{"id":39844,"date":"2009-07-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-27T20:41:49","modified_gmt":"2017-05-27T15:11:49","slug":"state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Haryana & Others vs Rajbir Singh on 3 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Haryana & Others vs Rajbir Singh on 3 July, 2009<\/div>\n
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n\n                          CHANDIGARH.\n\n\n                                       L.P.A. No.488 of 2009 (O&M)\n                                          Date of decision: 3.7.2009\n\nState of Haryana & others.\n                                                      -----Appellants\n                                 Vs.\nRajbir Singh.\n                                                     -----Respondent\n\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL\n            HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY\n\nPresent:-   Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana\n            for the appellants.\n\n            Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate\n            for the respondent.\n                  -----\n\nORDER:\n<\/pre>\n
1.          This appeal has been preferred against judgment of<\/p>\n
the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition of the<\/p>\n
respondent and directing that he be given similar treatment as<\/p>\n
given to Ajay Malik and Arvind Malhan, which according to<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the parties implied that the respondent will be<\/p>\n
entitled to appointment to Haryana Civil Services.<\/p>\n
2.          The writ petition was filed for a direction to appoint the<\/p>\n
writ petitioner to the Haryana Civil Services against posts notified<\/p>\n
on 13.3.1996 in accordance with judgment of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court dated 13.3.1999 in C.A. No.2286 of 1999
\n LPA No.488 of 2009                                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
Virender S. Hooda & ors. v. State of Haryana &<\/a> another<\/p>\n
reported as (1999) 3 SCC 696 (hereinafter referred to as “V.S.<\/p>\n
Hooda-I”).\n<\/p>\n
3.           Before   advertisement   dated    13.3.1996,       certain<\/p>\n
advertisements were earlier issued between 1989 and 1996 and<\/p>\n
selections made. Government of Haryana had issued circulars<\/p>\n
permitting appointments to existing vacancies out of waiting list,<\/p>\n
even beyond the originally advertised posts. A writ petition was<\/p>\n
filed by one Virender Singh Hooda, claiming appointment to a<\/p>\n
vacancy beyond notified vacancies. The same was dismissed by<\/p>\n
this Court, but order of this Court was reversed by the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court and a direction to consider his case for<\/p>\n
appointment was issued. Accordingly, appointments in favour of<\/p>\n
said petitioners were made in the year 1999. Relying upon the<\/p>\n
said judgment, some other writ petitions were filed, which were<\/p>\n
allowed by this Court and affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
4.           However, the State enacted the Haryana Civil Service<\/p>\n
(Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services,<\/p>\n
Common\/Combined Examination, Act, 2002 (for short, “the 2002<\/p>\n
Act”), providing that no appointments shall be made beyond the<\/p>\n
number of advertised posts. The 2002 Act came into force on<\/p>\n
27.3.2002    but   was   made    operative    retrospectively     from<\/p>\n
29.8.1989. The object of the said enactment was to negate the<\/p>\n
claim for appointment to posts which were beyond the advertised
\n LPA No.488 of 2009                                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
posts and to remove basis of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in V. S. Hooda-I (supra).\n<\/p>\n
5.         The said enactment was challenged before the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court and in Virender Singh Hooda & Ors. v.<\/p>\n
State of Haryana and<\/a> another reported as 2004(12) SCC 588<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as “V.S. Hooda-II”), the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court   upheld    the   amendment          except   to   the   extent       of<\/p>\n
appointments already made. Orders already passed were also<\/p>\n
held to be not liable to be disturbed. The concluding part of the<\/p>\n
said judgment is as under:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “(1)   The impugned        Act,     to the     extent    of its
\n                  retrospectivity, except to the limited extent
\n                  indicated above, does not amount to usurpation
\n                  of judicial powers by the Legislature. It is not
\n                  ultra vires. It has removed the basis of decisions
\n                  in Hooda and Sandeep Singh’s cases.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (2)    The Act is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
\n                  the Constitution of India except to a limited
\n                  extent noticed below.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (3)    The first proviso to Section 4(3), to the limited
\n                  extent it provides for dispensing the services of
\n                  candidates      already      appointed,      is   harsh,
\n                  excessive, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of
\n                  the Constitution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        The benefits already granted to the
\n                  petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 215 to 218 and
\n                  224 of 2002 could not be taken back. To this
\n                  extent, retrospectivity is ultra vires. In all other
\n                  respects, it is valid.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 LPA No.488 of 2009                                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
            (4)   The directions of the High Court in favour of
\n                  respondents Ajay Malik and Arvind Malhan,
\n                  subject-matter of Civil Appeal Nos. 3937-38 of
\n                  2001 are maintained. For the same reason,
\n                  Jagdish Sharma and Mahavir Singh being
\n                  higher in merit than Lalit Kumar and Virender
\n                  Lather     would     also   be   entitled   to   similar
\n                  treatment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (5)   The judgments of the High Court in Civil Appeal
\n                  Nos. 8385 to 8393 of 2000, in view of the
\n                  provisions of the Act, are set aside.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The extent to which the retrospectivity was struck down is<\/p>\n
discussed in the earlier part, which is as under:-<\/p>\n
            “The result of the aforesaid discussions is that
\n            retrospectivity in the Act cannot be held to be ultra
\n            vires except to a limited extent which we will presently
\n            indicate. It is not a case of usurpation of judicial power
\n            by the Legislature. The Legislature has removed the
\n            basis of the decision in Hooda and Sandeep Singh’s
\n            cases by repealing the circulars. The Act is also not
\n            violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
\n            India. The candidates have right to posts that are
\n            advertised and not the one which arise later for which
\n            a separate advertisement is issued. A valid law,
\n            retrospective or prospective, enacted by Legislature
\n            cannot be declared ultra vires on the ground that it
\n            would nullify the benefit which otherwise would have
\n            been available as a result of applicability and
\n            interpretation    placed     by   a    superior   Court.       A
\n            mandamus issued can be nullified by the Legislature
\n            so long as the law enacted by it does not contravene
\n LPA No.488 of 2009                                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
           constitutional provisions and usurp the judicial power
\n           and only removes the basis of the issue of the
\n           mandamus.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Despite the aforesaid conclusion, the Act
\n           [proviso to Section 4(3)] to the extent it takes away
\n           the   appointments    already made,          some    of   the
\n           petitioners   had    been   appointed        much    before
\n           enforcement of the Act (ten in number as noticed
\n           hereinbefore)   in   implementation     of    this   Court’s
\n           decision, would be unreasonable, harsh, arbitrary and
\n           violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The law does
\n           not permit the Legislature to take back what has been
\n           granted in implementation of the Court’s decision.
\n           Such a course is impermissible.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.         Referring to cases of persons in whose cases orders<\/p>\n
had already been passed by this Court and appeals were pending<\/p>\n
in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was observed:-<\/p>\n
                 “Before concluding, we may note that the facts
\n           of C.A. Nos.3937-38\/2001 are somewhat different and
\n           peculiar. These appeals have been filed by the State
\n           Government challenging the impugned judgment of
\n           the High Court granting relief to the two respondents
\n           who belong to 1989 batch. The respondents in these
\n           two appeals – Ajay Malik and Arvind Malhan in 1989
\n           merit list prepared by the Commission are at serial
\n           Nos.9 and 11 respectively.     Virender Singh Hooda,
\n           Amarjeet Singh Mann and Dinesh Singh Yadav who
\n           were appointed to posts in Executive Branch as
\n           noticed hereinbefore were on the merit list at serial
\n           Nos.8, 10 and 12 respectively. These three were
\n           appointed on 3rd December, 1989 in compliance of the
\n LPA No.488 of 2009                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
           decision in Hooda’s case dated 13th April, 1989. We
\n           have held that the appointment given to these three
\n           cannot be taken back. It would be iniquitous to deny
\n           relief to Ajay Malik and Arvind Malhan when it has
\n           been granted to other candidates who are lower in
\n           merit position than the these two respondents. In this
\n           view despite the conclusion as aforesaid on the
\n           question of law, the direction contained in the
\n           impugned judgment of the High Court does not call for
\n           any interference qua the respondents in these
\n           appeals.” (Pr.71)
\n                 On the aforesaid analogy, I.A. No.4 of 2004 in
\n           Writ Petition No.215 of 2002 filed by Jagdish Sharma
\n           and Mahavir Singh is allowed since the applicants are
\n           higher in merit than Lalit Kumar and Virender Lather
\n           aforenoted and also satisfy condition placed in
\n           Sandeep Singh’s case by this Court. They are thus
\n           entitled to be given similar treatment as Ajay Malik
\n           and Arvind Malhan in view of peculiar facts of their
\n           case. In this view, the direction of the High Court in
\n           judgment dated 3rd July, 2004 in CWP No.7281 of
\n           2000 also does not call for any interference.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.         The writ petition filed by the respondent was pending<\/p>\n
in this Court and has been allowed by the impugned judgment,<\/p>\n
relying upon Part (4) of the operative part of the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. S. Hooda-II (supra).<\/p>\n
8.         We have heard learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
9.         Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the validity of 2002 Act except to<\/p>\n
the limited extent of appointments already made prior to the Act.
\n LPA No.488 of 2009                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
Appointments ordered to be made by this Court were also left<\/p>\n
undisturbed. This direction is part (4) above. In the present case,<\/p>\n
neither appointment had already been made nor direction for<\/p>\n
appointment had been made before coming into force of 2002<\/p>\n
Act. There could, thus, be no parity of the case of the petitioner<\/p>\n
with persons mentioned in direction (4).\n<\/p>\n
10.        Learned counsel for the appellants apart from<\/p>\n
observations already quoted, refers to discussion in earlier part of<\/p>\n
the judgment in paras 44, which is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
           “Reverting    to   present   cases,     there    are   three
\n           categories    of    employees     (i)    those    who       in
\n           implementation of decision in Hooda and Sandeep
\n           Singh’s cases, before passing of the impugned Act,
\n           had already been appointed (ii) those, though not so
\n           appointed, have judgments of High Court passed in
\n           their favour relying upon Hooda and Sandeep
\n           Singh’s cases, and claim a right to appointment but
\n           would be deprived of it if the validity of the Act is
\n           upheld and on that basis the judgments of the High
\n           Court upturned (iii) those, who would be covered by
\n           law laid down in Hooda’s case on interpretation and
\n           applicability of the aforenoted two circulars, in case
\n           the Act is quashed to the extent of its retrospective
\n           applicability, and on that basis would be entitled to be
\n           considered for appointments.” (Pr. 44)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
11.        The above discussion shows that Ajay Malik and<\/p>\n
Arvind Malhan were given relief on the sole consideration that<\/p>\n
there were orders in their favour prior to 2002, which
\n LPA No.488 of 2009                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
consideration is not applicable to the respondent.         Except for<\/p>\n
those already appointed or those in whose favour orders had<\/p>\n
already been passed by this Court, the Act was upheld, including<\/p>\n
the retrospectivity part and those falling in category (iii), had to be<\/p>\n
governed by 2002 Act and were not entitled to appointment on<\/p>\n
parity with those whose cases had already been decided in their<\/p>\n
favour.\n<\/p>\n
12.         This could not be rebutted by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
13.         Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent<\/p>\n
is dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                         (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)\n                                                 JUDGE\n\n\nJuly 03, 2009                              ( DAYA CHAUDHARY )\nashwani                                           JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court State Of Haryana & Others vs Rajbir Singh on 3 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.488 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.7.2009 State of Haryana & others. —–Appellants Vs. Rajbir Singh. —–Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39844","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Haryana & Others vs Rajbir Singh on 3 July, 2009 - 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-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Haryana & Others vs Rajbir Singh on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-27T15:11:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 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-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Haryana & Others vs Rajbir Singh on 3 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-27T15:11:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1675,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Haryana & Others vs Rajbir Singh on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-27T15:11:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Haryana & Others vs Rajbir Singh on 3 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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 Haryana & Others vs Rajbir Singh on 3 July, 2009 - 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-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Haryana & Others vs Rajbir Singh on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-27T15:11:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Haryana & Others vs Rajbir Singh on 3 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-27T15:11:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009"},"wordCount":1675,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009","name":"State Of Haryana & Others vs Rajbir Singh on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-27T15:11:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-others-vs-rajbir-singh-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Haryana & Others vs Rajbir Singh on 3 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/39844","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=39844"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39844\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39844"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39844"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39844"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}