{"id":31752,"date":"2011-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-08-11T11:46:49","modified_gmt":"2016-08-11T06:16:49","slug":"chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Chandigarh Admn. Th. Dir. Pub. … vs Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors on 2 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chandigarh Admn. Th. Dir. Pub. … vs Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors on 2 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: R.V.Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n
                                                     1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          Reportable\n\n\n                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                      CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7570 OF 2011\n\n                     [Arising out of SLP (C) No.3568\/2006]\n\n\n\n\nChandigarh Administration through the\n\nDirector Public Instructions (Colleges), Chandigarh              ... Appellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nUsha Kheterpal Waie & Ors.                                       ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
R.V.RAVEENDRAN,J.\n<\/p>\n
       Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.     There   are   four   Government   Arts   and   Science   colleges   in   Union <\/p>\n
Territory   of   Chandigarh.   Till   1988,   the   Chandigarh   Administration, <\/p>\n
appellant herein, used to fill the vacancies of the post of Principal of the Arts <\/p>\n
and Science colleges by deputation from neighbouring States of Punjab and <\/p>\n
Haryana.   When   the   post   of   Principal   in   Government   College   for   Boys, <\/p>\n
                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
Sector   11,   Chandigarh   was   due   to   fall   vacant   on   29.2.1988   on <\/p>\n
superannuation   of   a   deputationist,   two   UT   cadre   lecturers   filed   an <\/p>\n
application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, seeking <\/p>\n
a   direction   that   UT   cadre   lecturers   from   the   Government   Arts   &   Science <\/p>\n
Colleges   should   be   considered   for   the   post   of   Principal   instead   of   taking <\/p>\n
someone   on  deputation   from  the   neighbouring   states.   The   said   application <\/p>\n
was   ultimately   disposed   of   with   a   direction   to   the   Chandigarh <\/p>\n
Administration to consider the case of the applicants and other lecturers of <\/p>\n
UT   cadre   who   may   fall   within   the   zone   of   consideration   as   may   be <\/p>\n
determined by a competent authority, for regular appointment to the post of <\/p>\n
Principals   of   the   Government   Arts   &   Science   colleges,   on   the   basis   of <\/p>\n
relevant criteria, and appoint those who were found suitable. In pursuance of <\/p>\n
the said order, the Chandigarh Administration fixed 30 years experience as <\/p>\n
Lecturer as the eligibility criterion for promotion of lecturers to the post of <\/p>\n
Principal, though at that time (1989-90) there were no lecturer with 30 years <\/p>\n
experience in the cadre. As no UT cadre lecturer possessed such experience, <\/p>\n
again deputationists were appointed as Principals in the said colleges.\n<\/p>\n
3.     Feeling   aggrieved,   the   UT   cadre   lecturers   again   approached   the <\/p>\n
Tribunal and their applications were allowed by the Tribunal by order dated <\/p>\n
                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
12.1.1991,   quashing   the   order   prescribing   30   years   experience   as   also   the <\/p>\n
order appointing deputationists. Thereafter, whenever vacancies arose, it is <\/p>\n
stated that the appellant promoted UT cadre lecturers as Principals. It may be <\/p>\n
mentioned that persons so promoted did not possess a Ph.D. degree.\n<\/p>\n
4.      By notification dated 13.1.1992, Chandigarh Administration adopted <\/p>\n
the   corresponding   Service   Rules   of   Punjab   with   effect   from   1.4.1991   to <\/p>\n
govern   the   conditions   of   service   of   its   employees,   where   it   had   no   rules <\/p>\n
governing   the   matter.   The   effect   of   it   was   that   the   provisions   of   Punjab <\/p>\n
Educational Service (College Grade) (Class I) Rules, 1976 (as amended in <\/p>\n
1983   (for   short   `1976   Punjab   Rules’)   became   applicable   in   regard   to   the <\/p>\n
recruitment of candidates to UT college cadre. Under the said 1976 Punjab <\/p>\n
Rules, the qualification and experience for appointment to the service was as <\/p>\n
under:  For   direct   recruitment  :   (a)   MA,   first   division   or   high   second <\/p>\n
division   (50%)   in   relevant   subject   or   an   equivalent   degree   of   a   foreign <\/p>\n
university with eight years teaching experience; (b) Ph.D. with eight years <\/p>\n
teaching experience; By promotion : Experience of working as a lecturer for <\/p>\n
a minimum period of eight years.\n<\/p>\n
                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
5.     When   matters   stood   thus   the   Administrator,   Chandigarh <\/p>\n
Administration,   framed   and   notified   the   “Chandigarh   Educational   Service <\/p>\n
(Group A Gazetted) Government Arts and Science College Rules, 2000 (for <\/p>\n
short   `Recruitment   Rules’)   vide   notification   dated   29.3.2000   published   in <\/p>\n
the Gazette dated 1.4.2000. The said Rules were framed in consultation with <\/p>\n
the   Union   Public   Service   Commission   (`UPSC’   for   short)   and   sent   to   the <\/p>\n
Government of India for being issued in the name of the President of India.\n<\/p>\n
As   per   the   said   Rules,   the   appointment   to   the   posts   of   Principal   in <\/p>\n
Government Arts and Science Colleges was 25% by direct recruitment and <\/p>\n
75% by promotion. The said rules prescribed the educational qualification of <\/p>\n
Ph.D.   for   appointment   to   the   post   of   Principal   by   direct   recruitment.   The <\/p>\n
appellant   advertised   a   post   of   Principal   (which   was   falling   vacant   on <\/p>\n
31.7.2001) on 14.7.2001 prescribing the following eligibility criteria as per <\/p>\n
the said Rules :\n<\/p>\n
       “Educational   and   other   qualifications   required   for   direct   recruits   : <\/p>\n
       Essential: (i) A Doctorate degree or equivalent with at least 55% marks at <\/p>\n
       the Master’s Degree level from a recognized university or equivalent; (ii) <\/p>\n
       12 years teaching experience of degree classes in a college affiliated to a <\/p>\n
       university or equivalent.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
6.     Respondents 1 to 4 had joined UT Colleges (Arts & Science) cadre in <\/p>\n
1969   and   1970   and   were   serving   as   lecturers   in   the   Government   Arts   & <\/p>\n
Science Colleges. None of them possessed a Ph.D. degree. They filed OA <\/p>\n
                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
No.684\/CH\/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenged the <\/p>\n
said   Recruitment   Rules   and   the   advertisement   dated   14.7.2001,   as <\/p>\n
unconstitutional   and   for   a   direction   that   they   along   with   other   eligible <\/p>\n
candidates from the UT cadre should be considered for promotion to the said <\/p>\n
post. It was contended that the Administrator of the Union Territory had no <\/p>\n
power to make the said Recruitment Rules, as it was only the President of <\/p>\n
India   who   was   competent   to   frame   such   rules   under   Article   309   of   the <\/p>\n
Constitution   of   India.   They   also   contended   that   on   earlier   occasions   the <\/p>\n
appellant   had   promoted   lecturers   as   Principals   without   insisting   upon   the <\/p>\n
qualification  of  Ph.D.;  and  that  though they  did not  possess   Ph.D.  degree, <\/p>\n
having   regard   to   the   eligibility   criteria   earlier   being   applied,   they   were <\/p>\n
eligible for being considered for the post of Principals, and the Chandigarh <\/p>\n
Administration   should   fill   the   vacancies   of   Principals,   by   applying   the <\/p>\n
eligibility   criteria   which   was   prevalent   prior   to   the   making   of   the   said <\/p>\n
recruitment rules.\n<\/p>\n
7.     The appellant, in its statement of objections filed before the Tribunal <\/p>\n
conceded   that   the   “power  to  notify   the   recruitment  rules   for   Class   I  Posts <\/p>\n
vested   with   the   President   of   India”.   The   appellant   stated   that   they   had <\/p>\n
forwarded the Recruitment Rules to the government of India under cover of <\/p>\n
                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
letter dated 21.9.2001, to notify the said Rules under the name of President <\/p>\n
of   India,   and   such   notification   was   awaited.   They   contended   that   pending <\/p>\n
publication   of   the   Rules,   they   could   resort   to   recruitment   in   terms   of   the <\/p>\n
draft   Rules   on   the   basis   of   administrative   instructions.   The   appellant   also <\/p>\n
contested   the   application   by   contending   that   the   post   in   question   was <\/p>\n
required   to   be   filled   under   the   direct   recruitment   quota,   and   none   of   the <\/p>\n
applicants were eligible as they did not possess Ph.D. degree, which was the <\/p>\n
qualification   prescribed   by   the   university   Grants   Commission   (`UGC’   for <\/p>\n
short)   and   approved   by   the   UPSC,   and   therefore   none   of   them   could   be <\/p>\n
considered for appointment to the said post.\n<\/p>\n
8.      The said application (OA No.648 – CH of 2001) was allowed by the <\/p>\n
Tribunal, by order dated 22.4.2002. The Tribunal held that in the absence of <\/p>\n
any recruitment rules prescribing such qualification, Ph.D. degree was not an <\/p>\n
eligibility requirement for the post of Principal. The Tribunal held that UGC <\/p>\n
guidelines   would   not   apply   as   the   Rules   providing   for   25%   by   direct <\/p>\n
recruitment was not in force; and that even if the new rules were to be duly <\/p>\n
framed,   such   Rules   would   apply   only   to   future   vacancies   and   not   to   the <\/p>\n
vacancies which arose on 31.7.2001. The Tribunal held that in the absence <\/p>\n
of any Rules, it was appropriate to take guidance from its earlier judgments <\/p>\n
                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
dated   12.9.1989   and   12.11.1991   which   accepted   the   administrative <\/p>\n
instructions dated 20.8.1987 permitting UT cadre lecturers to be promoted as <\/p>\n
Principals, even though they did not possess any Ph.D. degree. The Tribunal <\/p>\n
also   rejected   the   contention   of   the   appellant   that   as   per   notification   dated <\/p>\n
13.1.1992, the 1976 Punjab Rules  became  applicable  under which 75% of <\/p>\n
the posts had to be filled by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment with <\/p>\n
Ph.D as an eligibility requirement, on the ground that no material was placed <\/p>\n
to show that the said 1976 Punjab Rules were ever followed for appointing <\/p>\n
Principals   in   UT   of   Chandigarh.   The   Tribunal   therefore   quashed   the <\/p>\n
advertisement dated 14.7.2001 inviting applications for the post of Principal <\/p>\n
and directed  the appellant  to fill the vacancy  according to law, keeping in <\/p>\n
view the eligibility criteria and the past practice till the Rules are framed and <\/p>\n
notified   by   the   competent   authority.   The   said   order   of   the   Tribunal   was <\/p>\n
challenged   by   the   appellant   before   the   High   Court.   The   High   Court <\/p>\n
dismissed the writ petition by impugned order dated 26.10.2005, affirming <\/p>\n
the findings of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
9.      Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave <\/p>\n
raising  the  following   contentions:  (i)  When   appellant  has   framed  the  draft <\/p>\n
Rules in consultation with UPSC and had been placed the Rules before the <\/p>\n
                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
central   government,   for   being   notified   under   the   name   of  the   President   of <\/p>\n
India,   pending   such     notification   of   the   Rules,   it   was   entitled   to   invite <\/p>\n
applications for the post of Principal in terms of the said Rules by treating <\/p>\n
them as draft rules under consideration. (ii) The Tribunal and the High Court <\/p>\n
could not substitute the eligibility requirements prescribed by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) The Tribunal and the High Court could not have ignored the notification <\/p>\n
dated   13.1.1992   adopting   the   corresponding   Punjab   Rules   to   govern   the <\/p>\n
service   of   its   employees   wherever   there   were   no   rules   of   the   Chandigarh <\/p>\n
Administration. (iv) The 1976 Punjab Rules were applicable, and in terms of <\/p>\n
it, the advertisement for filling one post of Principal by direct recruitment by <\/p>\n
prescribing the eligibility requirement of Ph.D was valid. The appellant also <\/p>\n
pointed  out  that  another  bench  of  the  Tribunal  by  order  dated   3.8.1995  in <\/p>\n
OA No.844-CH of 1994 has clearly held that the 1976 Punjab Rules would <\/p>\n
apply   to   recruitment\/employment,   having   regard   to   the   notification   dated <\/p>\n
13.1.1992 of the Chandigarh Administration adopting the Punjab Rules; and <\/p>\n
as there was a clear divergence between the two decisions of the Tribunal, <\/p>\n
the   High   Court   could   not   have   mechanically   affirmed   the   decision   of   the <\/p>\n
Tribunal that the 1996 Punjab Rules were inapplicable.\n<\/p>\n
                                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
10.    The first question for our consideration is whether the appellant could <\/p>\n
have prescribed  in the advertisement, the educational  qualifications for the <\/p>\n
post of Principal in terms of its 2000 Recruitment rules. The Administrator <\/p>\n
of the Chandigarh Administration made the Chandigarh Educational Service <\/p>\n
(Group A) Gazetted Government Arts & Science College Rules, 2000 vide <\/p>\n
notification dated 29.3.2000 and published it in the Gazette dated 1.4.2000.\n<\/p>\n
The said Rules were made in consultation with the UPSC, taking note of the <\/p>\n
UGC   guidelines   prescribing   Ph.D.   degree   as   an   eligibility   criteria   for   the <\/p>\n
post of Principals to be filled by direct recruitment. The Rules were sent to <\/p>\n
the Central Government for being notified in the name of the President of <\/p>\n
India   and   were   pending   consideration.   It   is   in   these   circumstances   the <\/p>\n
appellant advertised the post in terms of the said Rules, by prescribing the <\/p>\n
educational   qualification   of   Ph.D.   for   direct   recruitment   to   the   post   of <\/p>\n
Principal.   In  Abraham   Jacob   vs.   Union   of   India<\/a>  [1998   (4)   SCC   65],   this <\/p>\n
Court held that where draft rules have been made, an administrative decision <\/p>\n
taken to make promotions in accordance with the draft rules which were to <\/p>\n
be finalized later on, was valid. In Vimal Kumari vs. State of Haryana<\/a> [1998 <\/p>\n
(4) SCC 114], this Court held that it is open to the Government to regulate <\/p>\n
the service conditions of the employees for whom the rules were made, even <\/p>\n
if they were in their draft stage, provided there is a clear intention on the part <\/p>\n
                                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Government to enforce those rules in the near future. In this case, the <\/p>\n
High   Court   however   rejected   the   advertisement   on   the   ground   that   the <\/p>\n
regular rules were not notified by the President of India even after five years, <\/p>\n
when   the   High   Court   decided   the   matter.   But   what   is   relevant   to   test   the <\/p>\n
validity   of   the   advertisement,   was   the   intention   of   the   appellant   when   the <\/p>\n
advertisement was issued. At that time, the appellant had the clear intention <\/p>\n
to   enforce   the   Recruitment   Rules   in   future   as   they   had   been   made   in <\/p>\n
consultation   with   UPSC,   in   accordance   with   the   UGC   guidelines   and   the <\/p>\n
Rules   had   been   sent   to   the   Central   Government   for   being   notified   by   the <\/p>\n
President and the matter was pending consideration for a few months when <\/p>\n
the advertisement was issued. The appellant at that time had no inkling that <\/p>\n
there   would   be   inordinate   delay   or   the   Rules   may   not   be   notified   by   the <\/p>\n
President.   Therefore,   the   advertisement   in   terms   of   the   2000   Recruitment <\/p>\n
rules was valid.\n<\/p>\n
11.     Even   in   the   absence   of   valid   rules,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the <\/p>\n
advertisement was invalid. In exercise of its executive power, the appellant <\/p>\n
could   issue   administrative   instructions   from   time   to   time   in   regard   to   all <\/p>\n
matters   which   were   not   governed   by   any   statute   or   rules   made   under   the <\/p>\n
Constitution   or   a   statute.   In   fact   it   is   the   case   of   the   respondents   that   the <\/p>\n
                                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant   had   issued   such   instructions   on   20.8.1987   directing   that   the <\/p>\n
lecturers   from   UT   cadre   should   be   promoted   as   principals.   In   fact,   the <\/p>\n
administrator  of  appellant   had   issued  a   notification   on   13.1.1992  adopting <\/p>\n
the   corresponding   Punjab   Rules   to   govern   the   service   conditions   of   its <\/p>\n
employees. If so, the administrator of appellant could issue fresh directions <\/p>\n
in regard to qualifications for recruitment. The Recruitment Rules made by <\/p>\n
the   Administrator   were   duly   notified.   Though   they   were   not   rules   under <\/p>\n
Article   309,   they   were   nevertheless   valid   as   administrative   instructions <\/p>\n
issued   in   exercise   of   executive   power,   in   the   absence   of   any   other   Rules <\/p>\n
governing   the   matter.   Once   the   recruitment   rules,   made   by   the <\/p>\n
Administrator,   were   notified,   they   became   binding   executive   instructions <\/p>\n
which   would   hold   good   till   the   rules   were   made   under   Article   309.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the advertisement issued in terms of the said Recruitment Rules <\/p>\n
was valid.\n<\/p>\n
12.     The Tribunal and High Court also committed an error in holding that <\/p>\n
the appellant could not prescribe the qualifications of Ph.D. for the post of <\/p>\n
principal   merely   because   earlier  the  said  educational  qualification  was  not <\/p>\n
prescribed   or   insisted.     The   Recruitment   Rules   were   made   in   consultation <\/p>\n
with   UPSC,   to   give   effect   to   the   UGC   guidelines   which   prescribed   Ph.D.\n<\/p>\n
                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
degree as the eligibility qualification for direct recruitment of Principals. In <\/p>\n
fact, even the 1976 Punjab Rules prescribed Ph.D. degree as a qualification.\n<\/p>\n
In several States, Ph.D. is a requirement for direct recruitment to the post of <\/p>\n
a college Principal. When the said qualification is not unrelated to the duties <\/p>\n
and functions of the post of Principal and is reasonably relevant to maintain <\/p>\n
the   high   standards   of   education,   there   is   absolutely   no   reason   to   interfere <\/p>\n
with the provision of the said requirement as an eligibility requirement. It is <\/p>\n
now   well   settled   that   it   is   for   the   rule-making   authority   or   the   appointing <\/p>\n
authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for <\/p>\n
any recruitment. Courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications <\/p>\n
nor   entrench   upon   the   power   of   the   concerned   authority   so   long   as   the <\/p>\n
qualifications prescribed by the employer   is reasonably relevant and has a <\/p>\n
rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not <\/p>\n
violative   of   any   provision   of   Constitution,   statute   and   Rules.   [See  J.\n<\/p>\n
Rangaswamy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh  – 1990 (1) SCC 288 and <\/p>\n
P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant General  – 2003 (2) SCC 632]. In the absence of <\/p>\n
any   rules,   under   Article   309   or   Statute,   the   appellant   had   the   power   to <\/p>\n
appoint   under   its   general   power   of   administration   and   prescribe   such <\/p>\n
eligibility   criteria   as   it   is   considered   to   be   necessary   and   reasonable.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of Ph.D. is unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
                                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
13.     The Tribunal and the High Court have held that in the years 1989 and <\/p>\n
1991, the Tribunal had accepted the earlier administrative instructions dated <\/p>\n
20.8.1987 which required the UT cadre employees to be considered for the <\/p>\n
post   has   to   be   followed.   The   fact   that   at   that   time   Ph.D.   degree   was   not <\/p>\n
insisted upon, does not mean that for all times to come, Ph.D. degree could <\/p>\n
not   be   insisted.   Ph.D.   degree   was   made   a   qualification   because   UGC <\/p>\n
guidelines required it for direct recruitment post and the UPSC approved the <\/p>\n
same.   Therefore,   merely   because   on   some   earlier   occasions,   the   posts   of <\/p>\n
Principal were filled by UT cadre lecturers without Ph.D. degree, it cannot <\/p>\n
be argued that the Ph.D. degree cannot be prescribed subsequently.\n<\/p>\n
14.     The Tribunal and High Court were not justified in holding that 1976 <\/p>\n
Punjab Rules were not applicable on the ground that no material had been <\/p>\n
placed to show that they were followed while appointing a principal in the <\/p>\n
past.   The fact that the appellant  had issued a notification dated 13.1.1992 <\/p>\n
adopting   the   corresponding   Punjab   Rules   governing   the   conditions   of <\/p>\n
service of its employees, is not disputed. Therefore when appellant acted in <\/p>\n
accordance with the said directions, it is not necessary to consider whether <\/p>\n
there were any occasion between 1992 to 2001 to invoke the said rules or <\/p>\n
whether they were in fact invoked. The notification dated 13.1.1992 could <\/p>\n
                                                14<\/span><\/p>\n
not   have   been   brushed   aside   in   the   manner   done   by   the   Tribunal   and   the <\/p>\n
High Court.\n<\/p>\n
15.     In   view   of   the   above,   we   allow   this   appeal   and   set   aside   the   order <\/p>\n
dated 22.4.2002 of the Tribunal and the order dated 26.10.2005 of the High <\/p>\n
Court.   The   original   application   (OA   No.648   –   CH   of   2001)   filed   by <\/p>\n
respondents   2   to   5   before   the   Tribunal   is   dismissed.   The   prayer   that <\/p>\n
Chandigarh   Administration   should   be   directed   to   fill   the   vacancies   of <\/p>\n
Principals in accordance with the eligibility criteria as was prevalent prior to <\/p>\n
the   issue   of   the   notification   dated   14.7.2001,   is   rejected.   The   notification <\/p>\n
prescribing educational qualification of doctorate degree or equivalent with <\/p>\n
55% marks at the Master’s Degree Level examination or 12 years teaching <\/p>\n
experience   of   degree   classes   in   a   college   affiliated   to   any   university   or <\/p>\n
equivalent  is upheld as validly prescribing the qualifications for filling the <\/p>\n
post by direct recruitment.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          …………………………..J.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                          (R V Raveendran)\n\n\n\n\n\nNew Delhi;                                                ...............................J.\n\nSeptember 2, 2011.                                        (Markandey Katju)            \n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chandigarh Admn. Th. Dir. Pub. … vs Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors on 2 September, 2011 Author: R.V.Raveendran Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Markandey Katju 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7570 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.3568\/2006] Chandigarh Administration through the Director […]<\/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-31752","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChandigarh Admn. Th. Dir. Pub. ... vs Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors on 2 September, 2011 - 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\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandigarh Admn. Th. Dir. Pub. ... vs Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors on 2 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-11T06:16:49+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\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandigarh Admn. Th. Dir. Pub. … vs Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors on 2 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-11T06:16:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2829,\"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\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Chandigarh Admn. Th. Dir. Pub. ... vs Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors on 2 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-11T06:16:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandigarh Admn. Th. Dir. Pub. … vs Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors on 2 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Chandigarh Admn. Th. Dir. Pub. ... vs Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors on 2 September, 2011 - 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\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandigarh Admn. Th. Dir. Pub. ... vs Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors on 2 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-11T06:16:49+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\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandigarh Admn. Th. Dir. Pub. … vs Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors on 2 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-11T06:16:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011"},"wordCount":2829,"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\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011","name":"Chandigarh Admn. Th. Dir. Pub. ... vs Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors on 2 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-11T06:16:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-admn-th-dir-pub-vs-usha-kheterpal-waie-ors-on-2-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandigarh Admn. Th. Dir. Pub. … vs Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors on 2 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/31752","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=31752"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31752\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}