{"id":63652,"date":"2005-05-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-05-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005"},"modified":"2017-02-09T00:19:57","modified_gmt":"2017-02-08T18:49:57","slug":"rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 4 May, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rajesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 4 May, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: B Srikrishna<\/div>\n
Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, B.N. Srikrishna<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3048-3064 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nRajesh Kumar Gupta and Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of U.P. and Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/05\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nK.G. Balakrishnan & B.N. Srikrishna\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
WITH C.A.NO. 3065-3066, 3067-3071, 3072 and 3073  OF 2005<\/p>\n
B.N. Srikrishna, J.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
This group of appeals impungs the judgment of the Division Bench of the
\nAllahabad High Court in a group of appeal challenging the correctness of
\nthe decision of the learned Single Judge, who allowed a batch of writ
\npetitions resulting in the queshing of certain Government Orders relating
\nto selection for training of candidates for appointment as Assistant
\nTeachers in the primary schools run by the U.P. Basic Education Board
\n(hereinafter reffered to as the `Board’).\n<\/p>\n
The material facts relevant for disposal of this group of appeals may be
\nsummarized thus :\n<\/p>\n
For several years, the State of U.P. had experienced a severe shortage of
\nteachers as a result of which it was finding it difficult to fulfill its
\nobligations as mandated by Article 45 of the Constitution of India to
\nprovide free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14
\nyears. The State Government runs a training college in each district,
\n(about 70 in number) where the candidates are given training in the
\nteaching and on successful completion of the training are awarded a `Basic
\nTeacher’s Certificate’ (hereinafter referred to as BTC). The State
\ngovernment experienced that the number of candidates turned out from these
\ntraining institutions was insufficient to meet the large requirement of
\ntained teachers required to teach in primary schools run by the Board.
\nWhile the intake in the training college was only about 100 persons in a
\nyear, resulting in the number of trained BTC teachers in the range of 5000
\nto 6000 per annum, it was found that the total requirement of Assistant
\nTeachers for teaching students in the primary schools run by the Board was
\nin the range of about 50,000. In order to meet the shortfall, the State
\ngovernment decided to impart two months’ special training to candidates,
\nwho had done their B.Ed\/L\/T. so that they could be employed as Assitant
\nTeachers in the primary schools run by the Board. This decision was
\nimplemented by a Government Order dated 3.8.2001. Applications were called
\nfor from B.Ed\/L.T. qualified candidates for selection to undergo the
\nspecial BTC training after which suitable candidates would be selected and
\nappointed as Assistant Teachers. The Government Order provided the 50% of
\nthe candidates to be selected shall be from Science stream and 50% from the
\nArts stream and further 50% would be female candidates and 50% would be
\nmale candidates. The Government Order also states that after the special
\nBTC training, there would be an examination held and the selected
\ncandidates passing the examination would be interviewed and after selection
\nwould be recruited as Assistant Teachers in the primary schools of the
\ndistricts and regions where there was deficiency of teachers. There was a
\nrestrictive condition in the Government Order dated 3.8.2001 that
\ncandidates were eligible to make applications only against the vacancies
\navailable in their home district and that, if a candidate applied for two
\nor more districts, such applications were liable to be rejected. There was
\na detailed manner of selection for training on the basis of quality point
\nmarks obtained in the various examinations passed by the candidates. The
\nGovernment Order stated that those candidates who successfully completed
\nthe special BTC training shall be treated on par with the BTC general
\ntrained candidates and become eligible for appointment to the vacant posts
\nof Assistant Teacher for primary schools.\n<\/p>\n
The Government Order dated 3.8.2001 was subsequently modified by another
\nGovernment Order dated 20.8.2001 under which the candidates having C.P.Ed.,
\nD.P.Ed. and B.P. Ed. Training as regular students from the universities,
\ncolleges and training college recognised and run by the State government,
\nwere also eligible to apply for the BTC training programme. There was some
\nrelaxation of age given by the Order which is not material. The last date
\nof receipt of application was extended from 15.9.2001 to 29.9.2001.\n<\/p>\n
By another Government Order dated 14.9.2001, the State government took a
\npolicy decision to prepare a merit list, not on the district level, but at
\nthe State level. The Government Order dated 14.9.2001 indicates the manner
\nin which the State level merit list was to be compiled.\n<\/p>\n
On 31.10.2001, by another Government Order, the Government Order dated
\n14.9.2001 was amended and once again the merit list of all the applications
\nreceived from the candidates was directed to be prepared in accordance with
\nthe provisions given in the Government Order at the district level. A
\ncorrigendum published in the newspaper dated 22.9.2001 indicated this
\npolicy decision.\n<\/p>\n
Some of the candidates had applied on the basis of the corrigendum which
\nprovided for preparation of merit list State wise found themselves left our
\nfrom consideration as a result of the change in the criteria of preparation
\nof merit list from State wise to district wise pursuant to the Government
\nOrder dated 31.1.2001. When the merit list was notified their names did not
\nfind place in the merit list of their respective hom district. Being
\naggrieved, they moved the High Court by filing writ petitions under Article
\n226 of the Constitution of India and challenged the action of the
\nGovernment as arbitrary and in contravention of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of
\nthe Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The broad grounds of challenge before the learned Single Judge were as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tthe preparation of merit list district wise was arbitrary and
\nviolative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tit was also contrary to the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act,
\n1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and U.P. Basic Education
\n(Teachers) Service Rule, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules); and<\/p>\n
(iii)\tthe reservation to the extent of making selection of 50% males and
\n50% females against the3 prescribed number of 50% candidates from the
\nScience group and 50% from the Arts group is arbitrary and violative of
\nArticles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Single Judge overruled the objection that, having taken their
\nchance under the rules, the candidates who had failed were not entitled to
\nchallenge the selection process. The learned Single Judge also found that
\nthe impugned Government Orders were contrary to the provisions of the Act
\nas well as the Rules. Since a categorical statement was made by the Chief
\nStanding Counsel on behalf of the State government that, not a single
\nperson has been declared selected, and that not a single person has been
\nappointed pursuant to the impugned process of selection and only the result
\nhas been declared, the learned Single Judge took the view that non
\nimpleadment of the successful candidate was not an insurmountable
\ndifficulty which could come in the way of entertaining the writ petitions.
\nThe learned Single Judge further held that the reservation of 50% to Arts
\nand 50% to Science group and 50% for males and 50% for females was not
\nwarranted by the constitutional provisions, being over and above the
\nconstitutional reservations in favour of backward classes. Finally, the
\nlearned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the change made in
\npreparation of the merit list from Statewise basis to districtwise basis
\nwas contrary to and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The State of U.P. impugned the judgement of the learned Single Judge by its
\nSpecial Appeal No. 404 of 2002 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
\nSome of the candidates in the selection also filed Special Appeal before
\nthe Division Bench. The Division Bench heard all the Special Appeals
\ntogether and disposed them of by the impugned judgment which upheld the
\njudgment of the learned Single Judge with a slight modification. Being
\naggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
The Division Bench raised the following points which arose for its
\ndetermination :\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tWhether in the absence of the selected candidates having been
\nimpleaded by the writ petitioners, the writ petitions are maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tWhether the writ petitioners having applied for Special BTC
\ntraining course and having failed to get their name in the merit list are
\nestopped from challenging the advertisement and selection made pursuant
\nthereto.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tWhether the plea of promissory estopped is available to the writ
\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tWherther the reservation of 50% females and 50% males and 50% for
\nArts group and 50% for science group in addition to the reservation policy
\nof the State Government already in force is contrary to the provisions of
\nArticles 14, 15 and of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tWhether the State Government can prepare merit list at the District
\nlevel instead of State level and the same is violative of Article 15 and 16
\nof the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
(vi)\tWhether the provisions of Article 350-A of the Constitution of
\nIndia are attracted in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
(vii)\tWhether the selection of candidates for special BTC training is
\ncontrary to the provisions of the basic Eduction Act, 1972 and U.P. Basic
\nEducation (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981.\n<\/p>\n
With regard to the first point, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench
\nholds that full effect of the result would be given only after verification
\nof the testimonials, certificates and documents mentioned in the
\napplication and mere publication of the selection list on 31.11.2001 did
\nnot result in accrual of any right in favour of the candidates, whose names
\nhad found place in the select list. Relying on the judgment of this Court
\nin Diwakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (1982) SC 1555 and
\nShankarsan Das v. Union of India, AIR<\/a> (1991) SC 1612, and the statement
\nmade by the Chief Standing counsel on behalf of the State made at the Bar,
\nthe Division Bench held that even though the candidates, whose names
\nappeared in the select list, were not made parties to the writ petitions,
\nthe writ petitions could not be summarily dismissed on the said ground. We
\nare inclined to agree with this finding of the Division Bench, which is
\nsupported by the authority of the Constitution Bench in Shankarsan Dash v.
\nUnion of India<\/a> (supra) and several other judgments of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
The Division Bench also found that at the time of making the application
\nthe scheme notified by the State Government was that the preparation of the
\nmerit list would be at the State level and not at the district level. The
\ncriterion for merit list was subsequently challanged only on 31.10.2001
\ni.e. after the applications had been made by the candidates. Consequently,
\nno candidate had any occasion to protest, since the criterion was abruptly
\nchanged by the State Government. Thus, the Division Bench overruled the
\nobjection to the maintainability of the writ petitions by taking the view
\nthat there was no question of estoppel and the candidates, who had applied
\nand were not selected could not be said to be estopped from challenging the
\nprocess of selection. Nor could there be any plea of promissory estoppel
\ninvoked by the writ petitioners, as nothing was established to show that
\nthey had altered their position to their detriment by applying pursuant to
\nthe advertisement. In our view, the finding of the Division Bench on this
\npoint is justified.\n<\/p>\n
The Division Bench took the view that Articles 15(3) of the Constitution
\nenables the States government to make special provision for woman and
\nchildren notwithstanding the prohibition contained in Article 15(1).
\nParticularly viewed in the background of the fact that a large number of
\nyoung girls below the age of 10 years were taught in the primary school and
\nrecognizing that it would be preferable that such young girls are taught by
\nwomen, the reservation of 50% of the posts in favour of female candidates
\nwas held to be justified. The classification made was justified and cannot
\nbe styled as arbitrary or liable to be hit by Article 14.\n<\/p>\n
We agree with the Division Bench of the High Court that there was no
\nviolation of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Whether the State Government can prepare merit list at the District level
\ninstead of State level and the same is violative of Article 15 and 16 of
\nthe Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
The Division Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that the merit
\nlist could not be prepared on districtwise basis and that restricting the
\nselection and preparation of merit list at the district level was not
\njustified and amounted to discrimination. It was also found that though at
\none stage the State government had decided to prepare the merit list on the
\nState level, it was suddenly changed to the district level and the reasons
\nadvanced for the sudden change were found to be wholly irrelevant and
\nunjustified. The action of the State government in restoring the
\npreparation of merit list from State level to district level was held
\narbitrary and violative of Articles 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution of
\nIndia. The High Court has referred and relied on a number of judgement of
\nthis Court which have frowned upon recruitment on the basis of criteria
\nrestricted to candidates from specified local areas.\n<\/p>\n
Although a feeble attempt was made by the counsel on behalf of the State
\nrespondents that different districts have different dialects and therefore,
\nit would be necessary to restrict the selection to candidates conversant
\nand fluent in those regional dialects, we are not satisfies that adequate
\nmaterial was presented to the High Court on the basis of which this
\ndistinction could have been justified. In the first place, there was no
\nmaterial to indicate that dialects vary from district to district.
\nConsequently, there was no material to indicate that a candidate from one
\ndistrict was no likely to be familiar with the dialect of another district
\nfor which he applied for training. There was also no material placed on
\nrecord to indicate that training was to be in local dialect for the local
\nschool only. Finally, if the emphasis is really on the regional dialect,
\nnothing prevented the State government from making the knowledge of a
\nspecified regional dialect as preferential criterion for recruitment. For
\nthese reasons, we agree with the view taken by the Division Bench on this
\nissue and hold that restriction of the selection and preparation of merit
\nlist at the district level was arbitrary and violative of Article 15(1) and
\n16(2) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Whether the provisions of Article 350-A of the Constitution of India are
\nattracted in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
There was no material for the High Court to show that the case of any
\nlinguistic minority was involved, hence the High Court rightly held that
\nArticle 350-A was not violated.\n<\/p>\n
Whether the selection of candidates for special BTC training is contrary to
\nthe provisions of the basic Education Act, 1972 and U.P. Basic Education
\n(Teachers) Services Rules, 1981.\n<\/p>\n
Relying on the judgment of Union of Indian Ors. v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra
\nTeachers College, JT<\/a> (2002) 8 SC 269, the High Court held that the National
\nCouncil for Teacher Education constituted under Section 3 of the National
\nCouncil for Teacher Education Act, 1993 is an expert body whose function is
\nto maintain the standards of education in relation to teacher’s education.
\nIt was for this body to prepare norms for recognised courses for teachers’
\neducation on different levels. The special BTC training course contemplated
\nby the State of U.P. had not been recognised by the National Council for
\nTeacher Education under the 1993 Act. It was, therefore, not a recognised
\nteachers’ training course. The State government therefore, could not have
\ndeclared it or treated is as equivalent qualification for the purpose of
\nAssistant Masters or Assistant Mistresses. Merely because the State was
\nunder pressure and in a hurry to recruit a large number of teachers, the
\nrequirement of educational standards of the training imparted to the
\nteachers could not be compromised. Strangely, despite recognition of
\nE.Ed\/L.T. and other courses recognised by the National Council for Teacher
\nEducation under the 1993 Act, the State government had not bothered to
\ndeclare their equivalence for the purpose of making appointment on posts of
\nAssistant Masters and Assistant Mistress for the schools run by the Board.
\nThe High Court, therefore, pointed out that the Government Order
\nrecognizing special BTC course as equivalent qualification was contrary to
\nthe provisions of the UP Basic Education Act and provisions of the National
\nCouncil for Teacher Education Act, 1993, particularly so in view of Section
\n16 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 which gives
\noverriding effect to the provisions of the State Act.\n<\/p>\n
The U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 provides under
\nSection 5 for direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Masters and
\nAssistant Mistresses to Junior Basic Schools. The Rules prescribe the
\nqualifications requisite for such posts. Academic qualification required is
\na bachelor’s degree from a University established by law in India or a
\ndegree recognised by the Government together with `training qualification’
\nconsisting of a Basic Teacher’s Hindustani Teacher’s Certificate, Junior
\nTeacher’s Certificate, Certificate of teaching or any other training course
\nrecognised by the government as equivalent thereto. In the face of these
\nRules, and particularly keeping in view the provisions of the National
\nCouncil for Teacher Education Act, 1993, no fault can be found with the
\nimpugned judgment of the High Court that the special BTC training course
\nformulated by the State government was contrary to the provisions of the
\nimpugned Act and Rules and the 1993 Central Act.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, we find that the judgment under appeal is justified and
\nsustainable. We see no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment.
\nHence, all the appeals are dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rajesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 4 May, 2005 Author: B Srikrishna Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, B.N. Srikrishna CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3048-3064 of 2005 PETITIONER: Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Ors. RESPONDENT: State of U.P. and Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/05\/2005 BENCH: K.G. Balakrishnan & B.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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-63652","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRajesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 4 May, 2005 - 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\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 4 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-08T18:49:57+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 4 May, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-08T18:49:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2910,\"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\\\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005\",\"name\":\"Rajesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 4 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-08T18:49:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 4 May, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 4 May, 2005 - 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\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 4 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-08T18:49:57+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 4 May, 2005","datePublished":"2005-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-08T18:49:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005"},"wordCount":2910,"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\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005","name":"Rajesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 4 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-08T18:49:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-gupta-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-4-may-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 4 May, 2005"}]},{"@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\/63652","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=63652"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63652\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63652"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63652"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63652"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}