{"id":69920,"date":"1978-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978"},"modified":"2017-02-01T14:17:38","modified_gmt":"2017-02-01T08:47:38","slug":"tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978","title":{"rendered":"Tejinder Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 April, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tejinder Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 April, 1978<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 1326, \t\t  1978 SCR  (3) 716<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Y Chandrachud<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nTEJINDER SINGH SANDHU\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/04\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nDESAI, D.A.\nPATHAK, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1978 AIR 1326\t\t  1978 SCR  (3) 716\n 1978 SCC  (3)\t18\n\n\nACT:\nSeniority and Promotion, claim to-Whether a junior in  Class\nII  service, who by a chancy circumstance joined earlier  in\nthe  Class I post and completed his probation in  that\tpost\nbefore\this  seniors, claim seniority in Class\tI  post\t for\nfurther\t promotion-Seniority in Class II has to\t prevail  in\nranking when several officers are appointed to Class I on an\nad  hoc\t basis and also completed their probation  and\twhen\npermanent  vacancies  occur  in\t that  cadre  of  Class\t I--\nApplicability  of Govt.\t Memo No. 9448-Agr. 1(1)65\/1583\t dt.\n13-4-66 and Punjab-Agri.  Service Rules, 1947, 10 to 16.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant was junior to Respondents 2 and 3 in the Class\n11  Punjab  Agricultural  Service.  On August  2,  1965\t the\nappellant  and Respondent No. 3 were promoted on an  ad\t hoc\nbasis as Deputy Directors of Agriculture a post borne on the\ncadre of Class I service.  The appellant took charge of\t the\npost  on  August  4,  1965  being  at  headquarters,   while\nrespondents No. 3 joined on 18-8-65.  Respondent No. 2.\t who\nwas  senior to Respondent No. 3 and the appellant could\t not\nbe promoted earlier as he was on deputation with the  Punjab\nAgricultural University and he was promoted on 22-2-67\ti.e.\nafter  his  return  to parent  department.   The  appellant,\nRespondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 therefore\t  completed\ntheir\tprobation  on  3-8-1967,  21-2-1969   and   1-3-1968\nrespectively.  On     14-10-71,\t   the\t   Government\t  of\nPunjab published a tentative seniority\tlist  in  which\t the\nappellant  was\tshown as junior to respondents 2 and  3.  On\nthat  basis  respondents  2 and 3  were\t promoted  as  Joint\nDirectors  of  Agriculture  w.e.f.  10-7-1973  and   16-7-73\nrespectively.\tAs  his representation for  considering\t his\nclaim  for  seniority and promotion by virtue  of  his\tlong\ncontinuous  service  in Class 11 post and also\this  earlier\ncompletion  of\tprobation that the respondents\tfailed.\t the\nappellant  filed a writ petition in the High Court on  16-8-\n1973 contending that the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 to\nthe  post of Joint Director was illegal being  violative  of\nArticle\t 16  of\t the  Constitution  and\t demanding  that  in\nrecognition  of\t his  superior claim arising  by  virtue  of\nseniority,  he should be promoted and confirmed in the\tpost\nof  Joint  Director.   The High\t Court\tdismissed  the\tWrit\nPetition  but granted a certificate of fitness to appeal  to\nthis Court.\nDismissing the appeal, the Court\nHELD  : 1. The High Court was right in taking the view\tthat\nrespondents  2 and 3 were entitled to be appointed as  Joint\nDirectors  of Agriculture in preference to the appellant  on\nthe basis of their seniority. [720D]\n2.   Since  all of them were appointed to Class I on  an  ad\nhoc  basis and since they had all completed their  probation\nin  Class I post, when permanent vacancies occurred in\tthat\ncadre,\ttheir seniority in Class If has to prevail in  their\nranking\t in Class I. By that criterion, the  appellant\tmust\ntake his place below Respondents 2 and 3. [719B-C]\n3.   (a)  What governs the appellant is not  the  Government\nMemorandum  dated 13-4-1966, but the rules contained in\t the\nPunjab\tAgricultural Service Class 1, Rules, 1947.  Rule  16\nprovides that seniority of members of the service\nshall be determined according to the date of confirmation in\nthe  service.\tIf regard is had to Rules 10 to\t 16  of\t the\nRules,\tthe  appellant\tmust rank lower\t in  seniority\tthan\nRespondents 2 and 3. [720B-C]\n(b)  The circumstance, that the appellant and respondents  2\nand  3\ttook  charge of their respective posts\tin  Class  I\nservice on divergent dates is purely\n717\nfortuitous and cannot affect their seniority.  The appellant\nwas junior to respondents 2 and 3 in Class III as well as in\nClass 11 service of the PEPSU State.  He was also junior  to\nthem  in  class\t 11  service  of  the  Punjab  Govt.,  after\nreorganisation\tof  states.  Having been  appointed  to\t the\nhigher\tpost on the same date as respondent 3 and on ad\t hoc\nbasis,\tthe appellant cannot be permitted to take  advantage\nof a chancy circumstance that being geographically close  to\nthe headquarters, he was able to take charge of the post  of\npromotion  on  the very day on which he\t was  appointed,  an\nopportunity  which a quirk of posting denied  to  respondent\nNo. 3. In fact in Class 1, there were only two vacancies  in\nAugust 1965 and if respondent No. 2 were available for being\nposted\tas  Deputy Director, it is he and respondent  3\t who\nwould  have filled the two vacancies.  The  appellant  being\njunior\tto  them would not have been appointed as  a  Deputy\nDirector even on an ad hoc basis. [718H, 719D-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 713 of 1975.<br \/>\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 31-5-74 of the Punjab\t and<br \/>\nHaryana High Court in C. W. No. 2675\/73.\n<\/p>\n<p>Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for the Appellant.<br \/>\nO. P. Sharma for Respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nCHANDRACHUD, C.J.-The appellant, Tejinder Singh Sandhu,\t and<br \/>\nrespondents  2\tand 3 were serving initially  as  Class\t III<br \/>\nOfficers but were recruited directly as Class 11 Officers in<br \/>\nthe erstwhile.\tState of Patiala and the East Punjab States&#8217;<br \/>\nUnion,\t(&#8216;Pepsu&#8217;).  After the reorganisation of\t Punjab\t and<br \/>\nPepsu,\tthey  were  absorbed  in  the  Punjab\tAgricultural<br \/>\nService,  Class\t 11.   In the seniority\t list  of  Class  11<br \/>\nOfficers,   respondent\t2  was\tshown  at  serial  No.\t 30,<br \/>\nrespondent  3 at serial No. 39 and the appellant  at  serial<br \/>\nNo. 40.\t On August 2, 1965, appellant and respondent 3\twere<br \/>\npromoted   on  an  ad-hoc  basis  as  Deputy  Directors\t  of<br \/>\nAgriculture,  a post borne on the cadre of Class I  Service.<br \/>\nThe  appellant\ttook charge of that post on August  4,\t1965<br \/>\nwhile  respondent  3  took charge  fourteen  days  later  on<br \/>\nAugust,18,  1965.   The\t adhoc promotions were\tmade  for  a<br \/>\nperiod\t of  three  months  or\tuntil  such  time   as\t the<br \/>\nappointments could be made on a regular basis.<br \/>\nRespondent 2 was working at the material time in the  Punjab<br \/>\nAgricultural University, Ludhiana.  The Government of Punjab<br \/>\nhaving\ttaken  a  decision in October,\t1966  to  allow\t its<br \/>\nofficers  who were working on deputation with  the  Ludhiana<br \/>\nAgricultural   University  to  rejoin  the  State   Service,<br \/>\nrespondent  2 returned to the parent Department\t on  October<br \/>\n28,  1966.  He was promoted as Deputy Director\tof  Agricul-<br \/>\nture, Class 1, on February 22, 1967 on the same basis as the<br \/>\nappellant and respondent 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  appellant\tcompleted his probation on  August  3,\t1967<br \/>\nwhile  respondents 2 and 3 completed theirs on February\t 21,<br \/>\n1969 arid March 1, 1968, respectively.\tOn October 14, 1971,<br \/>\nthe  Government\t of Punjab published a\ttentative  seniority<br \/>\nlist of Class I Officers in which the appellant was shown as<br \/>\njunior\tto respondents 2 and 3. Acting on the basis  of\t the<br \/>\nseniority  list, the State Government promoted respondent  2<br \/>\nto the post of Joint Director of Agriculture on July 10,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">718<\/span><br \/>\n1973 and respondent 3 on.  July 16, 1973.  The appellant had<br \/>\nfiled  a representation on the publication of the  seniority<br \/>\nlist  complaining that since he had officiated\tcontinuously<br \/>\nin  the Class I post for a longer period than respondents  2<br \/>\nand  3\tand  had completed his probation  before,  they\t had<br \/>\ncompleted  theirs, he should have been treated as senior  to<br \/>\nthe  other  two\t and was entitled to be\t promoted  as  Joint<br \/>\nDirector  in.  preference to them.  It was implicit  in\t the<br \/>\npromotion  of  respondents  2 and 3 to\tthe  post  of  Joint<br \/>\nDirector that the appellant&#8217;s representation was rejected by<br \/>\nthe Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>On  August 16, 1973 the appellant filed a Writ\tPetition  in<br \/>\nthe  High  Court of Punjab and Haryana contending  that\t the<br \/>\npromotion  of  respondents  2 and 3 to\tthe  post  of  Joint<br \/>\nDirector  was illegal being violative of article 16  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution  and  demanding  that  in\trecognition  of\t his<br \/>\nsuperior  claim arising by virtue of seniority he should  be<br \/>\npromoted  and confirmed in the post of Joint  Director.\t  By<br \/>\nits  judgment dated May it, 1974, the High  Court  dismissed<br \/>\nthe Writ Petition but granted to the appellant a certificate<br \/>\nof  fitness to appeal to this Court under article 133(1)  of<br \/>\nthe Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>The narrow question for decision is whether the appellant is<br \/>\nentitled to be regarded as senior to respondents 2 and 3  by<br \/>\nvirtue of his continuous officiation in the Class I post and<br \/>\nbecause\t he had completed his probation in that post  before<br \/>\nrespondents 2 and 3 completed theirs.  Certain facts bearing<br \/>\non this question are undisputed.  Appellant and\t respondents<br \/>\n2  and\t3 originally belonged to Class III  Service  of\t the<br \/>\nPepsu\tState.\t  They\twere  later  appointed\t by   direct<br \/>\nrecruitment   as  Class\t 11  Officers  in  the\t Agriculture<br \/>\nDepartment of the State with effect from September 24, 1956,<br \/>\nJuly  13  1956\tand  &#8216;May 1,  1956,  respectively.   It\t is,<br \/>\ntherefore, clear and not disputed that in the cadre of Class<br \/>\n11  Officers in the Pepsu Agriculture Department,  appellant<br \/>\nwas junior to respondents 2 and 3. After the merger of Pepsu<br \/>\nwith  Punjab they were all absorbed in Class 11\t Service  of<br \/>\nthe Punjab Agriculture Department.  Appellant and respondent<br \/>\n3  were\t later\tpromoted to Class I Service  of\t the  Punjab<br \/>\nGovernment  on\tthe same date that is to say, on  August  2,<br \/>\n1965.\tOn the date of promotion, appellant happened  to  be<br \/>\nworking at Chandigarh itself and was therefore able to\ttake<br \/>\ncharge\tof  his new post immediately after the date  of\t his<br \/>\nappointment  viz.,  August 4, 1965.  Respondent\t 3,  on\t the<br \/>\nother  hand, Was working as an Assistant  Horticulturist  at<br \/>\nKulu  and  therefore, he could not take charge of  his\tpost<br \/>\nuntil he was relieved of the post which he was holding.\t  He<br \/>\nwas able to take over as Deputy Director at Hansi on  August<br \/>\n18,  1965, which was 14 days after the appellant  had  taken<br \/>\ncharge\tof his post.  Respondent 2 was promoted as a  Deputy<br \/>\nDirector  in 1966 but, that was for the reason that lie\t was<br \/>\nworking\t  on  deputation  with\tthe  Ludhiana\tAgricultural<br \/>\nUniversity  and until the Government permitted its  officers<br \/>\nworking\t on deputation with the University to revert to\t the<br \/>\nState  Service,\t respondent  2, though\teligible  for  being<br \/>\nappointed  as a Deputy Director, could not be so  appointed.<br \/>\nThus  the circumstance that the appellant and respondents  2<br \/>\nand  3\ttook  charge of their respective posts\tin  Class  I<br \/>\nService\t on divergent dates is purely fortuitous and  cannot<br \/>\naffect their seniority.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">719<\/span><\/p>\n<p>All the three were appointed as Class I Officers on a purely<br \/>\nad-hoc\tbasis.\t The  permanent\t vacancies  in\tthat   cadre<br \/>\noccurred  in  1971 and it is in reference to  the  State  of<br \/>\naffairs obtaining at that point of time that the question of<br \/>\nseniority  of the three officers has to be  considered.\t  On<br \/>\nthe date on which permanent vacancies occurred in the  Class<br \/>\nI  cadre,  the\tappellant and respondents 2 and\t 3  had\t all<br \/>\ncompleted  their probationary period  satisfactorily.\tThey<br \/>\nwere,  therefore,  eligible  and  perhaps  entitled  to\t  be<br \/>\nconfirmed in Class I posts.  But that confirmation had to be<br \/>\nmade in the order in which they ranked in seniority in their<br \/>\nClass  II  posts.  We have no doubt that since all  of\tthem<br \/>\nwere appointed to Class I on an ad hoc basis and since\tthey<br \/>\nhad  all  completed their probation in Class  I\t posts\twhen<br \/>\npermanent vacancies occurred in that cadre, their  seniority<br \/>\nin  Class 11 has to prevail in their ranking in Class I.  By<br \/>\nthat  criterion, there can be no doubt that that the  appel-<br \/>\nlant must take his place below respondents 2 and 3.<br \/>\nLearned\t counsel  appearing  on\t behalf\t of  the   appellant<br \/>\ncontends that seniority of officers promoted to Class I from<br \/>\nthe Class 11 cadre must be determined according to the dates<br \/>\nof  their  continuous  officiation  in\tClass  I  posts\t and<br \/>\naccording  to  the  dates  on  which  they  completed  their<br \/>\nprobationary period.  It is urged that by the application of<br \/>\nthis dual test, the appellant would rank higher in seniority<br \/>\nover  respondents  2 and 3. By reason of  the  circumstances<br \/>\nwhich  we have earlier mentioned, there is no  substance  in<br \/>\nthis contention.  The appellant was junior to respondents  2<br \/>\nand  3\tin Class III as well as in Class 11 Service  of\t the<br \/>\nPepsu State.  He was also junior to them in Class 11 Service<br \/>\nof  the\t Punjab\t Government,  after  reorganisation  of\t the<br \/>\nStates.\t  Having  been appointed to the higher post  on\t the<br \/>\nsame  date  as\trespondent 3 and on  an\t ad-hoc\t basis,\t the<br \/>\nappellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of a  chancy<br \/>\ncircumstance   that  being  geographically  close   to\t the<br \/>\nheadquarters  he  was  able to take charge of  the  post  of<br \/>\npromotion  on the very date on which he was appointed, ,in<br \/>\nopportunity which a quirk of posting denied to respondent 3.<br \/>\nThe  latter., being at Kulu, had to be relieved of his\tpost<br \/>\nthere  and the proverbial red-tapism intervened to  disable.<br \/>\nhim  from taking charge of his Class I post  until  fourteen<br \/>\ndays later.  In so far as respondent 2 is concerned, he\t had<br \/>\nto  await  the\tdecision of the\t Government  that  those  on<br \/>\ndeputation  to the Ludhiana Agricultural University may\t re-<br \/>\nturn  to their parent departments.  It is not disputed\tthat<br \/>\nif  in\tAugust\t1965,  respondent  2  was  not\tworking\t  on<br \/>\ndeputation,  he\t would\thave been promoted  along  with\t the<br \/>\nappellant  and\trespondent  3  to Class I.  In\tfact  it  is<br \/>\nimportant that in Class 1, there were only two vacancies  in<br \/>\nAugust\t1965  and if respondent 2 were available  for  being<br \/>\nposted\tas a Deputy Director, it is he and respondent 3\t who<br \/>\nwould  have filled the two vacancies.  The  appellant  being<br \/>\njunior\tto  them would not have been appointed as  a  Deputy<br \/>\nDirector even on an ad-hoc basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned\t counsel for the appellant placed heavy reliance  on<br \/>\nthe  State Government&#8217;s instructions regarding\tfixation  of<br \/>\nseniority   contained  in  Government  Memo  No.   9448-Agr.<br \/>\n1(1)65\/1583 dated April 11, 1966, in support of his argument<br \/>\nthat the appellant must rank<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">720<\/span><br \/>\nhigher in seniority than respondents 2 and 3. The Memorandum<br \/>\nhas no application because it refers to &#8216;temporary officers&#8217;<br \/>\nappointed  to the Punjab Agricultural Service, Class  I\t and<br \/>\nClass II.  In case of temporary officers promoted to Class I<br \/>\nand  Class  11 posts, seniority may have  to  be  determined<br \/>\nunder the particular Government Memorandum with reference to<br \/>\nthe  dates  of\tcontinuous  appointment\t in  the  respective<br \/>\ncadres.\t  But  the appellant and respondents 2 and  3  were<br \/>\nworking\t in a permanent capacity when they were promoted  to<br \/>\nClass 1. What governs the seniority of the appellant is\t not<br \/>\nthe Memorandum on which he relies but the rules contained in<br \/>\nthe  Punjab Agricultural Service, Class 1, Rules, 1947.\t  If<br \/>\nregard\tis  had to rules 10 and 16 of the  aforesaid  Rules,<br \/>\nthere cannot be any doubt that the appellant must rank lower<br \/>\nin seniority than respondents 2 and 3. Rule 16 provides that<br \/>\nseniority  of  members of the Service  shall  be  determined<br \/>\naccording  to the date of confirmation in the Service.\t The<br \/>\nexact  dates of confirmation of the officers  concerned\t are<br \/>\nnot  on\t the record but it is clear that by  reason  of\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances  adverted to before, appellant&#8217;s\tconfirmation<br \/>\nhas to, be postponed to that of respondents 2 and 3.<br \/>\nWe  are,  therefore, of the opinion that the High  Court  is<br \/>\nright  in  taking  the view that respondents 2\tand  3\twere<br \/>\nentitled  to be appointed as Joint Directors of\t Agriculture<br \/>\nin  preference\tto  the\t appellant on  the  basis  of  their<br \/>\nseniority.  Accordingly we confirm the judgment of the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  and dismiss the appeal.\tThe appellant shall pay\t the<br \/>\ncosts  of respondents 2 and 3 in one set.  There will be  no<br \/>\norder  as to costs of respondent 1, the State of Punjab,  or<br \/>\nof respondents 4 and 5.\n<\/p>\n<pre>S.R.\t\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">721<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Tejinder Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 April, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 1326, 1978 SCR (3) 716 Author: Y Chandrachud Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj) PETITIONER: TEJINDER SINGH SANDHU Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/04\/1978 BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69920","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tejinder Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 April, 1978 - 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\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tejinder Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 April, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978\" \/>\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=\"1978-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-01T08:47:38+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tejinder Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 April, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-01T08:47:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978\"},\"wordCount\":1740,\"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\\\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978\",\"name\":\"Tejinder Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 April, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-01T08:47:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tejinder Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 April, 1978\"}]},{\"@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":"Tejinder Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 April, 1978 - 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\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tejinder Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 April, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-01T08:47:38+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tejinder Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 April, 1978","datePublished":"1978-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-01T08:47:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978"},"wordCount":1740,"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\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978","name":"Tejinder Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 April, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-01T08:47:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tejinder-singh-sandhu-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-25-april-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tejinder Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 April, 1978"}]},{"@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\/69920","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=69920"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69920\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69920"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}