{"id":45887,"date":"2008-07-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-02-04T10:24:18","modified_gmt":"2018-02-04T04:54:18","slug":"hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Hajari Vishnu vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Hajari Vishnu vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2008<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                        AT JODHPUR\n\n\n                            O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
          S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6260\/2006
\n         (Hajari Vishnu Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)<\/p>\n
                  Date of order          :    11.7.2008<\/p>\n
                            P R E S E N T<\/p>\n
         HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS<\/p>\n
Mr. Mahesh Bora, for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Ms. Prathistha Dave, Dy. Govt. Counsel.
\nMr. Yashwant Mehta, for the Municipal Council.<\/p>\n
               By way of filing the present writ petition,<\/p>\n
the   petitioner      has    challenged          the    reversion         order<\/p>\n
dated 31.8.2006 (Annexure-P\/8 passed by the Executive<\/p>\n
Officer,       Municipal    Board,       Mount    Abu    and       the    order<\/p>\n
dated    19.6.2006     (Annexure-P\/9)            passed       by    the     Dy.<\/p>\n
Director       (Administration),         Local       Bodies,       Govt.     of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               In this case, the petitioner was promoted on<\/p>\n
the post of Revenue Inspector when he was working on<\/p>\n
the     post    of   U.D.C.      vide        order      dated      18.9.1992<\/p>\n
(Annexure-P\/2).            The   said        order      was     purely       on
\n                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
temporary basis till confirmation by the D.P.C. The<\/p>\n
said     promotion       order      was       declared       illegal         and<\/p>\n
thereafter, the petitioner was ordered to be reverted<\/p>\n
from the post of Revenue Inspector to the post of<\/p>\n
U.D.C.      vide    order    dated       17.9.1993,        issued       by   the<\/p>\n
Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Mount Abu on the<\/p>\n
basis of the order issued by the Dy. Director, Local<\/p>\n
Bodies,    Jodhpur       dated    25.8.1993.               The    petitioner<\/p>\n
challenged the order dated 17.9.1993 by way of filing<\/p>\n
revision        under     Section        300        of     the     Rajasthan<\/p>\n
Municipalities Act, 1959 before the Director, Local<\/p>\n
Bodies,    Govt.    of    Rajasthan,          Jaipur.       The    Director,<\/p>\n
Local Bodies vide order dated 20.1.1994 (Annexure-P\/6)<\/p>\n
has set aside the order dated 17.9.1993 and it was<\/p>\n
specifically ordered that the Municipal Board, Mount<\/p>\n
Abu shall fill up the vacant posts by way of direct<\/p>\n
recruitment and promotion in accordance with the Rules<\/p>\n
after    determination      of    the     vacancies        and    till       then<\/p>\n
status quo was ordered to be maintained.<\/p>\n
            The case of the petitioner is that he was<\/p>\n
working on the post of Revenue Inspector since 1992<\/p>\n
but abruptly without making compliance of the order<\/p>\n
passed     by    the     Director        on    20.1.1994,         the     order<\/p>\n
impugned        dated     31.8.2006           was        passed      by      the<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Municipal Board, Mount Abu whereby it<\/p>\n
was    ordered    that    the    petitioner’s            promotion      on   the<\/p>\n
post of Revenue Inspector is illegal and there is no<\/p>\n
sanction, therefore, the petitioner is hereby reverted
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
to the post of U.D.C.                The order dated 31.8.2006 has<\/p>\n
been passed on the basis of the order dated 19.6.2006<\/p>\n
passed by Dy. Director (Administration), Local Bodies,<\/p>\n
Jaipur wherein it was observed that the promotion of<\/p>\n
the petitioner on the post of Revenue Inspector was<\/p>\n
illegal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            The     petitioner            has     challenged       both    the<\/p>\n
impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner is<\/p>\n
working since 1992 on the post of Revenue Inspector<\/p>\n
and   without     assigning         any     reasons   and    treating      his<\/p>\n
promotion as illegal, he has been reverted without any<\/p>\n
notice.     Further, it is submitted that according to<\/p>\n
the rules, the petitioner was eligible for promotion<\/p>\n
against the quota on the post of Revenue Inspector,<\/p>\n
therefore, the respondents were under obligation to<\/p>\n
comply with the directions issued by the Director vide<\/p>\n
order dated 20.1.1994 and promotions were to be made<\/p>\n
after    determination         of    the    vacancies       as   ordered    by<\/p>\n
Director    but    it    has    not       been    done,    therefore,      the<\/p>\n
respondents       have   illegally           reverted      the   petitioner<\/p>\n
while treating his promotion as illegal.<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently<\/p>\n
argued    that     initially         the     promotion      order    of    the<\/p>\n
petitioner was challenged by one Kumar Singh by way of<\/p>\n
filing    writ    petition          being    SB    Civil    Writ    Petition<\/p>\n
No.466\/1993 in which the learned Single Judge of this<\/p>\n
Court has held that the petitioner’s promotion cannot
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
be   questioned     and     the   petitioner       was    very    much<\/p>\n
entitled for promotion as Revenue Inspector from the<\/p>\n
cadre of UDC, which cannot be doubted or faulted with<\/p>\n
and further, it has been held that the promotion order<\/p>\n
cannot be challenged.         Meaning thereby, the promotion<\/p>\n
of the petitioner though made on temporary basis was<\/p>\n
held to be valid by learned Single Judge of this Court<\/p>\n
in   the   aforesaid      writ    petition     vide      order    dated<\/p>\n
27.4.2000.        The     relevant     para   of    the     aforesaid<\/p>\n
judgment reads as under :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               “Having heard the learned counsel
\n     and heaving seen the Gazette Notification and
\n     the decisions cited, I am of the view that
\n     eligibility of respondent No.3 to be promoted
\n     as Revenue Inspector from the cadre of UDC
\n     cannot be doubted or faulted. His promotion
\n     to be post of Revenue Inspector cannot,
\n     therefore, be challenged.      Moreover, the
\n     petitioner has two hurdles to pass. First he
\n     will have to claim and get promotion to the
\n     post of Assistant Revenue Inspector and then
\n     only he becomes eligible for promotion to the
\n     post of Revenue Inspector.       He, cannot,
\n     therefore,   challenge   the   promotion   of
\n     respondent No.3 to the post of Revenue
\n     Inspector even before he gets promotion as
\n     Assistant Revenue Inspector.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In   this      view    of   the    matter,     once,    the<\/p>\n
promotion of the petitioner was held to be legal and<\/p>\n
the petitioner was held to be eligible for promotion<\/p>\n
to the post of Revenue Inspector, then, there was no
\n                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
occasion left with the respondents to pass an order<\/p>\n
contrary to the judgment rendered by this Court in the<\/p>\n
aforesaid writ petition.                 Therefore, it is prayed that<\/p>\n
the     impugned            reversion        order        dated        31.8.2006<\/p>\n
(Annexure-P\/8)              and    the       order        dated        19.6.2006<\/p>\n
(Annexure-P\/9) may kindly be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Per    contra,      learned         counsel          for      the<\/p>\n
respondents submits that the petitioner was wrongly<\/p>\n
promoted to the post of Revenue Inspector and he was<\/p>\n
not eligible for the said post, therefore, there is no<\/p>\n
question of regularization of the petitioner on the<\/p>\n
post of Revenue Inspector, so also, according to the<\/p>\n
rules, the petitioner was not eligible for promotion<\/p>\n
on the post of Revenue Inspector and he was illegally<\/p>\n
promoted, therefore, the order has already been passed<\/p>\n
by    the    Commissioner,         Municipal     Board,         Mount    Abu    in<\/p>\n
which       no    interference       is      required          and   this     writ<\/p>\n
petition deserved to be dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 I have perused the entire record of the case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
First of all, the promotion of the petitioner vide<\/p>\n
order       dated      18.9.1992     was      held        to    be    valid     by<\/p>\n
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the year 2000 in the<\/p>\n
writ petition filed by one Kumar Singh, challenging<\/p>\n
the    validity        of    the   promotion         of    the       petitioner.<\/p>\n
Therefore, now it is not open for the Municipal Board<\/p>\n
to    say    that      the    petitioner       was        not    eligible      for<\/p>\n
promotion on the post of Revenue Inspector from the
\n                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
post    of     U.D.C.        Further,       when      in   the    year       1994,<\/p>\n
directions was issued by Director for determination of<\/p>\n
the vacancies and for filling upon the vacant posts,<\/p>\n
then, those directions were required to be complied<\/p>\n
with by the Municipal Board, Mount Abu but admittedly<\/p>\n
till    2006,    the     directions         issued      by     the     Direcotr,<\/p>\n
Local    Bodies       vide     order       dated      20.1.1994        was    not<\/p>\n
complied with and abruptly the petitioner was reverted<\/p>\n
while     saying        that    the        promotion         order      of    the<\/p>\n
petitioner      was     illegal.           In   my    opinion,       after    the<\/p>\n
order passed by learned Single Judge in the aforesaid<\/p>\n
writ petition filed by one Kumar Singh, initially the<\/p>\n
promotion of the petitioner on the post of Revenue<\/p>\n
Inspector       cannot    be    question.             More     so,     when   the<\/p>\n
petitioner was allowed to work on the post of Revenue<\/p>\n
Inspector since 1992-93 till 2006 then such promotion<\/p>\n
cannot be treated as illegal in view of the order<\/p>\n
passed by learned Single Judge in case of Kumar Singh<\/p>\n
(supra).       It is also required to be observed that the<\/p>\n
directions issued by the Director in the order dated<\/p>\n
20.1.1994      passed     in   revision         was     also     not   complied<\/p>\n
with     and    in      pursuance      of       those      directions,        the<\/p>\n
petitioner was allowed to work on the post of Revenue<\/p>\n
Inspector and he worked as such till reversion order<\/p>\n
was passed.       Therefore, in my opinion,                    in view of the<\/p>\n
judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of<\/p>\n
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported<\/p>\n
in     2006    (4) SCC 1 the petitioner was allowed to work<\/p>\n
on     the     post     of     Revenue          Inspector for more than
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
14 years then, the respondents are under obligation to<\/p>\n
consider   the   case     of     the   petitioner    for    regular<\/p>\n
promotion in view of para 53 and 55 of the judgment<\/p>\n
rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi<\/p>\n
(supra), which reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may
\n      be cases of irregular appointments (not illegal
\n      appointments) as explained in S.V.Narayanappa,
\n      R.N.Nanjundappa and B.N.Nagarajan and referred
\n      to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in
\n      duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been
\n      made and the employees have continued to work
\n      for ten years or more but without the intervention
\n      of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The
\n      question of regularization of the services of such
\n      employees may have to be considered on merits in
\n      the light of the principles settled by this Court in
\n      the cases above referred to and in the light of this
\n      judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the
\n      State Governments and their instrumentalities
\n      should take steps to regularize as a one-time
\n      measure,     the    services     of   such    irregularly
\n      appointed, who have worked for ten years or more
\n      in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of
\n      orders of the courts or of tribunals and should
\n      further    ensure   that    regular   recruitments   are
\n      undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts
\n      that require to be filled up, in cases where
\n      temporary employees or daily wagers are being
\n      now employed. The process must be set in motion
\n                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
within a six months from this date. We also clarify
\nthat regularization, if any already made, but no
\nsub judice, need not be reopened based on this
\njudgment,      but     there       should    be     no      further
\nbypassing of the constitutional requirement and
\nregularizing or making permanent, those not duly
\nappointed as per the constitutional scheme.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
55. In       cases     relating       to    service        in     the
\ncommercial taxes department, the High Court has
\ndirected that those engaged on daily wages, be
\npaid wages equal to the salary and allowances that
\nare being paid to the regular employees of their
\ncadre in government service, with effect from the
\ndates     from       which     they        were     respectively
\nappointed.          The objection taken was to the
\ndirection     for    payment        from      the     dates        of
\nengagement.          We find that the High Court had
\nclearly     gone     wrong     in    directing      that        these
\nemployees be paid salary equal to the salary and
\nallowances that are being paid to the regular
\nemployees of their cadre in government service,
\nwith effect from the dates from which they were
\nrespectively engaged or appointed.                  It was not
\nopen to the High Court to impose such an
\nobligation on the State when the very question
\nbefore the High Court in the case was whether
\nthese employees were entitled to have equal pay
\nfor equal work so called and were entitled to any
\nother benefit. They had also been engaged in the
\nteeth of directions not to do so.                        We are,
\n                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division
\nBench of the High Court should have directed that
\nwages equal to the salary that are being paid to
\nregular employees be paid to these daily wage
\nemployees       with    effect      from    the     date   of   its
\njudgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the
\nDivision Bench is modified and it is directed that
\nthese daily wage earners be paid wages equal to
\nthe salary at the lowest grade of employees of
\ntheir cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department
\nin government service, from the date of the
\njudgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
\nSince, they are only daily wage earners, there
\nwould be no question of other allowances being
\npaid to them.          In view of our conclusion, that
\nCourts are not expected to issue directions for
\nmaking such persons permanent in service, we set
\naside that part of the direction of the High Court
\ndirecting the Government to consider their cases
\nfor regularization.        We also notice that the High
\nCourt has not adverted to the aspect as to
\nwhether it was regularization or it was giving
\npermanency that was being directed by the High
\nCourt.    In such a situation, the direction in that
\nregard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by
\nthe State would stand allowed to that extent. If
\nsanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be
\nvacant) the State will take immediate steps for
\nfilling   those    posts    by       a    regular    process    of
\nselection.         But when regular recruitment is
\nundertaken, the respondents in C.A. No. 3595-
\n3612      and     those    in       the    Commercial      Taxes
\n                                           10<\/span><\/p>\n
                Department similarly situated, will be allowed to
\n                compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for
\n                the recruitment and giving some weightage for
\n                their   having    been   engaged   for   work   in   the
\n                Department for a significant period of time. That
\n                would be the extent of the exercise of power by
\n                this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to
\n                do justice to them.”\n<\/p>\n
                   In this view of the matter, while quashing the order<\/p>\n
       of reversion dated 31.8.2006 passed by the Commissioner,<\/p>\n
       Municipal Board, Mount Abu and the order dated 19.6.2006<\/p>\n
       passed by Dy. Director (Administration), Local Bodies, Govt. of<\/p>\n
       Rajasthan, Jaipur, the respondents are directed to grant all<\/p>\n
       consequential benefits to the petitioner and consider the case of<\/p>\n
       the petitioner for regularization on the post of Revenue<\/p>\n
       Inspector as per law laid down by Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case<\/p>\n
       (supra) because his promotion was found to be legal by<\/p>\n
       Coordinate Bench of this Court in the year 2000 in case of<\/p>\n
       Kumar Singh (supra) and in view of the fact that the petitioner<\/p>\n
       has worked on the post of Revenue Inspector for more than 14<\/p>\n
       years.\n<\/p>\n
                   With     the     above      directions,      this       writ\n\n       petition is allowed.\n\n\n\n                                               (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.\n\narun\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Hajari Vishnu vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6260\/2006 (Hajari Vishnu Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 11.7.2008 P R E S E N […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45887","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nHajari Vishnu vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2008 - 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\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hajari Vishnu vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-04T04:54:18+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hajari Vishnu vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-04T04:54:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2221,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Hajari Vishnu vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-04T04:54:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hajari Vishnu vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Hajari Vishnu vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2008 - 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\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hajari Vishnu vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-04T04:54:18+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hajari Vishnu vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-04T04:54:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008"},"wordCount":2221,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008","name":"Hajari Vishnu vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-04T04:54:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-vishnu-vs-state-ors-on-11-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hajari Vishnu vs State & Ors on 11 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/45887","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=45887"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45887\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45887"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45887"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45887"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}