/>\nthe individual rating of the candidates who had appeared in the interview on 26th<br \/>\nand 28th of February, 2004, on 10th of June, 2004, i.e. after a period of more than<br \/>\nthree months when they had prepared a note for its onward transmission to the<br \/>\nretiring Chairman of the Board of School Education.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">                The records of the Boards Education depict a dismal picture<br \/>\nindicating an unfair approach of the Board and its Selection Committee in playing<br \/>\nwith the aspiration of those who had competed for the Desk Job and Menial Jobs<br \/>\npursuant to issuance of Notification dated 17.2.2004. The records of the Board of<br \/>\nSchool Education further demonstrate that the Board has exceeded the quota of<br \/>\nposts which were required to be filled up from the candidates belonging to Jammu<br \/>\nDistrict. Only one candidates Ms. Shamma Bhat, respondent No. 10, a resident of<br \/>\nPoonch had been selected whereas the candidates who had appeared form other<br \/>\nDistricts had been ignored consideration for selection. I am thus constrained to hold<br \/>\nthat the selection of private respondent Nos. 4 to 10 was unjustified for there is no<br \/>\nrecords to indicate their having been adjudged better in merit to the others who had<br \/>\ncompeted in the interview. Approval accorded by respondent No.3, the then<br \/>\nChairman of the Board of School Education, who was at the verge of retirement too<br \/>\ndemonstrates that the selection had been unfair.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">                Unfairness in any form whatsoever breads discontent, spreading<br \/>\noutrageous and, at times, rebellious ripples thereby polluting individual minds and<br \/>\nultimately affecting the society adversely. Administrative heads and Selection<br \/>\nAuthorities owe a duty to the public to act fairly. Their actions are thus required to<br \/>\nbe transparent, fair and objective. Decisions taken by the authorities at the verge of<br \/>\nretirement, are seen with suspicion by the public. The authorities are, therefore,<br \/>\nrequired to act in such a manner that the confidence of public is not shaken in the<br \/>\nInstitutions which have to decide about the recruitment of millions of unemployed<br \/>\nyouth in the Country.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">                Yet another thing which come up for discussion at the time of<br \/>\nhearing of this petition was that the respondent-Board of School of Education had<br \/>\nbeen continuing the engagements meant only for a transitory period of 60 days and<br \/>\nit was admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the engagement of the<br \/>\nprivate respondents was still continuing.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">                This appears to be device employed by the Board of School<br \/>\nEducation to continue causal\/temporary, engagements thereby sacrificing the Rules,<br \/>\nGuidelines and Instructions governing engagement of permanent, temporary or<br \/>\ncausal employees. Casual, adhoc or temporary engagements cannot be a substitute<br \/>\nfor regular employment de hors the Rule sin force governing such recruitment and<br \/>\nappointments. Causal, ad hoc or temporary engagements are permissible only for a<br \/>\nshort period. These engagements, cannot be continued beyond the prescribed period<br \/>\nlest these engagements may deprive all those who may be entitled to seek<br \/>\npermanent employment to these positions in accordance with the Rules.<br \/>\nEngagement of private respondents beyond a period 60 days too is thus unjustified.<br \/>\nAppointment order of private respondents incorporating a clause that their<br \/>\nengagements would be extendable on the basis of their satisfactory performance,<br \/>\nwas contrary to what was contained in the Notification of the Board of School<br \/>\nEducation. This clause in the impugned Notification is, therefore, un-warranted.<\/p>\n<p>The Administrative Authorities in a selection process are duty bound to demonstrate<br \/>\nadministrative fair play. Transparency, fairness and objectivity must reflect in every<br \/>\naction in the selection process, so that the confidence of the public in those<br \/>\nInstitutions is not eroded.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">Given facts and circumstances, it may be well said that the present action in the<br \/>\nselection to the post of Desk Job lacks such transparency, fairness and<br \/>\nreasonableness.  That being so, we can unhesitatingly opine that there is no plausible<br \/>\nor cogent ground to dislodge the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">Accordingly, both the appeals stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">However, in our considered view, the directions given by the learned Single Judge<br \/>\nas regards time frame for holding fresh selection for engagement of the persons for<br \/>\nDesk Job needs to be extended in the interest of justice.  Accordingly, we direct<br \/>\nthat the entire process of fresh selection, as directed by the learned Writ Court, shall<br \/>\nbe undertaken and completed within three months from today and till such fresh<br \/>\nselection is made, the appellants herein shall not be disengaged.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">It is made clear that the authority\/authorities concerned shall consider the relaxation<br \/>\nof age of all the parties appearing and contesting in these appeal proceedings in case<br \/>\nof their selection and appointment.\n<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">                         (Sunil Hali)                        (Dr. Aftab H. Saikia)                              \nJudge                                    Chief Justice\nJammu:  \n11.10.2010 \nTilak, Secy.\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jammu High Court Shamma Bhat vs Parvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; Ors on 11 October, 2010 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. LPASW No. 64 OF 2007 AND LPASW No. 61 OF 2007 1.Shamma Bhat 2.Nirmala Devi &amp; ors Petitioners Parvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; ors. Respondent !Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Veenu [&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":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-251356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shamma Bhat vs Parvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; Ors on 11 October, 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\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shamma Bhat vs Parvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; Ors on 11 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-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=\"2010-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-30T23:52:10+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shamma Bhat vs Parvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; Ors on 11 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-30T23:52:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1476,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Shamma Bhat vs Parvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; Ors on 11 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-30T23:52:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shamma Bhat vs Parvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; Ors on 11 October, 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":"Shamma Bhat vs Parvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; Ors on 11 October, 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\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shamma Bhat vs Parvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; Ors on 11 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-30T23:52:10+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shamma Bhat vs Parvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; Ors on 11 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-30T23:52:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010"},"wordCount":1476,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010","name":"Shamma Bhat vs Parvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; Ors on 11 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-30T23:52:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shamma-bhat-vs-parvinder-kumar-leharia-ors-on-11-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shamma Bhat vs Parvinder Kumar Leharia &amp; Ors on 11 October, 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\/251356","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=251356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}