{"id":68295,"date":"2010-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-09-21T21:55:52","modified_gmt":"2015-09-21T16:25:52","slug":"smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt Jyoti Pandey vs Challenge In This Petition Is To &#8230; on 5 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt Jyoti Pandey vs Challenge In This Petition Is To &#8230; on 5 February, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH : BILASPUR         \n\n            WRIT PETITION S No 5621 of 2008\n\n           Smt Jyoti Pandey\n                               ...Petitioners\n\n\n                          Versus\n\n\n     State   of  Chhattisgarh   &amp; Another\n\n\n\n\n\n\n!   Shri  T K   Tiwari  counsel  for  the petitioner\n\n\n^  Shri N N Roy Panel Lawyer for the State\n\n* CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J \n\n% Dated: 05\/02\/2010 \n\n: Judgement \n\n\n                    O R D E R (O R A L)\n<\/pre>\n<p>          (Passed on 05th day of February, 2010)<\/p>\n<p>   Writ Petition under Article 226of the Constitution of<br \/>\n                           India<\/p>\n<p>1.   Challenge  in  this  petition is to  the  communication<\/p>\n<p>     dated 10.09.2009 (Annexure P\/6) whereunder the appointment<\/p>\n<p>     of  the petitioner to the post of Constable (G.D.)  was<\/p>\n<p>     declined  on  the  ground that the petitioner  has  not<\/p>\n<p>     obtained class 10th examination certificate under (10+2)<\/p>\n<p>     scheme or any equivalent examination certificate from the<\/p>\n<p>     school\/college situated at Madhya Pradesh\/Chhattisgarh.<\/p>\n<p>2.   The  indisputable  facts, in brief, are  that  pursuant<\/p>\n<p>     to the advertisement dated 11.02.2008 (Annexure P\/1) the<\/p>\n<p>     petitioner made an application for appointment on the post<\/p>\n<p>     of  Constable  (G.D.)  on  the  basis  of  intermediate<\/p>\n<p>     examination certificate, obtained from the Intermediate<\/p>\n<p>     College, Sultapur, Uttar Pradesh. The candidature of the<\/p>\n<p>     petitioner  was  rejected on the ground  that  she  has<\/p>\n<p>     obtained   class  10th  and  intermediate   examination<\/p>\n<p>     certificate from a state other than Chhattisgarh\/Madhya<\/p>\n<p>     Pradesh, and thus, she is not eligible for consideration<\/p>\n<p>     under   the  advertisement  as  well  as  qualification<\/p>\n<p>     prescribed  in schedule II (Rule 8) of the Chhattisgarh<\/p>\n<p>     Police  Karyapalik Bal, Arakshak (Bharti Tatha Sewa  Ki<\/p>\n<p>     Sharte) Niyam, 2007 (for short &#8216;the Rules, 2007&#8217;).<\/p>\n<p>3.   Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\npetitioner, relies on a decision of a Division Bench of<br \/>\nthe High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Saurabh Singh v. State<br \/>\nof M.P. &amp; Others1, stating that the rules prescribing<br \/>\ncriteria for class 10th examination from the State of<br \/>\nMadhya Pradesh was held to be in contravention of Article<br \/>\n14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because the same<br \/>\ndenies equality of opportunity in the matters relating to<br \/>\npublic employment in the State of M.P.  Shri Tiwari<br \/>\nfurther relies on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered<br \/>\nin <a href=\"\/doc\/709776\/\">Olga Tellis &amp; Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation &amp;<br \/>\nOthers2.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   On the other hand, Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer<br \/>\nappearing for the State\/respondents submits that the<br \/>\nadvertisement was issued in accordance with the Rules,<br \/>\n2007, framed under provisions of Article 309 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India, wherein under scheduled II (Rule 8)<br \/>\nqualification of the Constable (G.D.) has been prescribed,<br \/>\nwhich has been shown as minimum qualification in the<br \/>\nadvertisement also. The petitioner does not possess the<br \/>\nrequisite qualification as per the Rules, 2007. Thus, the<br \/>\npetitioner was rightly not considered for selection and<br \/>\nappointment thereafter.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   I have heard learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nparties, perused the pleadings and documents appended<br \/>\nthereto.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   In Sourabh Singh (supra), it appears that the<br \/>\nqualification of 10th class examination under the 10+2<br \/>\nsystem or higher secondary school examination certificate<br \/>\nfrom the State of Madhya Pradesh was prescribed  pursuant<br \/>\nto the circular dated 27.3.1998 of the State of Madhya<br \/>\nPradesh. It is clear from perusal of the order that the<br \/>\naforestated qualification was not prescribed in the<br \/>\nstatutory rules framed under Article 309 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India. Secondly, there is no challenge to<br \/>\nthe rules which prescribes the above stated qualification.<br \/>\nThus, Sourabh Singh (supra) is distinguishable and not<br \/>\napplicable to the facts of the case, on hand, as in the<br \/>\npresent case, the minimum qualification has been a part of<br \/>\nthe Rules, 2007 framed under Article 309 of the<br \/>\nConstitution and not in any circular or notification.<br \/>\nFurther, since the question of waiver or estoppel on the<br \/>\nground that the petitioner has participated, thereafter,<br \/>\nshe cannot challenge the selection process is not in<br \/>\nquestion, it is not necessary to go into the said issue.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   Reliance of Shri Tiwari on the decision of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court rendered in Olga Tellis (supra) to submit<br \/>\nthat the principle of waiver or estoppel would not be<br \/>\napplicable in case of breach of fundamental right.  There<br \/>\nis no dispute on the point.  However, there is no<br \/>\nchallenge with regard to application of waiver or estoppel<br \/>\nin the instant case from other side.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   It  is  trite  that  if  the  provisions  of  the  Act,<\/p>\n<p>     statutory  Rules or regulations are clear, unambiguous,<\/p>\n<p>     causus omissus is impermissible. The minimum qualification<\/p>\n<p>     prescribed in the present case in Schedule II (Rule 8) of<\/p>\n<p>     the Rules, 2007 is plain, clear and unambiguous and does<\/p>\n<p>     not admit of any other interpretation. Secondly, there is<\/p>\n<p>     no challenge to the provisions of the Rules, 2007 as being<\/p>\n<p>     unconstitutional. Thus, the decision of the  respondent<\/p>\n<p>authorities  not  to  take  departure  from  the  prescribed<\/p>\n<p>     statutory  rules  is  just,  proper  and  warrants   no<\/p>\n<p>     interference. The Court has to examine the language, if it<\/p>\n<p>     is plain and unambiguous, the explanation supplied by the<\/p>\n<p>     Court may defeat the intention of the legislature, which<\/p>\n<p>     has been expressed in the statutory rules or regulations.<\/p>\n<p>9.   The  Supreme  Court  in  Dr.  Ganga  Prasad  Verma  and<\/p>\n<p>     Others v. State of Bihar and Others3, observed that &#8220;where<\/p>\n<p>     the language of the Act is clear and explicit, the Court<\/p>\n<p>     must give effect to it, whatever may be the consequences,<\/p>\n<p>     for  in  that case the words of the statute  speak  the<\/p>\n<p>     intention of the legislature.  The interjection of  the<\/p>\n<p>     preposition  &#8216;or&#8217;  at the underlined place  amounts  to<\/p>\n<p>     judicial  legislation or supplying  omission  which  is<\/p>\n<p>     impermissible  in  the process of construction  of  the<\/p>\n<p>     Regulation.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  In State of M.P. and Another v. Dharam Bir4, the<br \/>\nSupreme Court observed as under :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;33.  The post in question is the post  of<br \/>\n               Principal   of  the  Industrial   Training<br \/>\n               Institute. The Government has prescribed a<br \/>\n               Degree   or Diploma in Engineering as  the<br \/>\n               essential qualification for this post.  No<br \/>\n               one    who    does   not   possess    this<br \/>\n               qualification  can  be appointed  on  this<br \/>\n               post.  The  educational qualification  has<br \/>\n               direct nexus with the nature of the  post.<br \/>\n               The principal may also have an occasion to<br \/>\n               take  classes  and teach the  students.  A<br \/>\n               person  who does not hold either a  Degree<br \/>\n               or  Diploma in Engineering cannot possibly<br \/>\n               teach  the students of Industrial Training<br \/>\n               Institute   the  technicalities   of   the<br \/>\n               subject  of  Engineering and  its  various<br \/>\n               branches.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>11.  The   Supreme   Court  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/829671\/\">Rajasthan   Public   Service<\/p>\n<p>     Commission vs. Kaila Kumar Paliwal and Another5,<\/a> observed<\/p>\n<p>     as under :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;9.  The  services of the teachers working<br \/>\n               in  the  schools in the State of Rajasthan<br \/>\n               are  governed by the Rajasthan Educational<br \/>\n               Service    Rules,   1970   and   Rajasthan<br \/>\n               Education  (Subordinate  Services)  Rules,<br \/>\n               1971.    Subordinate service  consists  of<br \/>\n               the  posts  as  specified in the  schedule<br \/>\n               appended thereto.  A Teacher Grade-III  as<br \/>\n               also  a  Laboratory Assistant come  within<br \/>\n               the   purview  of  the  term  &#8216;subordinate<br \/>\n               services&#8217;.   The minimum qualification for<br \/>\n               holding the post of a Teacher Grade-III is<br \/>\n               Matriculation    with    certificate    of<br \/>\n               training,   whereas  that  of   Laboratory<br \/>\n               Assistant is Secondary with Science as  an<br \/>\n               optional subject.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               13.   Posts of Head Master, it would  bear<br \/>\n               repetition to state, are governed  by  the<br \/>\n               1970    Rules.    Five   years&#8217;   teaching<br \/>\n               experience  is  required for consideration<br \/>\n               for appointment to the post of Head Master<br \/>\n               which in turn is referable to teaching  in<br \/>\n               certain capacity on certain categories  or<br \/>\n               posts.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               14.  It is, therefore, difficult to accept<br \/>\n               that  those who had been holding posts  of<br \/>\n               Teacher   Grade-III   with   the   minimum<br \/>\n               educational qualification of Matriculation<br \/>\n               or  Secondary Education with a certificate<br \/>\n               in  training would be entitled to teaching<br \/>\n               in secondary classes or higher classes.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>12.  <a href=\"\/doc\/928147\/\">In   P.T.  Rajan  v.  T.P.M.  Sahir  and  Others6,  the<\/p>\n<p>     Supreme Court<\/a> observed as under :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;48.  Furthermore,  even  if  the  statute<br \/>\n               specifies  a time for publication  of  the<br \/>\n               electoral  roll, the same by itself  could<br \/>\n               not  have been held to be mandatory.  Such<br \/>\n               a  provision would be directory in nature.<br \/>\n               It is a well-settled principle of law that<br \/>\n               where a statutory functionary is asked  to<br \/>\n               perform  a statutory duty within the  time<br \/>\n               prescribed  therefor, the  same  would  be<br \/>\n               directory   and   not   mandatory.    (See<br \/>\n               Shiveshwar   Prasad  Singh   v.   District<br \/>\n               Magistrate of Monghyr, Nomita Chowdhary v.<br \/>\n               <a href=\"\/doc\/1928496\/\">State  of  W.B.  and Garbari  Union  Coop.<br \/>\n               Agricultural Credit Society Ltd. v. Swapan<br \/>\n               Kumar Jana).<\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               50.  The Court cannot, it is trite, supply<br \/>\n               casus  omissus.  Reference in this  regard<br \/>\n               may  be made to <a href=\"\/doc\/1879682\/\">Baliram Waman Hiray  (Dr.)<br \/>\n               v.   Justice  B.  Lentin<\/a>  wherein  it  was<br \/>\n               observed : (SCC p. 443, para 27)<\/p>\n<p>                    &#8217;27.   Law  must  be  definite,   and<br \/>\n                    certain.  If any of the features   of<br \/>\n                    the  law can usefully be regarded  as<br \/>\n                    normative,   it     is   such   basic<br \/>\n                    postulates  as  the   requirement  of<br \/>\n                    consistency  in  judicial   decision-<br \/>\n                    making.  It  is  this requirement  of<br \/>\n                    consistency  that gives  to  the  law<br \/>\n                    much  of  its  rigour. At   the  same<br \/>\n                    time, there is need  for flexibility.<br \/>\n                    Professor  H.L.A.  Hart  regarded  as<br \/>\n                    one  of  the leading thinkers of  our<br \/>\n                    time observes in his influential book<br \/>\n                    &#8216;The  Concept of Law&#8217;, depicting  the<br \/>\n                    difficult task of a Judge to strike a<br \/>\n                    balance    between   certainty    and<br \/>\n                    flexibility:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                         &#8220;Where there is obscurity in the<br \/>\n                      language  of a statute, it  results<br \/>\n                      in confusion and disorder. No doubt<br \/>\n                      the courts so frame their judgments<br \/>\n                      as  to  give  the  impression  that<br \/>\n                      their  decisions are the  necessary<br \/>\n                      consequence of predetermined rules.<br \/>\n                      In  very simple cases it may be so;<br \/>\n                      but  in the vast majority of  cases<br \/>\n                      that  trouble  the courts,  neither<br \/>\n                      statute nor precedents in which the<br \/>\n                      rules  are  legitimately  contained<br \/>\n                      allow  of only one result. In  most<br \/>\n                      important cases there is  always  a<br \/>\n                      choice.  The  judge has  to  choose<br \/>\n                      between alternative meanings to  be<br \/>\n                      given to the words of a statute  or<br \/>\n                      between  rival  interpretations  of<br \/>\n                      what a precedent amounts to. It  is<br \/>\n                      only   the  tradition  that  judges<br \/>\n                      `find&#8217;  and do not `make&#8217; law  that<br \/>\n                      conceals  this, and presents  their<br \/>\n                      decisions    as   if   they    were<br \/>\n                      deductions smoothly made from clear<br \/>\n                      pre-existing     rules      without<br \/>\n                      intrusion of the judge&#8217;s choice.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>13.  Applying  the  well settled principles of  law  to  the<\/p>\n<p>     facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned<\/p>\n<p>     hereinabove, the writ petition deserves to  be  and  is<\/p>\n<p>     dismissed. Interim order granted earlier is vacated.<\/p>\n<p>14.  There shall be no order asto costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                              J U D G E<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Smt Jyoti Pandey vs Challenge In This Petition Is To &#8230; on 5 February, 2010 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION S No 5621 of 2008 Smt Jyoti Pandey &#8230;Petitioners Versus State of Chhattisgarh &amp; Another ! Shri T K Tiwari counsel for the petitioner ^ Shri N N Roy [&hellip;]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-68295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt Jyoti Pandey vs Challenge In This Petition Is To ... on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Jyoti Pandey vs Challenge In This Petition Is To ... on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-21T16:25:52+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Jyoti Pandey vs Challenge In This Petition Is To &#8230; on 5 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-21T16:25:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1592,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt Jyoti Pandey vs Challenge In This Petition Is To ... on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-21T16:25:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Jyoti Pandey vs Challenge In This Petition Is To &#8230; on 5 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt Jyoti Pandey vs Challenge In This Petition Is To ... on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Jyoti Pandey vs Challenge In This Petition Is To ... on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-21T16:25:52+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Jyoti Pandey vs Challenge In This Petition Is To &#8230; on 5 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-21T16:25:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010"},"wordCount":1592,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010","name":"Smt Jyoti Pandey vs Challenge In This Petition Is To ... on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-21T16:25:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jyoti-pandey-vs-challenge-in-this-petition-is-to-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Jyoti Pandey vs Challenge In This Petition Is To &#8230; on 5 February, 2010"}]},{"@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\/68295","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=68295"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68295\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}