{"id":255934,"date":"2009-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009"},"modified":"2017-04-08T05:37:42","modified_gmt":"2017-04-08T00:07:42","slug":"sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sulochna & Another vs Further on 24 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Sulochna & Another vs Further on 24 February, 2009<\/div>\n
C.W.P No. 4163 of 2007                                    ::1::\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                                     C.W.P No. 4163 of 2007\n                                     Date of decision : February 24, 2009\n\n\nSulochna & another\n\n                                           ...... Petitioner (s)\n\n                        v.\nState of Haryana and others,\n\n                                           ...... Respondent(s)\n\n                               ***\n<\/pre>\n
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI<\/p>\n
                               ***<\/p>\n
Present :    Mr. J.S.Dahiya, Advocate
\n             for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
             Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana
\n             for respondents No.1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
             Mr. Balraj Singh, Advocate
\n             for respondents No.5 to 7.\n<\/p>\n
                               ***<\/p>\n
1.   Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
\n     judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2.   To be referred to the Reporters or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?\n<\/p>\n
                                ***<\/p>\n
AJAY TEWARI, J<\/p>\n
             The petitioners have challenged the appointment of respondent<\/p>\n
No.7 as Anganwari Worker.\n<\/p>\n
             Admittedly, petitioner No.1 is M.A, while petitioner No.2 is<\/p>\n
10+2 with I.T.I. In the Middle Examination, petitioner No.1 had 65.8%<\/p>\n
marks, while petitioner No.2 had 53.8% marks.            On the other hand,<\/p>\n
respondent No.7 is 10+2 and she had only 42.5% marks in her Middle<\/p>\n
Examination. In the objective part of the selection process, petitioner No.1
\n C.W.P No. 4163 of 2007                                  ::2::\n<\/p>\n
obtained 60% marks, petitioner No.2 obtained 53% marks, while respondent<\/p>\n
No.7 obtained 48% marks. However, petitioner No.1 got 4\/10 marks in the<\/p>\n
interview, petitioner No.2 got 2\/10 marks, while respondent No.7 was<\/p>\n
awarded 9\/10 marks. It may also be mentioned here that no other candidate<\/p>\n
got more than four out of ten marks in the interview. It is relevant to<\/p>\n
mention here that both petitioner No.2 and respondent No.7 are S.C<\/p>\n
candidates. As per allegations, respondent No.7 was given nine out of ten<\/p>\n
marks only because of her proximity to respondents No.5 and 6 who are<\/p>\n
working as Clerks in the office of respondents No.3 and 4 (who were<\/p>\n
members of the selection committee) respectively. It is further to be noted<\/p>\n
that as per the record produced by the respondents themselves, petitioner<\/p>\n
No.1 had obtained total of 64% marks as against respondent No.7 who had<\/p>\n
obtained total of 57% marks.\n<\/p>\n
               This petition has been resisted by denying the averments that<\/p>\n
inordinately high marks were awarded to respondent No.7 in the interview<\/p>\n
without, however, explaining as to how this wide discrepancy came in the<\/p>\n
interview where an MA passed candidate was given four marks while a<\/p>\n
10+2 passed candidate was given nine marks. It has further been pleaded<\/p>\n
that petitioner No.1 has since also been appointed as Anganwari Worker in<\/p>\n
the same village and, thus, this writ petition qua her has been rendered<\/p>\n
infructuous.\n<\/p>\n
               Counsel for respondents No.5 to 7 has relied upon the case in<\/p>\n
Jasvinder Singh vs State of J & K<\/a>, 2002(8) SLR 374, wherein the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court has held as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                    “8.   The learned Single Judge also seems to have been<\/p>\n
                    very such carried away by few instances noticed by him
\n C.W.P No. 4163 of 2007                               ::3::\n<\/p>\n
               as to award of higher percentage of marks in viva to<\/p>\n
               those who got lower marks in written test as compared to<\/p>\n
               some who scored higher marks in written examination<\/p>\n
               but could not get as much higher marks in viva voce.<\/p>\n
               Picking up a negligible few instances cannot provide the<\/p>\n
               basis for either striking down the method of selection or<\/p>\n
               the selections ultimately made. There is no guarantee<\/p>\n
               that a person who fared well in written test will or should<\/p>\n
               be presumed to have fared well in viva voce test also and<\/p>\n
               the expert opinion about as well as experience in viva<\/p>\n
               voce does not lend credence to any such general<\/p>\n
               assumptions, in all circumstances an for all eventualities.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
               That part the variation of written test marks of those who<\/p>\n
               were found to have been awarded higher marks in viva<\/p>\n
               voce viz-a-viz those who secured higher marks in the<\/p>\n
               written test but not so in the viva voce cannot be said to<\/p>\n
               be so much (varying from five marks and at any rate<\/p>\n
               below even 10) as to warrant any proof of inherent vice<\/p>\n
               in the very system of selection or the actual selection in<\/p>\n
               the case. There was no specific allegation of any mala<\/p>\n
               fides or bias against the Board constituted for selection<\/p>\n
               or any one in the Board nor any such plea could be said<\/p>\n
               have been sustained in this case. The observation by the<\/p>\n
               learned Single Judge that there was a conscious effort<\/p>\n
               made for bring some candidates within the selection zone<\/p>\n
               cannot be said to be justified from the mere matter fact of
\n C.W.P No. 4163 of 2007                                      ::4::\n<\/p>\n
                    certain instance noticed by him on any general principle<\/p>\n
                    or even on the merits of those factual instances alone.<\/p>\n
                    Further, the course adopted by the learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
                    in directing selection from general candidates all those<\/p>\n
                    who have obtained 56 marks in written examination<\/p>\n
                    cannot be justified at all and it is not given to the Court<\/p>\n
                    to alter the very method of selection and totally dispense<\/p>\n
                    with viva voce in respect of a selection alone of the<\/p>\n
                    candidates, for purposes of selection. On a careful and<\/p>\n
                    overall consideration of the judgments of the learned<\/p>\n
                    Single Judge and that of the Division Bench, we are of<\/p>\n
                    the view that the decision of the learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
                    cannot be considered to suffer any such serious infirmity<\/p>\n
                    in law to call for our interference.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                 For all the reasons stated above, the appeals<\/p>\n
                    fail and shall stand dismissed but with no costs.”<\/p>\n
             In my opinion, however, the above judgment is distinguishable.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In the present case, it is found that there is variation of 50% in the marks<\/p>\n
allotted to the interview qua petitioner No.1 and 70% qua petitioner No.2.<\/p>\n
Further, specific allegations have been levelled against respondents No.5<\/p>\n
and 6 which have not been denied. The fact that petitioner No.1 has been<\/p>\n
appointed as Anganwari Worker would not be a ground to dismiss the writ<\/p>\n
petition qua petitioner No.2. The fact that even as per the official record<\/p>\n
petitioner No.1 had higher marks but was still relegated to the position of<\/p>\n
wait-listed (1) also clearly reveals the arbitrariness of the selection.<\/p>\n
             Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the selection of
\n C.W.P No. 4163 of 2007                                  ::5::\n<\/p>\n
respondent No.7 to the post of Anganwari Worker of village Machhrouli,<\/p>\n
Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat is set aside. The respondents are directed<\/p>\n
to conduct fresh selection for the same.\n<\/p>\n
            No costs.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                           ( AJAY TEWARI        )\nFebruary 24, 2009.                               JUDGE\n`kk'\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Sulochna & Another vs Further on 24 February, 2009 C.W.P No. 4163 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 4163 of 2007 Date of decision : February 24, 2009 Sulochna & another …… Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, …… Respondent(s) *** […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-255934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSulochna & Another vs Further on 24 February, 2009 - 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\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sulochna & Another vs Further on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-08T00:07:42+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sulochna & Another vs Further on 24 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-08T00:07:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1001,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Sulochna & Another vs Further on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-08T00:07:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sulochna & Another vs Further on 24 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sulochna & Another vs Further on 24 February, 2009 - 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\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sulochna & Another vs Further on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-08T00:07:42+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sulochna & Another vs Further on 24 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-08T00:07:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009"},"wordCount":1001,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009","name":"Sulochna & Another vs Further on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-08T00:07:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulochna-another-vs-further-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sulochna & Another vs Further on 24 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/255934","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=255934"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255934\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}