{"id":38199,"date":"2011-05-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011"},"modified":"2015-08-21T10:12:13","modified_gmt":"2015-08-21T04:42:13","slug":"dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Dr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Dr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw<\/div>\n
            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                                            Date of decision: 16th May, 2011.\n\n+                           W.P.(C) 7778\/2002\n\n%        DR. S.K. JAIN                                       ..... Petitioner\n                            Through:      Ms. Geeta Luthara, Sr. Adv. with\n                                          Mr. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv.\n\n                                   Versus\n\n         IIT, DELHI & ANR.                                ..... Respondents\n                        Through:          Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. for R-1\n                                          IIT.\n                                          Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for\n                                          R-2 UGC.\nCORAM :-\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW\n1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may                         No\n         be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?               No\n\n3.       Whether the judgment should be reported              No\n         in the Digest?\n\nRAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.       The petitioner has filed this writ petition impleading Indian Institute<\/p>\n
of Technology (IIT), Delhi and Universities Grant Commission (UGC) as<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)7778\/2002                                                   Page 1 of 8<\/span>
\n respondents and claiming the following reliefs:<\/p>\n
         “(1) To admit and extend normal medical facilities to the
\n         petitioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (2) To release the salary and grant of the petitioner
\n         forthwith and not to delay and withhold payment of salaries
\n         and provide timely necessary infrastructure support and other
\n         facilities to the petitioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (3) Not to ban the entry of the petitioner to his office, work
\n         place (laboratory) and residence as implied by the notice
\n         Annex. D or stipulate any further similar action till the
\n         petitioner achieves superannuation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.       The counsels have been heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.       The counsel for the respondent no.2 UGC has invited attention to the<\/p>\n
order dated 23rd January, 2002 disposing of C.W. No.5090\/2000 titled<\/p>\n
UGC Research Scientists Association Vs. UGC.            It is stated that the<\/p>\n
petitioner herein was also a member of the UGC Research Scientists<\/p>\n
Association and is thus covered by the order therein. The said fact has not<\/p>\n
been controverted by the senior counsel for the petitioner.<\/p>\n
4.       The order dated 23rd January, 2002 disposing of C.W. No.5090\/2000<\/p>\n
is a consent order. The said order is as under:\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)7778\/2002                                               Page 2 of 8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                  “After some hearing a suggestion was made to work out
\n         to an amicable settlement to end the controversy in question.
\n         With the fair stand of both the counsel it has been possible to
\n         arrive at such a settlement which is recorded in the following
\n         terms.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 The counsel for the respondent states the petitioners
\n         who were initially appointed as Research Scientist under the
\n         scheme of UGC will be continued on the same terms and
\n         conditions as the department and centres in the Universities.
\n         Thus there will be no issue of any review after every five
\n         years as stated in para \u201e1\u201f of the scheme since these petitioners
\n         have been working with the UGC over a long period of time.
\n         It is also agreed that this will not in any way preclude the
\n         respondents from taking disciplinary action, if a situation so
\n         arises, in terms of the rules and regulations relating to
\n         department and centres in Universities. It is further agreed
\n         that if a particular candidate does not fulfil the requirement of
\n         carrying on research in terms of this scheme, the same can be
\n         ground for taking disciplinary action in terms of the rules and
\n         regulations of the department and centres of the Universities
\n         as applicable to the petitioners.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Learned counsel for respondents also fairly states that
\n         even in the case of some petitioners whose services were
\n         dispensed with during the pendency of this petition, the
\n         petitioners shall be restored with all consequential benefits. In
\n         case the respondents want to take any disciplinary action for
\n         not carrying on research by such petitioners, the same shall be
\n         done only in terms of the aforesaid procedure.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 The arrears which shall be payable to the petitioners
\n         arising from this order shall be paid within a period of six
\n         weeks.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Learned counsel for the petitioner has some
\n         apprehension on the issue of pay, parity and leave allowance.
\n         I do not see any reason for this apprehension since
\n         respondents have agreed to give same grades as the
\nW.P.(C)7778\/2002                                                  Page 3 of 8<\/span>
\n          department and centres of the Universities in terms of the
\n         scheme and naturally in respect of these two issues the same
\n         position would apply.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                The writ petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms
\n         leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.       The counsel for the respondent no.2 UGC states that in accordance<\/p>\n
with the said order, Circulars were issued by the respondent no.2 UGC<\/p>\n
from time to time and the petitioner is entitled to the benefits\/emoluments<\/p>\n
in terms of the said Circulars and has been enjoying the same. It is rather<\/p>\n
the contention of the counsel for the respondent no.2 UGC that in view of<\/p>\n
the order aforesaid in C.W. No.5090\/2000, the present writ petition is not<\/p>\n
maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.       The counsel for the petitioner also admits that the petitioner has<\/p>\n
been receiving the medical facilities and salary but states that the same are<\/p>\n
being received under interim orders in this writ petition and the writ<\/p>\n
petition in so far as reliefs (1) & (2) supra are concerned, be disposed of<\/p>\n
confirming the said interim orders. As far as the third relief aforesaid is<\/p>\n
concerned, it is admitted that the ban earlier imposed on the entry of the<\/p>\n
petitioner to respondent no.1 IIT, Delhi has since been revoked and the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)7778\/2002                                              Page 4 of 8<\/span>
\n petitioner also continued in his residence in the IIT campus; the only<\/p>\n
grievance stated to be surviving is of the work place given to the petitioner<\/p>\n
which is stated to be under the staircase.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.       The counsel for the respondent no.1 IIT has contended that the<\/p>\n
research of the petitioner has no relevance today to respondent no.1 IIT<\/p>\n
and as such respondent no.1 IIT has requested to respondent no.2 UGC to<\/p>\n
place the petitioner at another appropriate place. It is further contended<\/p>\n
that delays occur in releasing the dues of the petitioner in accordance with<\/p>\n
the Circulars aforesaid of respondent no.2 UGC because respondent no.2<\/p>\n
UGC wants the respondent no.1 IIT to compute the amounts payable to the<\/p>\n
petitioner; it is contended that the amounts ought to be computed by<\/p>\n
respondent no.2 UGC itself and released to respondent no.1 IIT for onward<\/p>\n
release to the petitioner. It is further stated that the work place as per<\/p>\n
exigency has been provided. The counsel for the respondent no.1 IIT<\/p>\n
further clarifies that the petitioner is not an employee of IIT, Delhi.<\/p>\n
8.       The senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has<\/p>\n
been placed in respondent no.1 IIT, as per the tripartite agreement between<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)7778\/2002                                                 Page 5 of 8<\/span>
\n the petitioner, respondent no.1 IIT and the respondent no.2 UGC and the<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to continue in the respondent no.1 IIT as long as he<\/p>\n
desires.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.       The said aspects are left to be agitated before the respondent no.2<\/p>\n
UGC in the event of any representation being made by the respondent no.1<\/p>\n
IIT.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.      The senior counsel for the petitioner also seeks relief of restoration<\/p>\n
of pension cum CPF account of the petitioner and in this regard invites<\/p>\n
attention to para 13 of the reply of the respondent no.1 IIT to one of the<\/p>\n
applications filed in this writ petition. The counsel for the respondent no.2<\/p>\n
UGC has contended that the same is not subject matter of this writ petition<\/p>\n
and is rather the subject matter of a contempt petition arising out of C.W.<\/p>\n
No.5090\/2000 and which contempt petition is still pending and listed next<\/p>\n
on 1st June, 2011. The senior counsel for the petitioner has been unable to<\/p>\n
show any reference thereto in the writ petition and contends that the same<\/p>\n
is inherent in the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. However, in the<\/p>\n
absence of any pleadings, no relief in that regard can be granted.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)7778\/2002                                                Page 6 of 8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 11.      In the circumstances the writ petition is disposed of with the<\/p>\n
following directions:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         (i)       Respondent no.1 IIT shall be entitled to represent to<\/p>\n
         respondent no.2 UGC to place the petitioner in an appropriate<\/p>\n
         Institute\/Department and respondent no.2 UGC after hearing the<\/p>\n
         petitioner as well as the respondent no.1 IIT shall be entitled to take<\/p>\n
         a decision in this regard.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (ii)      The petitioner shall be granted all the benefits as per the<\/p>\n
         Circulars of respondent no.2 UGC in pursuance to the order dated<\/p>\n
         23rd January, 2002 in C.W. No.5090\/2000 aforesaid.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (iii)     To obviate any delays in release of the dues of the petitioner,<\/p>\n
         it is directed that the Registrar (Establishment) of the respondent<\/p>\n
         no.1 IIT shall latest by 15 th day of May of each year, forward to the<\/p>\n
         Bureau Head Selection and Award Bureau of respondent no.2 UGC,<\/p>\n
         the anticipatory expenditure qua the petitioner for the following year<\/p>\n
         along with Utilization Certificate of the previous year, to enable the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)7778\/2002                                                    Page 7 of 8<\/span>
\n          respondent no.2 UGC to release the funds to the respondent no.1 IIT<\/p>\n
         for onward release\/disbursement by the respondent no.1 IIT to the<\/p>\n
         petitioner by 15th July of each year.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.      The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No<\/p>\n
order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                 RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
\n                                                        (JUDGE)
\nMAY 16, 2011
\nbs<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)7778\/2002                                              Page 8 of 8<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Dr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 2011 Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 16th May, 2011. + W.P.(C) 7778\/2002 % DR. S.K. JAIN ….. Petitioner Through: Ms. Geeta Luthara, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Versus […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 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\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-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=\"2011-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-21T04:42:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-21T04:42:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1405,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Dr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-21T04:42:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Dr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 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\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-21T04:42:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-21T04:42:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011"},"wordCount":1405,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011","name":"Dr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-21T04:42:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-k-jain-vs-iit-delhi-anr-on-16-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. S.K. Jain vs Iit, Delhi & Anr on 16 May, 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:\/\/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\/38199","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=38199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38199\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}