{"id":32109,"date":"1978-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978"},"modified":"2016-07-22T03:25:59","modified_gmt":"2016-07-21T21:55:59","slug":"state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978","title":{"rendered":"State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Raj Dulari Razdan & Ors on 15 December, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Raj Dulari Razdan & Ors on 15 December, 1978<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 586, \t\t 1979 SCR (2) 870<\/div>\n
Author: P Shingal<\/div>\n
Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R., Shingal, P.N., Kailasam, P.S., Desai, D.A., Koshal, A.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAJ DULARI RAZDAN & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/12\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nBENCH:\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nDESAI, D.A.\nKOSHAL, A.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR  586\t\t  1979 SCR  (2) 870\n 1979 SCC  (1) 461\n\n\nACT:\n     Jammu  and\t Kashmir  Constitution-Section\t133(2)\t(b),\ninterpretation\t-Whether   consulting  the   Public  Service\nCommission is mandatory.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant  State  Government's\t Order\tNo.  643-HTE\ndated July 25, 1969 promoting certain professors was quashed\nby the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir while allowing the Writ\nPetition No. 124\/69 filed by the respondent.\n     Leaving out the merits for decision by another Bench of\nthis Court.\n^\n     HELD :  1. What clause (b) of sub-section (2) of s. 133\nof the\tJammu &\t Kashmir Constitution  requires is  that the\nCommission shall  be consulted:\t (i) on the principles to be\nfollowed in  making appointments to civil services and posts\nand in\tmaking promotions  and transfers from one service to\nanother and  (ii) on  the suitability of candidates for such\nappointments,\tpromotions    or   transfers.\t No    other\ninterpretation is  really permissible  on the plain language\nof the\tclause.\t It  is\t not  provided\tby  s.\t133  of\t the\nConstitution that  all the  members of the Commission should\nhave interviewed  all or  any of  the candidates, or that it\nwas not\t permissible  for  the\tCommission  to\tentrust\t the\nselection to  a committee  consisting of  only\tone  of\t its\nmembers, so  long as  the Commission  reserved to itself the\nright to  approve or  disapprove the  committee's report and\nactually discharged that constitutional responsibility. [872\nF-H, 874 B-C]\n     2. The  question whether the requirement for consulting\nthe Commission\tis mandatory  or not  does not arise in this\ncase. [873 A].\n     3. The  High Court erred in holding that the Commission\nwas not\t consulted in  the manner  required by s. 133 of the\nJammu & Kashmir Constitution and in regard to the principles\nto be  followed in  making the\tpromotions to  the posts  of\nprofessors on the suitability of selected candidates for the\npromotions. [873 B, 874 D-E]\n     On the  facts which  have been brought on the record it\nis established\tthat (a)  the Commission  was  consulted  in\nregard to  the principles  to  be  followed  in\t making\t the\npromotions to  the posts  of professors\t as laid down in the\n\"Jammu &  Kashmir Professors  of Colleges (Selection) Rules,\n1969\", and [873 C-D].\n     (b) the  Commission was consulted on the suitability of\nthe candidates\tfor promotion  as professors  and the second\nrequirement of\tclause (b)  of sub-section (2) of s. 133 was\nalso complied  with, since  the selection of the respondents\n(to the Writ Petition) was made on the recommendation of the\nPublic\tService\t Commission  after  their  names  were\tsent\nstrictly in  order of  seniority as  per  direction  of\t the\nCommission, after  they had been interviewed and examined by\nthe Selection  Committee, formed and presided over by one of\nthe members of the Commission as Chairman. [873 F-H, 874 A]\n871\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 246 of
\n1973.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal from  the Judgment\tand Order dated 1-11-1971 of
\nthe Jammu and Kashmir High Court in W.P. No. 124\/69.\n<\/p>\n
     S. V.  Gupte, Attorney  General, Altaf  Ahmed  for\t the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
     L. N.  Sinha, K.  P. Gupta,  D. B.\t Tawkley and  Vineet
\nKumar for RR 1-21, 23, 25, 27 to 29 and 31-38.\n<\/p>\n
     G. L.  Sanghi, R. K. Mehta and Miss Uma Mehta for RR 55
\nand 72.\n<\/p>\n
     S. S. Khanduja for RR 53.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SHINGHAL J.-This  appeal  by  certificate\tis  directed
\nagainst the  judgment of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
\ndated November\t1, 1971,  in writ  petition No. 124 of 1969.
\nThat  petition\t was  filed   against  the   promotions\t  of
\nrespondents Nos.  1  to\t 46  and  others  as  Professors  in
\nsupersession of\t the claims  of\t the  writ  petitioners\t who
\ncontended that\tthey were  senior  and\tmore  qualified\t for
\npromotion. The\tHigh Court  allowed the\t writ  petition\t and
\nquashed the  State Government’s Order No. 643-HTE dated July
\n25, 1969,  in regard to the appointments of respondents Nos.
\n3 to  46 and  directed that  it would  be open\tto the State
\nGovernment to  make  a\tfresh  selection  of  Professors  in
\naccordance with the law. A review petition was filed against
\nthe judgment  but was  dismissed on  September 14, 1972. The
\nState Government  is aggrieved\tand has\t filed\tthe  present
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
     When the  case was taken up for hearing on November 28,
\n1978. it  was brought  to our  notice  by  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondents that it will not be possible for them to advance
\ntheir  arguments   with\t reference  to\tarticle\t 16  of\t the
\nConstitution  of   India  as   the  various   sealed  covers
\ncontaining the\tdate on\t which the selections were made have
\nnot been  received from\t the High  Court.  Learned  Attorney
\nGeneral\t and   the  counsel  for  the  respondents  were  in
\nagreement that\tas the constitutional point which arises for
\nconsideration in  this case relates to the interpretation of
\nsection 133(2) (b) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir,
\nhereinafter referred  to as  the Constitution,\tit  will  be
\nenough to  consider, at this stage, whether that section has
\nbeen correctly\tinterpreted and\t whether the  Public Service
\nCommission for\tthe State  of Jammu and Kashmir, hereinafter
\nreferred  to  as  the  Commission,  has\t been  consulted  in
\naccordance with\t its requirement.  We have accordingly heard
\nthe arguments only on these two points, and will confine
\n872<\/span>
\nourselves to them, leaving the question of the applicability
\nof article 16 of the Constitution of India on the merits for
\nconsideration by  the Bench  before which  the case  may  be
\ntaken up for hearing hereafter.\n<\/p>\n
     The controversy relates to the interpretation of clause\n<\/p>\n
(b) of\tsub-section (2)\t of section  133 of the Constitution
\nwhich,\twhen  read  with  the  other  connected\t provisions,
\nprovides as follows.-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “133 (2) The Commission shall be consulted-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) ……………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  on the  principles to  be followed  in making
\n\t       appointments to\tcivil services and posts and
\n\t       in making  promotions and  transfers from one
\n\t       service to  another and on the suitability of
\n\t       candidates for  such appointments, promotions
\n\t       or transfers;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)…………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     and it shall be the duty of the Commission to advise on
\n     any matter\t so referred  to them or on any other matter
\n     which the Governor may refer to them:
\n\t  Provided that\t the Governor  may make\t regulations
\n     specifying the  matters in which either generally or in
\n     any particular  class of  cases or\t in  any  particular
\n     circumstances,  it\t shall\tnot  be\t necessary  for\t the
\n     Commission to be consulted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Although it  has been  urged in the written arguments of the
\nappellant that\tsection 133(2) (b) was “not at all attracted
\nin the\tmatters of  making promotions  in the same service”,
\nand its true and correct interpretation would be that “it is
\napplicable only to ‘making promotions and transfers from one
\nservice to another’,” learned Attorney General has, with his
\nusual candour  and fairness, stated that he does not find it
\npossible to support that contention. He has therefore argued
\nthat what  clause (b)  of sub-section  (2)  of\tsection\t 133
\nrequires is  that the  Commission shall be consulted; (i) on
\nthe principles\tto be  followed in  making  appointments  to
\ncivil services\tand  posts  and\t in  making  promotions\t and
\ntransfers from\tone service  to another,  and  (ii)  on\t the
\nsuitability of\tcandidates for such appointments, promotions
\nor transfers.  He has  urged that as this requirement of the
\nConstitution was duly complied with, the High Court erred in
\ntaking a contrary view.\n<\/p>\n
     The interpretation\t put by\t learned Attorney General is
\nquite correct  and we  have no hesitation in approving it as
\nin our opinion no other interpretation is really permissible
\non the plain language of the clause.\n<\/p>\n
873<\/span><\/p>\n
     The question whether the requirement for consulting the
\nCommission is  mandatory or not does not arise in this case,
\nbecause it  is not  disputed, and is in fact the case of the
\nappellant State,  that the  Commission\twas  consulted.\t The
\nquestion which remains for consideration is whether this was
\nreally so.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for the  respondents was\tnot able  to
\nrefer us  to any  averment in  the writ\t petition  that\t the
\nCommission  was\t not  consulted\t either\t in  regard  to\t the
\nprinciples to  be  followed  in\t making\t the  promotions  in
\nquestion, or  on the  suitability of selected candidates for
\nthe promotions.\t We have,  all the  same, gone\tthrough\t the
\nrecord, and  we find  that the\tState  Government  at  first
\nframed rules on November 15, 1968, for selections to be made
\nto posts  of Professors in the colleges. By Notification No.
\nSRO-161 dated  March 25,  1969, those rules were replaced by
\nthe  rules   made  by  the  Governor  specifically  for\t the
\nappointment of\tProfessors, which were called the “Jammu and
\nKashmir Professors  of Colleges (Selection) Rules, 1969.” It
\nhas been  specifically stated on behalf of the State that it
\nconsulted  the\t Commission  under   section  133   of\t the
\nConstitution, and  as the writ petitioners have not ventured
\nto take\t a plea\t to the\t contrary, we  have no hesitation in
\nholding, on the facts which have been brought on the record,
\nthat  the   Commission\twas   consulted\t in  regard  to\t the
\nprinciples to  be followed  in making  the promotions to the
\nposts of Professors.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  also examined  the record to ascertain whether
\nthe other  requirement of  clause (b)  of sub-section (2) of
\nsection 133 of the Constitution that the Commission shall be
\nconsulted  on\tthe  suitability   of  the   candidates\t for
\npromotions to  the posts  of Professors,  has been  complied
\nwith. The  State Government  has stated\t in its reply to the
\nwrit petition  that for\t every post  of Professor,  names of
\nfour Lecturers, strictly in order of seniority, were sent to
\nthe Commission\t“at its direction” and they were interviewed
\nand examined  by the  Selection Committee which was “formed”
\nby the\tCommission, and\t a  member  of\tthe  Commission\t was
\nappointed its  Chairman. It has further been stated that the
\ncommission’s recommendation  for selection  was made  on the
\nbasis of  the marks obtained by the respondents (to the writ
\npetition) at  the interviews and that the selection was also
\nmade “on  the basis  of the  recommendation  of\t the  Public
\nService Commission”  and there\twas “no\t deviation from\t the
\nmerit list  prepared by\t the Public Service Commission.” The
\nState Government has in fact placed on record the minutes of
\nthe Commission\tdated July  22, 1969,  which make  it  quite
\nclear that  the State  Government referred the selections to
\nthe Commission,\t a Committee was appointed by the Commission
\nfor that purpose, the Committee was
\n874<\/span>
\npresided over  by a  member of the Commission, the report of
\nthe Committee was formally submitted to the Commission under
\nthe Chairman’s\tnote dated  June 2, 1969, and the Commission
\nthen took  its decision\t regarding the\trecommendation to be
\nmade to\t the State  Government\tfor  the  appointments.\t The
\nCommission set out the reasons for its decision, and finally
\nmade  its  recommendation  on  merits.\tThe  Commission\t was
\ntherefore consulted on the suitability of the candidates for
\npromotion as Professors and the second requirement of clause\n<\/p>\n
(b) of\tsub-section (2)\t of section  133 was  also  complied
\nwith. It  is not provided by section 133 of the Constitution
\nthat  all   the\t members   of  the  Commission\tshould\thave
\ninterviewed all or any of the candidates, or that it was not
\npermissible for the Commission to entrust the selection to a
\ncommittee consisting  of only one of its members, so long as
\nthe Commission\treserved to  itself the\t right to approve or
\ndisapprove the\tcommittee’s report  and actually  discharged
\nthat  constitutional  responsibility.  No  argument  to\t the
\ncontrary has  in fact  been urged for our consideration. Had
\nthe Commission\tde facto  abdicated its\t power in  favour of
\nsome committee\tcomposed of  strangers to the Commission the
\nposition might have been different. Here, it was not so.\n<\/p>\n
     It would  thus appear  that the  High  Court  erred  in
\nholding that  the Commission was not consulted in the manner
\nrequired by  section 133  of the  Constitution and  that the
\nselection made\tby it was invalid for that reason. With this
\nfinding we  shall have\tthe rest of the case for decision by
\nthe Bench concerned.\n<\/p>\n
V.D.K.\t  Appeal accepted, leaving
\n     the merits for decision by
\n     another Bench of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
875<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Raj Dulari Razdan & Ors on 15 December, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 586, 1979 SCR (2) 870 Author: P Shingal Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R., Shingal, P.N., Kailasam, P.S., Desai, D.A., Koshal, A.D. PETITIONER: STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR Vs. RESPONDENT: RAJ DULARI RAZDAN & ORS. […]<\/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-32109","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Raj Dulari Razdan & Ors on 15 December, 1978 - 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\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Raj Dulari Razdan & Ors on 15 December, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978\" \/>\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=\"1978-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-21T21:55:59+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Raj Dulari Razdan & Ors on 15 December, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-21T21:55:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978\"},\"wordCount\":1535,\"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\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978\",\"name\":\"State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Raj Dulari Razdan & Ors on 15 December, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-21T21:55:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Raj Dulari Razdan & Ors on 15 December, 1978\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Raj Dulari Razdan & Ors on 15 December, 1978 - 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\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Raj Dulari Razdan & Ors on 15 December, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-21T21:55:59+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Raj Dulari Razdan & Ors on 15 December, 1978","datePublished":"1978-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-21T21:55:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978"},"wordCount":1535,"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\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978","name":"State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Raj Dulari Razdan & Ors on 15 December, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-21T21:55:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-jammu-kashmir-vs-raj-dulari-razdan-ors-on-15-december-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Raj Dulari Razdan & Ors on 15 December, 1978"}]},{"@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\/32109","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=32109"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32109\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}