{"id":33100,"date":"2010-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-15T18:44:07","modified_gmt":"2015-04-15T13:14:07","slug":"jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jitendra Chauhan vs Union Of India And Others on 4 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jitendra Chauhan vs Union Of India And Others on 4 February, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                     1\n\n                                                               Court No.39\n\n               Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5225 of 2010\n                           Jitendra Chauhan\n                                  Vs.\n                         Union of India &amp; Ors.\n                                  ~~~~~~~\nCounsel for the petitioner :- Sri S.N. Chauhan and Sri V.P. Shukla\nCounsel for the respondents :- Sri Rajesh Khare\n\nHon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>      The petitioner has sought the quashing of that essential qualification<br \/>\nprescribed by the Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology for<br \/>\nadmission to the Under Graduate Programme which prescribes that the<br \/>\nminimum percentage of marks in Class X and 10+2 Examination shall be<br \/>\n70% for appearance at the Admission Test.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as the &#8216;Institute&#8217;) is a deemed University under Section 3 of the<br \/>\nUniversities Grants Commission Act, 1956 and has been set up under the<br \/>\nDepartment of Space, Government of India in the academic year 2007-08.<br \/>\nThe Institute offers Under Graduate (B. Tech.) Programmes in Aerospace<br \/>\nEngineering, Avionics and Physical Sciences and has been developed as a<br \/>\nCentre of Excellence in the area of advanced Space Science and<br \/>\nTechnology with Post Graduate, Doctoral and Post Doctoral Programmes<br \/>\nin niche areas of Space Science, Technology and Applications to cater to<br \/>\nthe sophisticated technological requirements of Indian Space Research<br \/>\nOrganisation (hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;ISRO&#8217;). The education is fully<br \/>\nintegrated with high technology research work being carried out at ISRO<br \/>\nCentres. The Institute presently functions from a specially created<br \/>\nAlternative Campus adjacent to the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,<br \/>\nThiruvananthapuram, though the permanent campus is being established at<br \/>\nValiamala about 20 Kms. from Thiruvananthapuram city. Every student<br \/>\nwho completes the B.Tech Programme from the Institute, meeting<br \/>\nspecified academic standards, is absorbed in ISRO as Scientist\/Engineer.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The total number of seats for the Under Graduate Programme in the<br \/>\nInstitute for the session 2010-11 is 156. Admission to the Under Graduate<br \/>\nProgramme is made through an Admission Test consisting of two papers.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The eligibility conditions deal with Citizenship, Date of Birth, Qualifying<br \/>\nExamination and also the Minimum Percentage of Marks in Class X or<br \/>\nEquivalent Examination and Class 10+2 or Equivalent Examination.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The petitioner has challenged the requirement of having a minimum<br \/>\npercentage of marks in Class X and 10+2 or Equivalent Examinations and<br \/>\nthe said conditions are reproduced below:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                      &#8220;4. Minimum Percentage of Marks in Class X or<br \/>\n                      equivalent examination<br \/>\n                            Candidates belonging to GEN and OBC<br \/>\n                      categories must have at least 70% in all subjects<br \/>\n                      combined and those belongings to SC, ST and PD<br \/>\n                      categories must have at least 60%.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                      5. Minimum Percentage of Marks in 10+2 or<br \/>\n                      equivalent examination<br \/>\n                            Candidates belonging to GEN and OBC<br \/>\n                      categories must have at least 70% in aggregate in<br \/>\n                      Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics (PCM) papers and<br \/>\n                      those belongings to SC, ST and PD categories must<br \/>\n                      have at least 60%.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      It is stated in the petition that the petitioner had obtained 52% in the<br \/>\nHigh School Examination 2007 and 66% in the Intermediate Examination<br \/>\n2009 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate<br \/>\nExamination, U.P. and, therefore, does not possess the conditions stipulated<br \/>\nin Clauses 4 and 5.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the Entrance<br \/>\nExamination conducted by IIT&#8217;s, students who opt for admission in B.Tech<br \/>\nin Aerospace Engineering, Avionics and Physical Sciences are required to<br \/>\nhave obtained at least 60% in the 10+2 Examination and so the condition<br \/>\nprescribed by the Institute that the candidates belonging to the General<br \/>\nCategory should obtain at least 70% in Class X Examination and 70% in<br \/>\naggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Matehmatics in the Class 12<br \/>\nExamination is not only discriminatory but also arbitrary as many<br \/>\nmeritorious candidates who may not have obtained such minimum<br \/>\npercentage of marks are excluded from appearing at the admission test. It is<br \/>\nhis submission that the admission to the said course should depend upon<br \/>\nthe merit of the marks obtained by the candidates at the Entrance Test<br \/>\nExamination and not on the marks awarded to the candidates in the<br \/>\nqualifying examination. It is also his contention that since there is disparity<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>amongst the various Boards in awarding marks the percentage of marks<br \/>\nobtained by a candidate who has appeared from the Central Board of<br \/>\nSecondary Education cannot be compared with that of a candidate who has<br \/>\nappeared at the High School and Intermediate Examination conducted by<br \/>\nthe Board of High School and Intermediate Examination, U.P.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the<br \/>\nInstitute was justified in prescribing the minimum percentage of marks to<br \/>\nbe obtained by a candidate at the qualifying examination and the petitioner<br \/>\ncannot insist that the Institute should prescribe the same percentage of<br \/>\nmarks as are prescribed by other Institutes in the country.\n<\/p>\n<p>      I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The admission to the Under Graduate Programme in the Institute is<br \/>\nmade through an Admission Test and for the purposes of eligibility to<br \/>\nappear at the Test, the Institute has prescribed the minimum percentage of<br \/>\nmarks to be obtained by a candidate in the Class X and 10+2 Examination.<br \/>\nIt is 70% in all subjects combined for General Category for Class X and<br \/>\n60% for SC, ST and PD categories. The candidates belongings to the<br \/>\nGeneral Category must also obtain 70% in aggregate in Physics, Chemistry<br \/>\nand Mathematics at the 10+2 or equivalent examination.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the<br \/>\nInstitute should not prescribe any minimum percentage of marks for the<br \/>\nqualifying examination and in any view, the requirement of 70% is not<br \/>\nonly on the higher side but also discriminatory.\n<\/p>\n<p>      This submission cannot be accepted. It is for the Institute to consider<br \/>\nwhether it should fix some minimum percentage of marks to be obtained by<br \/>\ncandidates who intend to appear at the Admission Test in the qualifying<br \/>\nexamination and what should be the minimum percentage. The Court<br \/>\ncannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy formulated by experts<br \/>\nin the field of Education. As noticed hereinabove, the Institute is a Centre<br \/>\nof Excellence in the area of advanced Space Science and Technology. In<br \/>\nthis Institute, education is fully integrated with the high technology<br \/>\nresearch work being carried out at ISRO Centres. The Institute is of<br \/>\ninternational standard to create an excellent academic and research<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>ambience. Students who pass out are absorbed as Scientist\/Engineers in<br \/>\nISRO.\n<\/p>\n<p>        In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher<br \/>\nSecondary       Education     and     another     Vs.    Paritosh     Bhupesh<br \/>\nKurmarsheth, etc., AIR 1984 SC 1543, the Supreme Court emphasised<br \/>\nthat the Courts should be extremely reluctant in substituting their news in<br \/>\nacademic matters and the relevant observations are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                            &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.The Court cannot sit in judgment over the<br \/>\n                     wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the<br \/>\n                     subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise<br \/>\n                     policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the<br \/>\n                     enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and<br \/>\n                     hence calling for revision and improvement. But any<br \/>\n                     drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or<br \/>\n                     regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court<br \/>\n                     cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion,<br \/>\n                     it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish<br \/>\n                     one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the<br \/>\n                     purposes of the Act. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>                     &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;As has been repeatedly pointed out by this<br \/>\n                     Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to<br \/>\n                     substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent<br \/>\n                     and proper in relation to academic matters in<br \/>\n                     preference to those formulated by professional men<br \/>\n                     possessing technical expertise and rich experience of<br \/>\n                     actual day-to-day working of educational institutions<br \/>\n                     and the departments controlling them. It will be<br \/>\n                     wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and<br \/>\n                     purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature,<br \/>\n                     isolated from the actual realities and grass root<br \/>\n                     problems involved in the working of the system and<br \/>\n                     unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if<br \/>\n                     a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one<br \/>\n                     were to be propounded&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221; (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>        Excellence in higher education, particularly in specialised courses, is<br \/>\nessential as has been held by the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava<br \/>\nVs. State of M.P.(1990) 7 SCC 120. If higher percentage of minimum<br \/>\nmarks is prescribed, it will certainly add to the excellence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        In State of M.P. &amp; Ors. Vs. Gopal D. Tirthani &amp; Ors., (2003) 7<br \/>\nSCC 83, the Supreme Court explained why there was a need for a common<br \/>\nentrance test and minimum qualifying marks in the field of medical<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>education and the same principles will apply for Aerospace Engineering<br \/>\nalso. The observations of the Supreme Court are<br \/>\n                         &#8220;In the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of<br \/>\n                  M.P.(1990) 7 SCC 120, the Constitution Bench has<br \/>\n                  expressly discarded the submission that there need not<br \/>\n                  be any qualifying marks prescribed for the common<br \/>\n                  entrance examination&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. A pass mark is not a<br \/>\n                  guarantee of excellence. There is a great deal of<br \/>\n                  difference between a person who qualifies with the<br \/>\n                  minimum marks and a person who qualifies with<br \/>\n                  high marks. If excellence is to be promoted at the<br \/>\n                  postgraduate level, the candidates qualifying should<br \/>\n                  be able to secure good marks while qualifying.\n<\/p>\n<p>                  Attaining minimum qualifying marks has a direct<br \/>\n                  relation with the standards of education. Prescription of<br \/>\n                  qualifying marks is for assessment of the calibre of<br \/>\n                  students chosen for admission. If the students are of a<br \/>\n                  high calibre, training programmes can be suitably<br \/>\n                  moulded so that they can receive the maximum benefit<br \/>\n                  out of high level of teaching. If the calibre of the<br \/>\n                  students is poor or they are unable to follow the<br \/>\n                  instructions being imparted, the standard of teaching<br \/>\n                  necessarily has to be lowered to make them understand<br \/>\n                  the course which they have under taken; and it may not<br \/>\n                  be possible to reach the levels of education and training<br \/>\n                  which can be attained with a bright group. The<br \/>\n                  assemblage of students in a particular class should be<br \/>\n                  within a reasonable range of variable calibre and<br \/>\n                  intelligence, else the students will not be able to move<br \/>\n                  along with each other as a common class. Hence, the<br \/>\n                  need for a common entrance test and minimum<br \/>\n                  qualifying marks as determined by experts in the<br \/>\n                  field of medical education.\n<\/p>\n<p>                         The eligibility test, called the entrance test for the<br \/>\n                  pre-PG test, is conducted with dual purposes. Firstly, it<br \/>\n                  is held with the object of assessing the knowledge and<br \/>\n                  intelligence quotient of a candidate whether he would<br \/>\n                  be able to prosecute postgraduate studies if allowed an<br \/>\n                  opportunity of doing so; secondly, it is for the purposes<br \/>\n                  of assessing the merit inter se of the candidates which is<br \/>\n                  of vital significance at the counselling when it comes to<br \/>\n                  allotting the successful candidates to different discipline<br \/>\n                  wherein the seats are limited and some disciplines are<br \/>\n                  considered to be more creamy and are more coveted<br \/>\n                  than the others. The concept of a minimum qualifying<br \/>\n                  percentage cannot, therefore, be given a complete go-<br \/>\n                  by. If at all there can be departure, that has to be<br \/>\n                  minimal and that too only by approval of experts in the<br \/>\n                  field of medical education, which for the present are<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                   available as a body in the Medical Council of India.&#8221;<br \/>\n                   (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>      These observations were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Harish<br \/>\nVerma &amp; Ors. Vs. Ajay Srivastava &amp; Anr., (2003) 8 SCC 69.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Institute<br \/>\nshould have fixed 60%, which percentage has been fixed by IIT cannot be<br \/>\naccepted. Each University is free to fix its own standards looking to the<br \/>\nrequirement and a candidate cannot insist that the same eligibility<br \/>\nrequirement should be maintained by all the Universities.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Thus, in view of the above observations of the Supreme Court, the<br \/>\nrequirement of having a minimum percentage of marks at the qualifying<br \/>\nexamination for appearing at the Entrance Test for Admission to the<br \/>\nB.Tech Programme in Aerospace Engineering cannot be said to be<br \/>\narbitrary or discriminatory.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In view of the aforesaid discussions, no relief can be granted to the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.<br \/>\nDate:-04.02.2010<br \/>\nSK\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Jitendra Chauhan vs Union Of India And Others on 4 February, 2010 1 Court No.39 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5225 of 2010 Jitendra Chauhan Vs. Union of India &amp; Ors. ~~~~~~~ Counsel for the petitioner :- Sri S.N. Chauhan and Sri V.P. Shukla Counsel for the respondents :- Sri Rajesh Khare [&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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jitendra Chauhan vs Union Of India And Others on 4 February, 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\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jitendra Chauhan vs Union Of India And Others on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-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=\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-15T13:14:07+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\\\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jitendra Chauhan vs Union Of India And Others on 4 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-15T13:14:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1948,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Jitendra Chauhan vs Union Of India And Others on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-15T13:14:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jitendra Chauhan vs Union Of India And Others on 4 February, 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":"Jitendra Chauhan vs Union Of India And Others on 4 February, 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\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jitendra Chauhan vs Union Of India And Others on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-15T13:14:07+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\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jitendra Chauhan vs Union Of India And Others on 4 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-15T13:14:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010"},"wordCount":1948,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010","name":"Jitendra Chauhan vs Union Of India And Others on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-15T13:14:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jitendra Chauhan vs Union Of India And Others on 4 February, 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\/33100","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=33100"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33100\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}