{"id":69010,"date":"2008-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-04-21T00:10:16","modified_gmt":"2018-04-20T18:40:16","slug":"raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Raghuveer Singh Gehlot vs Jai Narain Vyas &#8230; on 2 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Rajasthan High Court &#8211; Jodhpur<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Raghuveer Singh Gehlot vs Jai Narain Vyas &#8230; on 2 September, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>                                    1\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                     AT JODHPUR\n\n\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>          S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1787\/2005<br \/>\n            (Raghuveer Singh Vs. JNVU &amp; Ors.)<\/p>\n<p>                 Date of order           :        2.9.2008<\/p>\n<p>                           P R E S E N T<\/p>\n<p>      HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS<\/p>\n<p>Mr. P.S. Bhati, for the petitioner.<br \/>\nMs. Kusum Rao, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>           In    this     case,    the       petitioner      is   claiming<\/p>\n<p>regularization on the post of Library Assistant on the<\/p>\n<p>ground that he is working in the respondent University<\/p>\n<p>since 1985 on contract as well as temporary basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, it is submitted by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner that in view of the judgment rendered by<\/p>\n<p>Hon&#8217;ble   Apex    Court    in     case       of    Secretary,     State   of<\/p>\n<p>Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the<\/p>\n<p>case of the petitioner for regularization is required<\/p>\n<p>to be considered by the respondent-University.\n<\/p>\n<p>           Learned        counsel        for         the     respondents-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>University    controverted         the    fact    of    continuance      of<\/p>\n<p>services of the petitioner and submitted that for some<\/p>\n<p>time his services were dis-continued.\n<\/p>\n<p>            In my opinion, whatever facts may be there<\/p>\n<p>but admittedly the petitioner is continuously working<\/p>\n<p>in the respondent-University since 1995 and performing<\/p>\n<p>his duties as Library Assistant.                 Therefore, it is for<\/p>\n<p>the   University   to    consider         the    candidature      of    the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner    in   light      of     the     directions        issued    by<\/p>\n<p>Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi (supra), in<\/p>\n<p>which   the   Hon&#8217;ble    Supreme         Court    has    observed       that<\/p>\n<p>efforts   should   be    made      for     regularisation       of   those<\/p>\n<p>employees who are working from last 10-15 years and<\/p>\n<p>for the same the Union of India, State Government and<\/p>\n<p>instrumentalities       of    State        should       take   steps     to<\/p>\n<p>regularize    as   a    one   time       measure    to    regulate      the<\/p>\n<p>services.     Paras 53 to 55 of the Uma Devi&#8217;s judgment<\/p>\n<p>(supra) are as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>             &#8220;One aspect needs to be clarified.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>        There   may    be    cases    of   irregular<br \/>\n        appointments (not illegal appointments) as<br \/>\n        explained         in        S.V.Narayanappa,<br \/>\n        R.N.Nanjundappa    and   B.N.Nagarajan   and<br \/>\n        referred to in para 15 above, of duly<br \/>\n        qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant<br \/>\n        posts might have been made and the<br \/>\n        employees have continued to work for ten<br \/>\n        years or more but without the intervention<br \/>\n        of orders of the courts or of tribunals.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>        The question of regularization of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                      3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>services of such employees may have to be<br \/>\nconsidered on merits in the light of the<br \/>\nprinciples settled by this Court in the<br \/>\ncases above referred to and in the light of<br \/>\nthis judgment. In that context, the Union<br \/>\nof India, the State Governments and their<br \/>\ninstrumentalities     should take steps to<br \/>\nregularize as a one-time measure, the<br \/>\nservices of such irregularly appointed, who<br \/>\nhave worked for ten years or more in duly<br \/>\nsanctioned posts but not under cover of<br \/>\norders of the courts or of tribunals and<br \/>\nshould    further    ensure    that    regular<br \/>\nrecruitments are undertaken to fill those<br \/>\nvacant sanctioned posts that require to be<br \/>\nfilled   up,   in   cases    where   temporary<br \/>\nemployees or daily wagers are being now<br \/>\nemployed. The process must be set in motion<br \/>\nwithin a six months from this date. We also<br \/>\nclarify that regularization, if any already<br \/>\nmade, but no sub judice, need not be<br \/>\nreopened based on this judgment, but there<br \/>\nshould be no further bypassing of the<br \/>\nconstitutional requirement and regularizing<br \/>\nor   making   permanent,    those   not   duly<br \/>\nappointed as per the constitutional scheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>54. It is also clarified that those<br \/>\ndecisions   which   run  counter   to   the<br \/>\nprinciple settled in this decision, or in<br \/>\nwhich directions running counter to what we<br \/>\nhave held herein, will stand denuded of<br \/>\ntheir status as precedents.\n<\/p>\n<p>55. In cases relating to service in the<br \/>\ncommercial taxes department, the High Court<br \/>\nhas directed that those engaged on daily<br \/>\nwages, be paid wages equal to the salary<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                     4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>and allowances that are being paid to the<br \/>\nregular   employees   of   their   cadre   in<br \/>\ngovernment service, with effect from the<br \/>\ndates from which they were respectively<br \/>\nappointed. The objection taken was to the<br \/>\ndirection for payment from the dates of<br \/>\nengagement.    We find that the High Court<br \/>\nhad clearly gone wrong in directing that<br \/>\nthese employees be paid salary equal to the<br \/>\nsalary and allowances that are being paid<br \/>\nto the regular employees of their cadre in<br \/>\ngovernment service, with effect from the<br \/>\ndates from which they were respectively<br \/>\nengaged or appointed.    It was not open to<br \/>\nthe High Court to impose such an obligation<br \/>\non the State when the very question before<br \/>\nthe High Court in the case was whether<br \/>\nthese employees were entitled to have equal<br \/>\npay for equal work so called and were<br \/>\nentitled to any other benefit.      They had<br \/>\nalso   been   engaged   in   the   teeth   of<br \/>\ndirections   not to    do   so.     We   are,<br \/>\ntherefore, of the view that, at best, the<br \/>\nDivision Bench of the High Court should<br \/>\nhave directed that wages equal to the<br \/>\nsalary that are being paid to regular<br \/>\nemployees be paid to these daily wage<br \/>\nemployees with effect from the date of its<br \/>\njudgment.      Hence,  that   part   of   the<br \/>\ndirection of the Division Bench is modified<br \/>\nand it is directed that these daily wage<br \/>\nearners be paid wages equal to the salary<br \/>\nat the lowest grade of employees of their<br \/>\ncadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in<br \/>\ngovernment service, from the date of the<br \/>\njudgment of the Division Bench of the High<br \/>\nCourt.    Since, they are only daily wage<br \/>\nearners, there would be no question of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>         other allowances being paid to them.     In<br \/>\n         view of our conclusion, that Courts are not<br \/>\n         expected to issue directions for making<br \/>\n         such persons permanent in service, we set<br \/>\n         aside that part of the direction of the<br \/>\n         High Court directing the Government to<br \/>\n         consider their cases for regularization.<br \/>\n         We also notice that the High Court has not<br \/>\n         adverted to the aspect as to whether it was<br \/>\n         regularization or it was giving permanency<br \/>\n         that was being directed by the High Court.<br \/>\n         In such a situation, the direction in that<br \/>\n         regard will stand deleted and the appeals<br \/>\n         filed by the State would stand allowed to<br \/>\n         that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant<br \/>\n         (they are said to be vacant) the State will<br \/>\n         take immediate steps for filling those<br \/>\n         posts by a regular process of selection.<br \/>\n         But when regular recruitment is undertaken,<br \/>\n         the respondents in C.A. No. 3595-3612 and<br \/>\n         those in the Commercial Taxes Department<br \/>\n         similarly situated, will be allowed to<br \/>\n         compete,   waiving   the   age  restriction<br \/>\n         imposed for the recruitment and giving some<br \/>\n         weightage for their having been engaged for<br \/>\n         work in the Department for a significant<br \/>\n         period of time.    That would be the extent<br \/>\n         of the exercise of power by this Court<br \/>\n         under Article 142 of the Constitution to do<br \/>\n         justice to them.&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>              In this view of the matter while following<\/p>\n<p>the   aforesaid       judgment     rendered   by   Hon&#8217;ble   Supreme<\/p>\n<p>Court,    I    deem    it   just    and   proper   to   direct   the<\/p>\n<p>respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for<\/p>\n<p>regularization on the post of Library Assistant.                 The<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       respondents are directed to take final decision and<\/p>\n<p>       pass appropriate orders with regard to regularizing<\/p>\n<p>       the services of the petitioner in accordance with the<\/p>\n<p>       aforesaid directions within a period of three months<\/p>\n<p>       from the date of receipt of certified copy of this<\/p>\n<p>       order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                With the aforesaid direction\/observation, the<\/p>\n<p>       writ petition is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                       (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.\n<\/p>\n<p>arun\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Rajasthan High Court &#8211; Jodhpur Raghuveer Singh Gehlot vs Jai Narain Vyas &#8230; on 2 September, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1787\/2005 (Raghuveer Singh Vs. JNVU &amp; Ors.) Date of order : 2.9.2008 P R E S E N [&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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69010","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Raghuveer Singh Gehlot vs Jai Narain Vyas ... on 2 September, 2008 - 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\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raghuveer Singh Gehlot vs Jai Narain Vyas ... on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-20T18:40:16+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raghuveer Singh Gehlot vs Jai Narain Vyas &#8230; on 2 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-20T18:40:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1204,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Raghuveer Singh Gehlot vs Jai Narain Vyas ... on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-20T18:40:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raghuveer Singh Gehlot vs Jai Narain Vyas &#8230; on 2 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Raghuveer Singh Gehlot vs Jai Narain Vyas ... on 2 September, 2008 - 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\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raghuveer Singh Gehlot vs Jai Narain Vyas ... on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-20T18:40:16+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raghuveer Singh Gehlot vs Jai Narain Vyas &#8230; on 2 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-20T18:40:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008"},"wordCount":1204,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008","name":"Raghuveer Singh Gehlot vs Jai Narain Vyas ... on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-20T18:40:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghuveer-singh-gehlot-vs-jai-narain-vyas-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raghuveer Singh Gehlot vs Jai Narain Vyas &#8230; on 2 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69010","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=69010"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69010\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}