{"id":255945,"date":"2010-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-08T10:18:18","modified_gmt":"2017-08-08T04:48:18","slug":"durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others on 29 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others on 29 January, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR          \n\n WRIT PETITION S   No 417 of 2010  \n\n Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others  \n                                          ...Petitioners\n\n                       Versus\n\n State of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others\n                                          ...Respondents<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">! Shri R K Kesharwani Advocate for the petitioners<\/p>\n<p>^ Shri N N Roy Panel Lawyer for the State respondents<\/p>\n<p> CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J <\/p>\n<p> Dated: 29\/01\/2010<\/p>\n<p>: Judgement <\/p>\n<p>                          ORDER ORAL<\/p>\n<p>              Passed on 29th day of  January 2010<\/p>\n<p> WRIT PETITION UNDER <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">ARTICLE 226<\/a> OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA           <\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">  1.   By  this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the<\/p>\n<p>       decision  of  the  Statutory Committee dated  31.01.2009<\/p>\n<p>       communicated to the Commissioner, Public Instructions, vide<\/p>\n<p>       letter dated 6.3.2009 (Annexure P\/1) and further to direct the<\/p>\n<p>       respondent  authorities  to  consider  and  decide   the<\/p>\n<p>       representations of the petitioners afresh in light of the order<\/p>\n<p>       dated 7.9.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1588\/2005 (Murali Prasad<\/p>\n<p>       Kashyap &amp; Others v. State of M.P. &amp; Others) (Annexure P\/5).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">2.   The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are<br \/>\nthat the petitioners were appointed as Teacher on ad hoc basis<br \/>\nvide order dated 7.12.1982 (Annexure P\/2). All of a sudden,<br \/>\ntheir services were terminated. Some of the similarly situated<br \/>\nteachers filed Original Application before the Madhya Pradesh<br \/>\nState Administrative Tribunal at Jabalpur (for short `the<br \/>\nSAT&#8217;). Pursuant to the order passed by the SAT, the similarly<br \/>\nsituated persons were taken back in regular service.<br \/>\nThereafter, the petitioners also approached the SAT wherein<br \/>\nvide order dated 09.01.1998 (Annexure P\/3),  the petitioners<br \/>\nwere directed to appear before the Selection Committee and it<br \/>\nwas further directed to consider the case of the petitioners<br \/>\nand if they were found fit, they should be considered for<br \/>\nappointment\/reappointment keeping in view the availability of<br \/>\nthe vacancies. Pursuant to the said order, the similarly<br \/>\nsituated persons made a representation to the Selection<br \/>\nCommittee upon which the State Government respondent<br \/>\nauthorities issued a memo dated 9.6.2008 (Annexure P\/4) to all<br \/>\nthe Collectors and District Education Officers, stating that<br \/>\nthe ad hoc teachers whose services have come to an end, their<br \/>\nrepresentations may be decided within a period of one month if<br \/>\ntheir cases are similar to that of Murli Prasad Kashyap<br \/>\n(supra). In such cases, if reappointment is made, those persons<br \/>\nshall not be entitled to the salary for the period they were<br \/>\nout of service on the basis of `no work-no pay&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">3.   Shri Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\npetitioners submits that pursuant to the memo dated 9.6.2008<br \/>\n(Annexure P\/4) the petitioners have made representations to the<br \/>\nDistrict Education Officer, Raipur which was forwarded to the<br \/>\nCollector. Thereafter, the Collector, Raipur, instead of<br \/>\ndeciding the said representations, referred the same to the<br \/>\nAdditional Collector. The petitioners were informed to appear<br \/>\nbefore him alongwith relevant documents. The petitioners<br \/>\nappeared before the authorities alongwith relevant documents.<br \/>\nTheir cases were considered by the Statutory Committee and vide<br \/>\nthe impugned order dated 06.03.2009 (Annexure P\/1), the<br \/>\nDistrict Education Officer, Raipur, informed the Commissioner,<br \/>\nPublic Instructions, Chhattisgarh, that the Statutory Committee<br \/>\nhas taken a decision on 31.01.2009 that it would not be proper<br \/>\nto reappoint the ad hoc teachers in service.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">4.   Shri Kesharwani further submits that the action of the<br \/>\nrespondent authorities is in contravention of the order passed<br \/>\nby this Court in Murli Prasad Kashyap (supra). The petitioners<br \/>\nought to have been reappointed on the post of Teacher.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">  5.   Per  contra, Shri Roy, learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n<p>       State\/respondents submits that the petitioners were  not<\/p>\n<p>       appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of<\/p>\n<p>       employment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">  6.   The question which  arises in the present petition is asto<\/p>\n<p>       whether the petitioners appointed on ad hoc basis can continue<\/p>\n<p>       on the posts or be reinstated in service when their services<\/p>\n<p>       have been discontinued or disengaged thereafter.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">7.   The issue involved in the present petition is no longer<br \/>\nres integra as the Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions has<br \/>\nmade clear that the employees appointed on ad hoc basis have no<br \/>\nright to continue in service or reinstatement. The appointment<br \/>\nitself is de hors the constitutional scheme of employment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">8.   Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis<br \/>\nand not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of<br \/>\nemployment. The appointment of the petitioners was purely on<br \/>\ntemporary basis. A temporary, ad hoc employee\/daily wager<br \/>\ncannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in<br \/>\nservice on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and<br \/>\nnot in accordance with law and the same was de hors the<br \/>\nconstitutional scheme of employment. (<a href=\"\/doc\/179794777\/\" id=\"a_1\">See Secretary, State of<br \/>\nKarnataka and Others vs. Umadevi<\/a> (3) and Others1, Indian Drugs<br \/>\n&amp; Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs &amp;<br \/>\nPharmaceuticals Ltd.2, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and<br \/>\nothers3 and <a href=\"\/doc\/880047\/\" id=\"a_2\">State of Punjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and<br \/>\nOthers4<\/a>).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">9.   With regard to regularisation of the employees working on<br \/>\ntemporary basis, the Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), observed<br \/>\nas under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>                    &#8220;Thus,  it is clear that adherence<br \/>\n                    to  the rule of equality in public<br \/>\n                    employment  is a basic feature  of<br \/>\n                    our  Constitution  and  since  the<br \/>\n                    rule  of  law is the core  of  our<br \/>\n                    Constitution,   a   court    would<br \/>\n                    certainly be disabled from passing<br \/>\n                    an  order upholding a violation of<br \/>\n                    <a href=\"\/doc\/367586\/\" id=\"a_3\">Article  14<\/a>  or  in  ordering  the<br \/>\n                    overlooking of the need to  comply<br \/>\n                    with  the requirements of  <a href=\"\/doc\/367586\/\" id=\"a_4\">Article<br \/>\n                    14<\/a>  read  with <a href=\"\/doc\/211089\/\" id=\"a_5\">Article 16<\/a>  of  the<br \/>\n                    Constitution.           Therefore,<br \/>\n                    consistent  with  the  scheme  for<br \/>\n                    public   employment,  this   Court<br \/>\n                    while  laying  down the  law,  has<br \/>\n                    necessarily  to hold  that  unless<br \/>\n                    the appointment is in terms of the<br \/>\n                    relevant rules and after a  proper<br \/>\n                    competition    among     qualified<br \/>\n                    persons, the same would not confer<br \/>\n                    any right on the appointee.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_10\">  10.  The  above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court has been<\/p>\n<p>       reiterated by this Court in Ashwani Kumar Verma &amp; Others v.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">       State of Chhattigarh &amp; Another5 and Somendra Pratap Singh v.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">       The State of M.P. &amp; others6. Against the order passed in<\/p>\n<p>       Somendra Pratap Singh (supra), the petitioner therein preferred<\/p>\n<p>       a  writ appeal being W.A. (PR) No. 2077\/2008, which  was<\/p>\n<p>       dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated<\/p>\n<p>       29.04.2008 affirming the order passed by the Single Bench.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">       Thereagainst, the matter was taken upto the Supreme Court by<\/p>\n<p>       filing Special Leave Petition being S.L.P.(C) No. 27190\/2008<\/p>\n<p>       (Somendra Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh &amp; Others),<\/p>\n<p>       which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court affirming the<\/p>\n<p>       view taken by this Court, vide its order dated 23.03.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">11.  This Court in Sanjay Patil v. State of Chhattisgarh &amp;<br \/>\nAnother7, while dealing with similar issue observed that &#8220;if<br \/>\nthe State Government has regularized some of the daily wagers,<br \/>\nnot appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of<br \/>\nemployment, this Court cannot issue a positive direction to<br \/>\nlegalise the illegal appointment on the ground that certain<br \/>\nillegal appointments have been legalized\/regularized by the<br \/>\nemployer.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">12.  In this context, the Supreme Court, in <a href=\"\/doc\/693792\/\" id=\"a_6\">Ashok Kumar Sonkar<br \/>\nv. Union of India8<\/a>, observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>                    &#8220;34.   It  is  not  a  case  where<br \/>\n                    appointment was irregular.  If  an<br \/>\n                    appointment is irregular, the same<br \/>\n                    can  be regularised. The Court may<br \/>\n                    not   take  serious  note  of   an<br \/>\n                    irregularity within the meaning of<br \/>\n                    the provisions of the Act. But  if<br \/>\n                    an  appointment is illegal, it  is<br \/>\n                    non  est in the eye of law,  which<br \/>\n                    renders  the appointment to  be  a<br \/>\n                    nullity. &#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_16\">  13.  Further, in <a href=\"\/doc\/1493500\/\" id=\"a_7\">State of Punjab &amp; another v. Surjit Singh  &amp;<\/p>\n<p>       Others9<\/a>, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the above ratio in the<\/p>\n<p>       following terms:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_2\"><p>                    &#8220;39.  We  would,  however,  before<br \/>\n                    parting  make an observation  that<br \/>\n                    the   submission  of  the  learned<br \/>\n                    counsel  that  only  because  some<br \/>\n                    juniors have got the benefit,  the<br \/>\n                    same  by itself cannot be a ground<br \/>\n                    for extending the same benefit  to<br \/>\n                    the  respondents herein. It is now<br \/>\n                    well   known  that  the   equality<br \/>\n                    clause  contained  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/367586\/\" id=\"a_8\">Article  14<\/a><br \/>\n                    should  be invoked only where  the<br \/>\n                    parties are similarly situated and<br \/>\n                    where   orders  passed  in   their<br \/>\n                    favour  are legal and not illegal.<br \/>\n                    It has a positive concept.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_17\">  14.  For the reasons stated hereinabove and applying the well<\/p>\n<p>       settled principles of law to the facts of the present case<\/p>\n<p>       wherein the petitioners were appointed purely on temporary<\/p>\n<p>       basis, they are not entitled to any relief of in-instatement<\/p>\n<p>       \/reappointment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">15.  Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">16.  No order asto costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">                                                  J U D G E<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others on 29 January, 2010 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION S No 417 of 2010 Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others &#8230;Petitioners Versus State of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others &#8230;Respondents ! Shri R K Kesharwani Advocate for [&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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-255945","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others on 29 January, 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\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-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=\"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-08T04:48:18+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others on 29 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-08T04:48:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1327,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-08T04:48:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others on 29 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others on 29 January, 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\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-08T04:48:18+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others on 29 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-08T04:48:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010"},"wordCount":1327,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010","name":"Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others on 29 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-08T04:48:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/durjan-ram-songer-22-others-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-5-others-on-29-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Durjan Ram Songer &amp; 22 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; 5 Others on 29 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255945","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=255945"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255945\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}