{"id":49107,"date":"1981-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1981-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981"},"modified":"2018-11-12T04:11:12","modified_gmt":"2018-11-11T22:41:12","slug":"r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981","title":{"rendered":"R.K. Khandelwal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 August, 1981"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
R.K. Khandelwal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 August, 1981<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1673, \t\t 1981 SCC (3) 592<\/div>\n
Author: Y Chandrachud<\/div>\n
Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nR.K. KHANDELWAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P. & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT11\/08\/1981\n\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR 1673\t\t  1981 SCC  (3) 592\n 1981 SCALE  (3)1149\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution  of  India  1950  Articles  226  and\t136-\nAdmission  to\tM.D.  Course-Change   in  the\tpractice  of\nadmission-Whether discontinuance  of a\tmere  Practice\twill\nsustain a charge of injury to legal rights.\n     Appeal by\tspecial leave-New  Point-Discrimination\t not\ntaken  in   writ  petition-Not\t argued\t in  High  Court-Not\nmentioned in S.L.P.-Plea not permitted.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  appellant   applied  for  admission  to  the\tM.D.\n(Paediatrics) Course  for the  academic year 1979-80. He had\npassed his  M.B.B.S. Examination  in December,\t1976.  There\nwere other students who had applied for admission along with\nthe appellant.\tSome  of  them\thad  passed  their  M.B.B.S.\nExamination prior  to December\t1976 and  had secured higher\nmarks than the appellant. The number of seats being limited,\nadmissions were\t given according  to merit and four students\nwho had\t secured the  highest number  of  marks\t were  given\npreference to  others regardless  of the  year in which they\nhad passed their M.B.B.S. Examination.\n     The appellant  filed a  writ petition in the High Court\nchallenging the\t E decision  of the  college by which he was\ndenied admission.  The petition was dismissed summarily by a\nDivision Bench\ton the\tground that  the relief\t of mandamus\ncould not  be granted  since the  appellant had.  failed  to\nestablish that any of his legal rights was violated.\n     In the  appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf\nof the\tappellant that:\t (a) For  many\tyears  in  the\tpast\ncandidates  who\t had  passed  the  D.C.H.  Examination\twere\npreferred for  admission to  the M.D.  Course but  that\t the\nUniversity suddenly  discontinued that practice, as a result\nof which  he had to compete with others who had passed their\nM.B.B.S. Examination, and (b) the ratio 1:1 between teachers\nand students was relaxed from time to time by the University\nand that  the appellant\t was discriminated  against  by\t the\narbitrary refusal  of the  authorities to relax the ratio in\nhis favour.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: The\tappellant has  failed to  make out a case of\ninjury to any of his legal rights. Because of interim orders\npassed\tby   this  Court   directing  the  College  and\t the\nUniversity  to\t admit\tthe  appellant\tto  M.D.  Course  in\nPaediatrics, the College cancelled the appellant's admission\nto the\tD.C.H. Course.\tIf the appellant has passed the M.D.\nExamination, he\t should be  declared to\t have passed it like\nany other  student.  He\t should\t not  be  subjected  to\t any\ndisadvantage for the\n284\nreason that  he was not entitled initially to be admitted to\nthe M.D.  Course in  Paediatrics. If he has failed he should\nbe permitted  to take  the examination\tagain (or  again and\nagain) in accordance with the rules of the University. Since\nthe result  of the  other students, who had appeared for the\nM.D. Examination  along with  the appellant, was declared in\nFebruary,  1981\t  the  appellant's  result  to\tbe  declared\nforthwith. [287 B-F]\n     (a) There\twas no\trule at\t any time  requiring that an\napplicant  seeking   admission\tto   the  M.D.\t Course\t  in\nPaediatrics had\t to pass his D.C.H. Examination. That such a\npractice was recognised over many years or that such was the\nunderstanding of  all concerned has been denied on behalf of\nthe College.  Besides  discontinuance  of  a  mere  practice\ncannot sustain\ta charge  of injury  to\t legal\trights.\t The\npractice had  not ripened into a rule and the University was\nunder no obligation to admit only those who had passed their\nD.C.H. Examination.  The appellant  therefore cannot  make a\ngrievance of  a change\tin the practice for admission to the\nM.D. Course. [285 G-286 B]\n     In the  instant case  no one  was admitted\t to the M.D.\nCourse who  had secured\t lesser marks than the appellant. He\nwas sixth  in order  of merit and there were only four seats\navailable. [286 E]\n     (b) If  there is a power to relax the ratio, that power\nmust be\t exercised  reasonably\tand  fairly.  It  cannot  be\nexercised  arbitrarily\t to  favour  some  students  and  to\ndisfavour some others. [286 G]\n     In the  instant case  this point  of discrimination was\nnot taken  in the writ petition filed in the High Court, not\nargued in  the High  Court, and\t not even  mentioned in\t the\nSpecial Leave  Petition. The  question\tas  to\twhether\t the\nauthorities have  the power  to\t relax\tthe  ratio  and\t the\nfurther question as to whether that power has been exercised\narbitrarily raise  new points  into which it is difficult to\nenquire for  the first\ttime. This  plea cannot therefore be\nentertained. [286 H-287 A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2324 of
\n1980.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t judgment and  order
\ndated the  23rd April,\t1979 of\t the Allahabad High Court in
\nCivil Misc. Writ No. 2228 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. L. M. Singhvi, and S. K. Verma for the Appellant.
\n     Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for Respondent Nos. I & 2.
\n     S. N.  Kacker and\tB. R.  Agarwala &  P. G. Gokhale for
\nRespondent No. 4.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHANDRACHUD, C.  J.:  The\tquestion  which\t arises\t for
\nconsideration in  this appeal  is whether the appellant, Dr.
\nR. K.\n<\/p>\n
285<\/span><\/p>\n
Khandelwal, is\tentitled to  be admitted to the M. D. Course
\nin Paediatrics of the Agra University and whether in denying
\nhim that  opportunity, the  State has  violated any  of\t his
\nlegal rights.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  passed his M.B.B.S. Examination from the
\nS. N.  Medical College, Agra, in December 1976 and completed
\nhis  internship\t  in  December\t 1977.\tBeing\tdesirous  of
\nprosecuting post-graduate  studies in Paediatrics, he took a
\nyear s\thouse job in the Paediatrics Department of the S. N.
\nMedical College\t Hospital, which  he  completed\t in  January
\n1979. He  then applied\tfor admission to the M. D. Course in
\nPaediatrics for\t the academic  year 1979-80. He was admitted
\nto the\tD.C.H. Course  but he  was refused  admission to the
\nM.D.  Course   on  two\tgrounds:  First,  that\tamongst\t the
\napplicants for\tthe M.\tD. Course  in Paediatrics there were
\nfour students  who had\tsecured higher marks than him in the
\nM.B.B.S. Examination,  and second,  that on the basis of the
\n1:1 ratio  between teachers  and students,  there were\tonly
\nfour  seats   available\t for  the  post-graduate  course  in
\nPaediatrics.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  filed a  writ petition in the High Court
\nof Allahabad  challenging the  decision of  the\t College  by
\nwhich he  was denied  admission to  M.D. (Paediatrics). That
\npetition was  dismissed summarily by a Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court  on the ground that the relief of mandamus sought
\nby the\tappellant could\t not be\t granted to him since he had
\nfailed to  establish  that  any\t of  his  legal\t rights\t was
\nviolated. This\tappeal by  special leave is directed against
\nthe High Court’s order dated April 23, 1979.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant,  as stated\tearlier, was admitted to the
\nD.C.H. Course  after  he  had  finished\t his  house  job  in
\nPaediatrics. His  case is  that for  many years in the past,
\ncandidates  who\t had  passed  the  D.C.H.  Examination\twere
\npreferred for  admission to  the M.  D. Course\tbut that the
\nUniversity suddenly  discontinued that practice, as a result
\nof which  he had to compete with others who had passed their
\nM.B.B.S.  Examination.\t There\tis   no\t substance  in\tthis
\ncontention and\tin any\tcase the  appellant  cannot  make  a
\ngrievance of  a change\tin the practice for admission to the
\nparticular course. Admittedly, there was no rule at any time
\nrequiring that\tan applicant  seeking admission\t to the M.D.
\nCourse in  Paediatrics had  to pass  his D.C.H. Examination.
\nAll that  is alleged  is that such a practice was recognised
\nover many  years or  at least,\tthat  such  was\t the  under-
\nstanding  of  all  concerned.  Both  the  practice  and\t the
\nunderstanding have been denied on behalf of the College. But
\napart from that,
\n286<\/span>
\ndiscontinuance of a mere practice cannot sustain a charge of
\ninjury to  legal rights. The practice had not ripened into a
\nrule and  the University  was under  no obligation  to admit
\nonly those  who had passed their D.C.H. Examination. We also
\nfeel some difficulty on the facts before us in accepting the
\ncontention  of\t the  appellant\t  that\tpassing\t the  D.C.H.
\nExamination was a passport for admission to the M.D. Course.
\nIt may,\t at the\t highest, be  said that\t it was\t easier\t for
\nstudents to  get admitted  to the  M.D. Course after passing
\nthe additional\texamination of\tD.C.H.\tafter  the  M.B.B.S.
\nExamination.\n<\/p>\n
     The  appellant   applied  for  admission  to  the\tM.D.
\n(Paediatrics Course  for the  academic year  1979-80. He had
\npassed his M.B.B.S. Examination in December 1976. There were
\nother students\twho had\t applied for  admission to  the M.D.
\nCourse in Paediatrics along with the appellant. Some of them
\nhad passed their M.B.B.S. Examination prior to December 1976
\nand had\t secured higher marks than the marks obtained by the
\nappellant in  the December  1976 Examination.  The number of
\nseats being  limited, admissions  were\tgiven  according  to
\nmerit and  the four  students who had secured highest number
\nof marks  were given  preference to others regardless of the
\nyear in which they had passed their M.B.B.S. Examination.
\nNo one\twas admitted  to the  1979-80 academic\tyear for the
\nM.D. Course  in Paediatrics,  who had  secured lesser  marks
\nthan the  appellant. The four students who secured admission
\nhad obtained  marks varying  between 60.06%  to 65.80% while
\nthe appellant had secured 58.56% marks only. He was sixth in
\norder of  merit amongst\t the applicants\t and there were only
\nfour seats  available bearing  in  mind\t the  ratio  of\t 1:1
\nbetween the teachers and the students.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Singhvi,  who appears\ton behalf  of the appellant,
\nraised a  further contention  that the ratio 1:1 was relaxed
\nfrom time  to time  by the University and that the appellant
\nwas discriminated  against by  the arbitrary  refusal of the
\nauthorities to\trelax  the  ratio  in  his  favour.  We\t are
\nprepared to  accept that  if there  is a  power to relax the
\nratio, that  power must\t be exercised reasonably and fairly.
\nIt cannot  be exercised\t arbitrarily to favour some students
\nand to\tdisfavour some others. But the difficulty in the way
\nof the\tlearned counsel is that this point of discrimination
\nwas not\t taken in  the Writ  Petition which was filed in the
\nHigh Court,  it was  not argued in the High Court and is not
\neven mentioned\tin the Special Leave Petition before us. The
\nquestion as  to whether\t the authorities  have the  power to
\nrelax the  ratio and the further question as to whether that
\npower has  been exercised arbitrarily in this case raise new
\npoints
\n287<\/span>
\ninto which  it is  difficult for us to enquire for the first
\ntime. We  are therefore\t unable to  entertain the submission
\nmade by the counsel.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  has thus  failed to\t make out  a case of
\ninjury to  any of  his legal  rights, for  which reason\t the
\nappeal must  fail. The\tappeal is accordingly dismissed. But
\nconsidering that  under interim\t orders passed by this Court
\nfrom time  to time  the appellant  has appeared for the M.D.
\nExamination on\tthe completion\tof the\tCourse, we hope that
\nthe University\tand the\t S.N. Medical  College will  take  a
\nsympathetic view of the appellant’s case and have his result
\ndeclared. It  may be  mentioned that  because of the interim
\norders passed  by this\tCourt directing\t the College and the
\nUniversity to  admit the  appellant to\tthe M.D.  Course  in
\nPaediatrics, the College cancelled the appellant’s admission
\nto the\tD.C.H. Course.\tThat may  have been right because no
\nstudent can  do the  D.C.H.  Course  and  the  M  D.  Course
\nsimultaneously. But  the point of the matter is that if this
\nCourt were  not to  direct as  an interim  measure that\t the
\nappellant should be allowed to prosecute his studies in M.D.
\nPaediatrics (subject  to the  result of\t this  Appeal),\t the
\nappellant  might  have\tcompleted  his\tD.C.H.\tCourse\tand,
\nsubject to  being admitted  to the M.D. Course within a year
\nor so  from now\t he would  have taken  his M.D.\t Examination
\nafter  passing\t the  D.C.H.  Examination.  The\t authorities
\nconcerned will bear in mind that the appellant should not be
\nplaced in  a worse  position than he would have been in, had
\nhe not\tfiled this  appeal. Therefore,\tif the appellant has
\npassed the examination, he should be declared to have passed
\nit like any other student. He should not be subjected to any
\ndisadvantage  for  the\treason\tthat  he  was  not  entitled
\ninitially to  be admitted to the M.D. Course in Paediatrics.
\nIf he  has failed,  he\tshould\tbe  permitted  to  take\t the
\nexamination again  (or again  and again)  in accordance with
\nthe rules  of the  University. Since the result of the other
\nstudents, who  had appeared  for the  M.D. Examination along
\nwith the  appellant, was  declared in February 1981, we hope
\nthat the appellant’s result would be declared forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
     There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n288<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India R.K. Khandelwal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 August, 1981 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1673, 1981 SCC (3) 592 Author: Y Chandrachud Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj) PETITIONER: R.K. KHANDELWAL Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT11\/08\/1981 BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) VARADARAJAN, A. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49107","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nR.K. Khandelwal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 August, 1981 - 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\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.K. Khandelwal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 August, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981\" \/>\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=\"1981-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-11T22:41:12+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\\\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.K. Khandelwal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 August, 1981\",\"datePublished\":\"1981-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-11T22:41:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981\"},\"wordCount\":1452,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981\",\"name\":\"R.K. Khandelwal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 August, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1981-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-11T22:41:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.K. Khandelwal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 August, 1981\"}]},{\"@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":"R.K. Khandelwal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 August, 1981 - 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\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.K. Khandelwal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 August, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1981-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-11T22:41:12+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\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.K. Khandelwal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 August, 1981","datePublished":"1981-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-11T22:41:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981"},"wordCount":1452,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981","name":"R.K. Khandelwal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 August, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1981-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-11T22:41:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-k-khandelwal-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-11-august-1981#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.K. Khandelwal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 August, 1981"}]},{"@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\/49107","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=49107"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49107\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49107"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49107"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49107"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}