{"id":74220,"date":"2002-03-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002"},"modified":"2017-05-30T13:16:41","modified_gmt":"2017-05-30T07:46:41","slug":"union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.P. Singh on 8 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.P. Singh on 8 March, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
S.B. Sinha, C.J. <\/p>\n
 1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 02.08.2000
\npassed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 385 of 2000 whereby and whereunder an
\noriginal application filed by the respondent herein praying for the following relief.\n<\/p>\n
  “The Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to
\ndeclare and order respondents – 1, 2 to produce in the
\nTribunal, with copy to Applicant, the fresh medical
\nreport on Applicant’s ‘handicapped’ status from  Bara
\nHindu Rao Hospital, Delhi and to appoint the
\nApplicant as regular Junior Engineer (Civil), with
\narrears and all benefits in service on duty since the
\ndate anybody lower in merit-list of July, 1997 Exam
\nto Applicant was appointed, if the fresh report
\ncertified ‘a physical defect or deformity which causes
\nan interference with normal functioning of the
\nbones, muscles and joints’ due to amputation of his
\nright hand index finger through middle phalanx,
\ngrant any other relief with costs.”\n<\/p>\n
 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.  The petitioner is a
\nhandicapped person.  He did his B.E. (Civil) from Birla Institute of Technology.
\nHe qualified at All India Competitive Examination in the year 1997 for the post of
\nJunior Engineer (Civil) in Central Public Works Department (in short, ‘CPWD’)
\nupon relaxation of his age.  The petitioner relied upon a certificate issued by Bara
\nHindu Rao Hospital, Delhi wherein he was shown as a physically handicapped
\nperson.  However, the petitioner was certified to be handicapped to the extent of
\n9% only by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
 3. He filed an original application before the Tribunal,  which was
\nmarked as O.A. No. 201\/99.\n<\/p>\n
 4. By an order dated 30.08.1999, it was directed:-\n<\/p>\n
  “2. With the agreement of both parties, this O.A.
\nis disposed of with a direction to respondents to
\nobtain a further opinion from the Bara Hindu Rao
\nHospital, Delhi in the background of the certificate
\nissued earlier by them on 23.12.1991, as to whether,
\nconsequent to the DP&T’s O.M. dated 27.02.1996
\nsuperceding the percentage system of evaluating the
\ndegree of physical handicap, and defining those as
\northopaedically handicapped, who have a physical
\ndefect or deformity which causes an interference with
\nthe normal functioning of the bones, muscles and
\njoints, applicant would qualify for appointment as
\nJunior Engineer in C.P.W.D. on the basis of all India
\ncompetitive examination in July, 1997 in the
\nphysically handicapped quota.”\n<\/p>\n
 5. The contention of the petitioner herein is that in terms of the policy
\ndecision, reservation as contained in O.M. dated 04.08.1998, the minimum degree
\nof disability for any benefit \/ concession for physically handicapped was required
\nto be 40%.  He in terms of his medical certificate submitted by him, the disability
\nwas only to the extent of 10%, which when he had been referred to Ram Manohar
\nLohia Hospital, came down to 9% only and thus his result was cancelled by an
\norder dated 09.11.1998.\n<\/p>\n
 6. According to the respondent, on the basis of fresh medical
\ncertificate the petitioner should have been directed to be appointed as Junior
\nEngineer (Civil) with consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n
 7. In the order dated 30.08.1999 passed by the Tribunal in the said
\nO.A. No. 201 of 1999, the respondent was certified to be disabled only to the extent
\nof 5% only.\n<\/p>\n
 8. The learned Tribunal, however, by reason of the impugned order
\nheld as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
  “In view of the certificate dated 15.10.1999
\ngiven by the Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi, we have no
\ndoubt in our mind that the applicant suffers from a
\nphysical handicap entitling him to the benefit of age
\nrelaxation under the rules.  In this view of the matter
\nand in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
\nO.A. is allow and the respondents are directed to
\nconsider the applicant’s case for appointment as
\nregular Junior Engineer (Civil) by giving him the
\nbenefit of physically handicapped persons with effect
\nfrom the date of his Junior Engineer in merit list of
\nJuly 1997 examination was appointed.  However, he
\nshall not be accord any back-wages, but he shall be
\ngiven the benefit of seniority and notional pay –
\nfixation.  These directions shall be carried out by the
\nRespondents within a period of two months from the
\ndate of receipt of a copy of this order.  There shall be
\nno order as to costs.”\n<\/p>\n
 9. The Parliament of India has enacted The Persons with Disabilities
\n(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Act 1
\nof 1996). (in short, ‘the Act’) wherein disability has been defined in the following
\nterm:-\n<\/p>\n
 “2(i) ‘disability’ means –\n<\/p>\n
 (i) blindness;\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) low vision;\n<\/p>\n
 (iii) leprosy-cured;\n<\/p>\n
 (iv) hearing impairment;\n<\/p>\n
 (v) locomotor disability;\n<\/p>\n
 (vi) mental retardation;\n<\/p>\n
 (vii) mental illness;”\n<\/p>\n
 10. The aforesaid ‘locomotor disability’ has been defined in Section
\n2(o) of the Act, thus:-\n<\/p>\n
  “2(o) “locomotor disability” means disability of the
\nbones, joints or muscles leading to substantial
\nrestriction of the movement of the limbs or any form
\nof cerebral palsy;”\n<\/p>\n
 11. In terms of clause (i) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India (in
\nshort, ‘the Constitution’), the State is entitled to make reservations for physically
\nhandicapped persons.\n<\/p>\n
 12. By reason of the Office Memorandum dated 27.02.1996, 1% of the
\nposts\/services were reserved for the orthopaedically handicapped.\n<\/p>\n
 13. By Office Memorandum dated 04.06.1998, each category of
\ndisability had been divided into four groups in the following manner:-\n<\/p>\n
   (a) Mild   : less than 40%;\n<\/p>\n
(b) Moderate  : 40% and above;\n<\/p>\n
(c) Severe  : 75% and above;\n<\/p>\n
(d) Profound \/ total : 100% <\/p>\n
 14. The relevant clauses of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated
\n04.06.1998 are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 “3. According to the instructions contained in the
\nMinistry of Welfare’s Notification No. 4\/2\/83HW-III
\ndated 6.8.86, various concessions\/benefits, including
\nemployment under the Central Government, are
\navailable only to those falling under the categories
\nmentioned at (b), (c) and (d) in the preceding
\nparagraph.  The minimum degree of disability has also
\nbeen prescribed as 40% in order for a person to be
\neligible for any concessions\/benefits.\n<\/p>\n
 … … … … … … … …\n<\/p>\n
 6. The matter has been examined and it has been
\ndecided that henceforth, the categories of persons with
\ndisabilities for the purpose of getting the benefit of 3%
\nreservation in posts \/ services under the Central
\nGovernment would be as indicated in Section 33 of the
\nPersons with Disabilities (Casual Opportunities,
\nProtection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
\nThese categories of persons are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 (i) Blindness or low vision;\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) Hearing impairment:\n<\/p>\n
 (iii) Locomotor disability or cerebral palsy;\n<\/p>\n
 (All cases of Orthopaedically handicapped
\npersons would be covered under the category of
\nlocomotor disability or cerebral palsy).\n<\/p>\n
 … … … … … … … …\n<\/p>\n
 8. Each category of disability as mentioned in para 6
\nabove would continue to be divided in to four groups
\nas mentioned in para 2 of this letter.  Further, various
\nconcessions \/ benefits, including employment under
\nthe Central Government, would continue to be
\navailable only to those falling under the categories
\ngiven at (b), (c) and (d) of the aforesaid paragraph.
\nThe minimum degree of disability in order for a
\nperson to be eligible for any concessions\/benefits
\nwould continue to be 40%.”\n<\/p>\n
 15. In view of the fact that the respondent herein does not fulfill the
\naforementioned criteria, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal went wrong
\nin passing the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
 16. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, would submit that
\nhaving been a party to the earlier litigation as the order dated 02.08.2000 in O.A
\nNo. 201 of 1999 was passed by the learned Tribunal on compromise, the same
\ncould not have been questioned by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 17. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
\nof the respondent herein would contend that for the purpose of appointing the
\nrespondent, the petitioner could not have been insisted upon that the disability must
\nbe to the extent of 40%.\n<\/p>\n
 18. A reservation for handicapped persons is made in terms of clause (1)
\nof the Article 16 of the Constitution.  The State while issuing an executive
\ninstruction in this regard may also lay down the conditions therefore.  The policy
\ndecision adopted by the State must be strictly adhered to inasmuch as any deviation
\nthere from may attract the wrath of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
 19. The Order dated 30.08.1999 passed in O.A. No. 201 of 1999 was not
\nby consent.  By reason of the said order, the parties merely agreed that the
\nrespondent be examined afresh for determination of his degree of disability as there
\nhad been difference of opinion between the two hospitals.\n<\/p>\n
 20. If in terms of the certificate granted by Bara Hindu Rao Hospital,
\nDelhi, which was to be treated as final, the respondent could not have been
\nconsidered for appointment in terms of the policy decision, the learned Tribunal in
\nour opinion committed a grave error in issuing the aforementioned directions.\n<\/p>\n
 21. The requirement of a policy decision, it will bear repetition to state,
\nmust be strictly adhered to.  Only because in the earlier case, the petitioner agreed
\nfor a fresh medical examination of the respondent, the same would not mean that it<\/p>\n
has a right not to adhere to the policy decision.  Such purported waiver is also not
\npermissible in law as a result whereof not only a policy decision will be thrown to
\nthe wind, the right of the others may also be affected.  In any event, there cannot be
\nwaiver against the Constitutional mandate.  Such a waiver does not also pass the
\npublic interest test.\n<\/p>\n
 22. In this vies of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned
\njudgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside and it is declared that the
\nrespondent herein having not fulfillled the criteria, he cannot be considered for
\nrecruitment in the reserved category candidate.\n<\/p>\n
 23. This writ petition is accordingly allowed without any order as to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.P. Singh on 8 March, 2002 Author: S Sinha Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 02.08.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-74220","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.P. Singh on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.P. Singh on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-30T07:46:41+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\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.P. Singh on 8 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-30T07:46:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1616,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002\",\"name\":\"Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.P. Singh on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-30T07:46:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.P. Singh on 8 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.P. Singh on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.P. Singh on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-30T07:46:41+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\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.P. Singh on 8 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-30T07:46:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002"},"wordCount":1616,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002","name":"Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.P. Singh on 8 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-30T07:46:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-vs-k-p-singh-on-8-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.P. Singh on 8 March, 2002"}]},{"@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\/74220","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=74220"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74220\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74220"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74220"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74220"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}