{"id":60565,"date":"1972-12-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-12-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972"},"modified":"2015-01-20T14:23:45","modified_gmt":"2015-01-20T08:53:45","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors vs S. B. Kohli & Anr on 20 December, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors vs S. B. Kohli & Anr on 20 December, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 811<\/div>\n
Author: A Alagiriswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Alagiriswami, A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS. B. KOHLI & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/12\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nBENCH:\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nDUA, I.D.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR  811\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1974 SC   1\t (40A,46)\n F\t    1974 SC1631\t (28)\n R\t    1978 SC 327\t (7,9)\n R\t    1980 SC1255\t (8,13)\n D\t    1988 SC1048\t (15,16)\n RF\t    1989 SC 307\t (9)\n APR\t    1989 SC1256\t (8)\n F\t    1989 SC1308\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\nCentral health Scheme Rules -Qualifications for\t Specialists\nWhether\t the degree of E.R.C.S. is enough for the post of  a\nprofessor in Orthopaedics.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nUnder Central Health Service Rules 1963 as amended, items  2\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
graduate  degree  in the concerned speciality  mentioned  in
\nPart A of Anuxure 11 or equivalent.”\n<\/p>\n
In the present case, the first Respondent apart from  having
\na postgraduate degree in General Surgery (F.R.C.S.) had also
\na  degree  of M.C.H. (Arth), Liverpool; whereas\t the  Second
\nRespondent  had\t a post graduate degree in  General  Surgery
\n(F.R.C.S.) only.\n<\/p>\n
The  question  that  arose  for\t decision  was\twhether\t the
\npostgraduate qualification which was required in the case of
\na  direct  recruitment to the post in question\twas  also  a
\nnecessary qualification for appointment by promotion to that
\npost,  and  what  was the meaning of  the  phrase  “a  post-
\ngraduate degree in the Concerned Speciality.”
\nHELD  : (i) Before the growth of specialised  qualifications
\nSurgeons  obtaining the F.R.C.S. in general surgery used  to
\nspecialise in orthopaedics and other specialities either  by
\ndoing  a diploma in Orthopaedics or simply by  practice\t and
\nexperience.   The Regulations framed by the Medical  Council
\nrequire that in addition to the general F.R.C.S., a  surgeon
\nmust  have  a diploma in Orthopaedics before  he  could\t be,
\nappointed  a Professor, Reader or Lecturer in  Orthopaedics.
\nThat  regulation has been accepted by the Government.\tThis
\ngives  an indication of what is considered  a  post-graduate
\ndegree\tin  the\t concerned speciality.\t Therefore,  in\t the
\npresent\t case, a mere degree of F.R.C.S. as such  cannot  be
\ndeemed\tto be a postgraduate qualification in the  concerned
\nspeciality  of Orthopaedics.  To hold otherwise\t would\tmean
\nthat a person who has the qualification of F.R.C.S. could be
\ndeemed\tto be specialised in Tuberculosis and  Orthopaedics,
\nalthough  he  is  also\ta  specialist  in  general  surgery.
\nTherefore,  the\t second\t Respondent does not  hold  a  post-
\ngraduate  degree in the concerned  speciality,\tOrthopaedics
\nand  as\t such, his promotion to the post of a  professor  in
\nOrthopaedics  was  illegal and against the  Central  Health
\nService Rules.\tAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
&
\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1943 of
\n1972.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nMay  18, 1972 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in  Civil
\nWrit No. 1319 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
L.N. Sinha, Solicitor-General of India, G. L. Sanghi  and
\nS. P. Nayar for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Respondent No. 1 in person.\n<\/p>\n
118<\/span><\/p>\n
Yogeshwar  Prasad, S. K. Bagga and S. Bagga  for  respondent
\nNo. 2.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nALAGIRISWAMI, J. This is an appeal by special leave  against
\nthe  judgment of the High Court of Delhi allowing  the\twrit
\npetition  filed\t by  the  1st  Respondent  questioning\t the
\nappointment  of the 2nd respondent to the post of  Professor
\nof  Orthopaedic Surgery in the Maulana Azad Medical  College
\nand reverting her as Associate Professor.
\nThe  question  that  arises for decision  in  this  case  is
\nwhether the post-graduate qualification which is undoubtedly
\nrequired,in the case of a direct recruitment to the post  in
\nquestion  is also a necessary qualification for\t appointment
\nby  promotion to that post, and what is the meaning  of\t the
\nphrase ‘a post-graduate degree in the concerned speciality’.
\nThe first respondent possesses the following  qualifications
\n: She is M.B.B.S. of the, Bombay University, F.R.C.S. of the
\nEdinburgh   University,\t M.Ch.\t(Orth).\t of  the   Liverpool
\nUniversity and also of F.R.C.S. (Eng.) The second respondent
\nholds  an M.B.B.S. degree and in addition the  qualification
\nof F.R.C.S. of the Edinburgh University.  Consequent on\t the
\nselection made by the Departmental Promotion Committee,\t the
\nsecond respondent was appointed to the post in question,  as
\nalready mentioned, and as a consequence the first respondent
\nwas reverted as Associate Professor.\n<\/p>\n
The  case  raises  the question\t of  interpretation  of\t the
\nCentral Health Service Rules, 1963, as amended in the  years
\n1966  and 1968.\t These rules are made under article  309  of
\nthe  Constitute\t posts in the Central  Health  Service\twere
\ndivided, were fairly simple. In\t    1966    pursuant\t to
\nregulations  framed  by\t the  Indian  Medical  Council\t the
\nGovernment  amended  the  rules\t creating  the\tcategory  of
\n‘Specialists’.\t In  1968 further amendments  were  made  in
\nitems 2 and 3 of Annexure 1 to the Second Schedule requiring
\n“a   post-graduate  degree  in\tthe   concerned\t  speciality
\nmentioned  in Part A of Annexure II or equivalent”  for\t the
\npost  of a Professor, Reader or Lecturer.  The promotion  in
\nquestion  having been made thereafter, the rules as  amended
\nin  1966 and 1968 will govern the  qualifications  necessary
\nfor this post.\n<\/p>\n
The  post  in question is one which falls under\t Super\ttime
\nGrade  11  in Rule 4 of the Central  Health  Service  Rules.
\nAccording  to Rule ( 3) fifty per cent of the  vacancies  in
\nSupertime  Grade II shall be filled by the promotion of\t (i)
\nGeneral Duty Officers, Grade I with not less than 10  years’
\nof  service  in that category, or  (ii)\t Specialists’  Grade
\nOfficers  with\tnot  less than 8 years\tof  service  in\t the
\ncategory, in the ratio of 2 : 3 on the recommenda-\n<\/p>\n
119<\/span><\/p>\n
tion  of a Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis  of
\nmerit and seniority of the officer concerned.  Provided that
\nno  person  shall be eligible for appointment to  any.\tsuch
\npost  unless he possesses the qualifications and  experience
\nrequisite  for appointment to such post.  The question\tthen
\nis  : What are the qualifications and  experience  requisite
\nfor  appointment to the post of Professor of Orthopaedics  ?
\nThere  is no dispute that according to the Second  Schedule,
\nwhich  deals  with  selection by the  Union  Public  Service
\nCommission  a  professor in a medical  college\tor  teaching
\ninstitution  should  have  a  post-graduate  degree  in\t the
\nconcerned speciality mentioned in Part A of Annexture II  or
\nequivalent.   It  is  not necessary to refer  to  the  other
\nqualifications\tbecause\t they do not arise for\tdecision  in
\nthis  case.  In Annexure 11 to that Schedule against Item  7
\n(Orthopaedics),\t the  qualifications  mentioned\t are   M.S.,
\nM.C.H.\t (Orthopaedics)\t  (Liverpool),\tF.R.C.S.   The\t 1st
\nrespondent,  as\t already  mentioned, has go  the  degree  of
\nM.C.H. (Orth.) (Liverpool. The 2nd respondent is a  F.R.C.S.
\nIf  F.R.C.S.  mentioned therein can be considered  to  be  a
\npostgraduate\tdegree\t in   the   concerned\t speciality,
\nOrthopaedics,\tthe  first  respondent’s   petition   cannot
\nobviously succeed.  It seems to us that the qualification of
\nF.R.C.S.  cannot be deemed to be a post-graduate  degree  in
\nOrthopaedics.\n<\/p>\n
Are we to take it that because the Annexure II has the head-
\ning  ‘List of Post-Graduate Qualifications’ and F.R.C.S.  is
\nfound beside the item 7 (Orthopaedics), that for the purpose
\nof  the\t rules\tit  is\tdeemed\tto  be\ta  qualification  in
\nOrthopaedics  though F.R.C.S. is certainly  a  post-graduate
\nqualification  ? As pointed out by the High Court,  F.R.C.S.
\n(Edin.),  which is the qualification the  second  respondent
\npossesses, is in General Surgery.  The Edinburgh  University
\nawards\t F.R.C.S.   in\tthree  specialities   but   not\t  in
\nOrthopaedics.\tF.R.C.S.  (Canada)  exists  in\tspecialities
\nincluding  Orth opaedics.  Before the growth of\t specialised
\nqualifications,\t surgeons obtaining the F.R.C.S. in  General
\nSurgery\t used  to  specialise  in  Orthopaedics\t and   other
\nspecialities  either by doing a diploma in  Orthopaedics  or
\nsimply\tby practice and experience.  The regulations  framed
\nby  the\t Medical  Council require that in  addition  to\t the
\ngeneral\t  F.R.C.S.  a  surgeon\tmust  have  a\tdiploma\t  in
\nOrthopaedics  before  he  could be  appointed  a  Professor,
\nReader\tor  Lecturer in Orthopaedics.  That  regulation\t has
\nbeen accepted by the Government.  Though the validity of the
\nappointment  to the Central Health Service does not have  to
\nbe  tested  by reference to the regulations  framed  by\t the
\nIndian\tMedical\t Council  for  teaching\t staff\tin   medical
\ncolleges,  those  regulations and their\t acceptance  by\t the
\nGovernment give an indication of what is considered to be  a
\npost-graduate  degree in the concerned speciality.   Before
\nthe High Court on behalf of the Government it seems to have
\nbeen contended that the amend-\n<\/p>\n
120<\/span><\/p>\n
ments  made in the Central Health Service Rules give  effect
\nto  the\t regulations framed by the Indian  Medical  Council.
\nPart  of  the  difficulty in this case\thas  arisen  because
\nAnnexure  11  was not amended when the relevant\t portion  of
\nAnnexure I was amended in 1968.\t But that does not take away
\nthe  force of the argument that F.R.C.S. as such  cannot  be
\ndeemed to be a post-graduate qualification in the  concerned
\nspeciality  of Orthopaedics.  To hold otherwise\t would\tmean
\nthat a person who has the qualification of F.R.C.S. could be
\ndeemed to be a Specialist in Tuberculosis and  Orthopaedics,
\nalthough  he is also a Specialist in General  Surgery.\t The
\nvarious entries in Annexure II would have to be\t interpreted
\nin a reasonable manner.\t Otherwise how could M.D., M.R.C.P.,
\nF.R.C.S,  and  M.S.  all be  considered\t to  be\t specialised
\nqualifications\tin Tuberculosis, or a mere M.D. or  M.R.C.P.
\nand  F.R.C.S. connote a post-graduate qualification  in\t the
\nspeciality  of Paediatries.  It stands to reason that  these
\ndegree must be in the subject of Paediatrics if the  holders
\nof  those  degrees  are\t to  be\t considered  specialists  in
\nPaediatrics.   As mentioned earlier, F.R.C.S.  (Canada)\t has
\nmany specialities.  M.D. also can be in many specialities as
\nindeed\tAnnexure  11  itself shows.  So\t also  M.S.  We-are,
\ntherefore,  in\tcomplete  agreement with  the  view  of\t the
\nlearned\t Judaes of the High Court that F.R,.C.S.  by  itself
\ncannot be said to be a post-graduate degree in Orthopaedics.
\nThe mere fact that a degree is mentioned against  speciality
\nof  Orthopaedics does not make it a post-graduate degree  in
\nOrthopaedics.\tAdmittedly  the second respondent  does\t not
\npossess the qualification, of F.R.C.S. in Orthopaedics.\t  In
\nthe  circumstances  the\t fact that F.R.C.S.  is\t also  shown
\nagainst\t the entry “Orthopaedics” in Annexure II is  not  an
\nanswer\tto the question whether it is a postgraduate  degree
\nin orthopaedics.  It was urged that the F.R.C.S. examination
\nhas  an\t orthopaedic content.  In that sense the  holder  of
\nevery  medical\tdegree knows something of every\t subject  in
\nmedicine  or  surgery.\t Nobody\t can  contend  that  a\tmere
\nM.B.B.S.  is a degree in surgery or opthalmology because  it
\nhas a content of surgery or opthalmology.  We therefore hold
\nthat the 2nd respondent does not bold a post-graduate degree
\nin the concerned speciality, Orthopaedies.
\nIt  is\tthen necessary to deal with the\t argument  that\t the
\nqualification\tset out in Annexure I and II of\t the  Second
\nSchedule were not applicable to cases of promotion.  One  of
\nthe  reasons  advanced\twas that it  will  adversely  affect
\npersons\t  who\tentered\t  service  at  a   time\t  when\t the
\nqualifications\tmentioned in Annexure IT to Second  Schedule
\nwere  not  requisite qualifications for\t the  various  posts
\nmentioned  in  Annexure\t I.  This appears  to  be  a  wholly
\nirrelevant consideration unless it could be shown that\tsuch
\na rule cannot be validly made.\tIt was then argued that Rule
\n8 (3) does not mention the qualifications in Annexures I and
\n11 as
\n121<\/span>
\nnecessary  qualifications for promotion to  Supertime  Grade
\nII. We consider this argument without substance because\t the
\nproviso\t thereto  just\tmeans that.   The  meaning  of\tthat
\nproviso\t is  that  in this case\t where\ta  specialist  grade
\nofficer is sought to be promoted to the post of a  Professor
\nin Orthopaedic Surgery he should have a post-graduate degree
\nin  the concerned sociality mentioned in Part A of  Annexure
\nII or equivalent, which is the qualification, and 12  years’
\nstanding in the profession which is the experience.  If this
\ninterpretation\twas not to be given to this proviso it\twill
\nbe wholly superfluous.\tThe fact that that proviso does\t not
\nrefer  to the Second Schedule as for instance sub-rule\t(2A)
\nof rule 8 does not affect the question.\n<\/p>\n
We also do not understand the argument advanced on behalf of
\nthe  appellant\tthat the interpretation placed by  the\tHigh
\nCourt and accepted by us now on this part of the case  would
\nmean  infraction of Article 16 of the Constitution.   We  do
\nnot  agree that the decision of this Court in Roshan Lal  v.
\nUnion<\/a>(1)  lays\tdown  any such\tprinciple.   Professors\t and
\nAdditional Professors in teaching institutions do not  stand
\nin the same position as General Duty Officers.\tThe argument
\nthat  it  would\t lead to discrimination\t in  the  matter  of
\npromotion  of specialist is also without substance.  To\t say
\nthat  to be appointed a Professor in Orthopaedics  a  person
\nmust  have a post-graduate degree in Orthopaedics is not  to
\nmake  a classification without reference to  the  objectives
\nsought\tto  be\t‘achieved and there can be  no\tquestion  of
\ndiscrimination.\n<\/p>\n
Another\t argument  put forward was that the  nature  of\t the
\nqualifications mentioned in Annexure I are not mandatory and
\nthey  would  become mandatory in cases of promotion  if\t the
\nproviso to rule 8(3) is held to refer to the  qualifications
\nin  Annexures  I  and If.  This argument was  based  on\t the
\nprovision  in  the Annexure I to the Second  Schedule  which
\nstates that the qualifications are relaxable at\t Commissions
\ndiscretion   in\t the  case  of\tcandidates  otherwise\twell
\nqualified.   That  is no doubt so.  But\t the  discretion  is
\ngiven  only to the Union Public Service Commission in  cases
\nof direct recruitment and not to the Departmental  Promotion
\nCommittee  in cases of promotion.  As that is the intent  of
\nthe  law it has to be given effect to.\tMoreover, the  Union
\nPublic Service Commission when it proceeds to fill up a post
\nby direct recruitment does so by calling for applications by
\nextensive advertisements and it is but reasonable that if on
\na  consideration  of all those applications  it\t finds\tthat
\npersons\t possessing  the prescribed qualifications  are\t not
\navailable  but there are persons otherwise  well  qualified,
\nthey  could be selected.  But that is not so in the case  of
\nDepartmental  promotion at least in. this case.\t  The  rules
\nthemselves  contemplate\t that  if  there  are  no  qualified
\ncandidates
\n(1)  [1968] 1 S.C 185.\n<\/p>\n
122<\/span><\/p>\n
then direct recruitment could be resorted to.  That question
\ndoes not arise here.\n<\/p>\n
Another\t strange argument advanced was that the\t degree\t was
\nnot the, only criterion of suitability.\t We must also  refer
\nto the argument advanced by Shri Yogeshwar Prasad on  behalf
\nof   the  second  respondent  that  what  the\tDepartmental
\nPromotion Committee did was to promote the second respondent
\nto  Supertime Grade 11 and his appointment as Professor\t of.
\nOrthopaedics  was  merely  a transfer  and  this  cannot  be
\nquestioned.   The 2nd respondent was represented by  Counsel
\nbefore\tthe  High  Court.  This argument was  not  then\t put
\nforward.   But that apart, we do not consider that there  is
\nany substance in this argument. The par ties had no  doubt
\nabout  what was at issue.  It was simply the appointment  of
\nthe  2nd  respondent as Professor of  Orthopaedics  and\t the
\nconsequent  reversion  of the 1st  respondent  as  Associate
\nProfessor,  and\t it was on that basis that  the\t whole\tcase
\nproceeded.  The promotion of the 2nd respondent to Supertime
\nGrade  11  was\tdirectly  related  to  his  appointment\t  as
\nProfessor.\n<\/p>\n
In the result the appeal is dismissed with the costs of\t the
\n1st respondent to be paid by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
S.C.\t\t\t\t\t\t     Appeals\ndismissed.\n123<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors vs S. B. Kohli & Anr on 20 December, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 811 Author: A Alagiriswami Bench: Alagiriswami, A. PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: S. B. KOHLI & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/12\/1972 BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. DUA, I.D. VAIDYIALINGAM, […]<\/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-60565","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors vs S. B. Kohli & Anr on 20 December, 1972 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors vs S. B. Kohli & Anr on 20 December, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972\" \/>\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=\"1972-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-20T08:53:45+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs S. B. Kohli & Anr on 20 December, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-20T08:53:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972\"},\"wordCount\":2522,\"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\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs S. B. Kohli & Anr on 20 December, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-20T08:53:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs S. B. Kohli & Anr on 20 December, 1972\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India & Ors vs S. B. Kohli & Anr on 20 December, 1972 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors vs S. B. Kohli & Anr on 20 December, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-20T08:53:45+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors vs S. B. Kohli & Anr on 20 December, 1972","datePublished":"1972-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-20T08:53:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972"},"wordCount":2522,"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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972","name":"Union Of India & Ors vs S. B. Kohli & Anr on 20 December, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-20T08:53:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-s-b-kohli-anr-on-20-december-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors vs S. B. Kohli & Anr on 20 December, 1972"}]},{"@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\/60565","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=60565"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60565\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60565"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60565"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60565"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}