{"id":77166,"date":"2011-11-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011"},"modified":"2017-11-03T21:41:14","modified_gmt":"2017-11-03T16:11:14","slug":"bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Bimal Kumar Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Bimal Kumar Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011<\/div>\n
IN   THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n             W.P.(S) No. 4607 of 2011\n                      with\nW.P.(S) Nos.4635,4671,4672,4277,4283,4746,4600,4806\n4811, 4817,4859,5023,5027, 5271, 5293,5297,5355, 4609,\n4643, 4861,5263 and 5357 of 2011.\n                        -----\n\nKiran Majhi                    .    Petitioner in 4607\/2011\nSomra Soren                         Petitioner in 4635\/2011\nChanu Singh Majhi                   Petitioner in 4671\/2011\nSurendra Majhi @ Surendra Manjhi Petitioner in 4672\/2011\nAmrit Majhi & Ors                   Petitioner in 4277\/2011\nSaraswati Jamuda                    Petitioner in 4283\/2011\nLalit Manjhi                        Petitioner in 4746\/2011\nRanjit Manjhi                       Petitioner in 4600\/2011\nAjit Majhi @ Ajit Manjhi            Petitioner in 4806\/2011\nBrihaspati Hansda                   Petitioner in 4811\/2011\nKartik Manjhi                       Petitioner in 4817\/2011\nSuchand Majhi                       Petitioner in 4859\/2011\nKritan Manjhi                       Petitioner in 5023\/2011\nSukram Majhi                        Petitioner in 5027\/2011\nHopna Majhi                         Petitioner in 5271\/2011\nLobin Manjhi @ Lobin Majhi          Petitioner in 5293\/2011\nIswar Murmu                         Petitioner in 5297\/2011\nAjit Kumar Manjhi @ Ajit Kumar\nMurmu                               Petitioner in 5355\/2011\nBimal Kumar Majhi                   Petitioner in 4609\/2011\nDasharath Majhi                     Petitioner in 4643\/2011\nBihari Lal Majhi                    Petitioner in 4861\/2011\nRaiman Singh Mundri                 Petitioner in 5263\/2011\nBir Singh Sundi                     Petitioner in 5357\/2011\n\n\n\n\n                .          Versus\n\n1.The State of Jharkhand\n2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,\n  Jharkhand, Ranchi\n3.Director,    Primary   Education,  Human     Resources\nDevelopment, Jharkhand, Ranchi.\n4.Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman,District Education\n      Establishment Committee, Saraikela .\n     5.District Superintendent of Education at Saraikela.\n\n                                                          Respondents.\n                           ------\n     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR\n                           ------\n     For the Petitioner :  M\/s. K. M.Verma, M.M.Sharma &\n                           Lakhan Sharma.\n     For the Respondent : M\/s B.N.Tiwary JC to G.P.III.,Nehala\n                          Sharmin, JC to Sr. SC-II, V.K.Trivedi, JC\n                          to SC-III, Rakesh Kumar Sinha, JC to Sr.\n                          SC-I.\n                            ------\n\n05\/14.11.2011<\/pre>\n
.      In above writ applications, similar point has been<\/p>\n
         raised, thus they are heard together and disposed of by this<\/p>\n
         order.\n<\/p>\n
         2.         It    appears      that   Jharkhand     Public    Service<\/p>\n
         Commission had issued an advertisement ( Annexure-3) for<\/p>\n
         appointment      of    9323   Assistant   Teachers    in    different<\/p>\n
         Elementary Schools including 391 Assistant Teachers of the<\/p>\n
         schools situated in the district of Saraikela.<\/p>\n
         3.         It further appears that petitioners of present writ<\/p>\n
         applications, being matriculate and having teachers’ training<\/p>\n
         certificate issued by       Adibasi Socio-Educational & Cultural<\/p>\n
         Association, Chakulia, District East Singhbhum had applied<\/p>\n
         for the said post. It is further stated that Jharkhand Public<\/p>\n
         Service Commission after due scrutiny issued Admit Card to<\/p>\n
         the petitioners and accordingly petitioners appeared in the<\/p>\n
         written examination. Thereafter, petitioners were declared<\/p>\n
         successful and their names recommended for appointment.<\/p>\n
         It is stated that names of the petitioners of all the writ<\/p>\n
         applications, except petitioners of W.P.(S) Nos. 4277,4283,<\/p>\n
         5263     and    5357   of   2011m    were     recommended         for<\/p>\n
         appointment as Assistant        Teachers in Santhali Language,
\n whereas names of petitioners of W.P.(S) Nos.         4277, 4283,<\/p>\n
5263 and 5357 of 2011 were recommended for appointment<\/p>\n
as Assistant Teachers in ‘Ho’ language. It is stated that even<\/p>\n
after recommendation of the names of petitioners, the State<\/p>\n
Government is not issuing the        appointment letter. Hence,<\/p>\n
present     writ applications   filed for issuance of a direction<\/p>\n
commanding       the State Government       to issue appointment<\/p>\n
letters in favour of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
4.           A counter- affidavit filed, in W.P.(S) No. 4607 of<\/p>\n
2011, stating therein that advertisement was made by the<\/p>\n
Jharkhand Public Service Commission              according to the<\/p>\n
provision    contained     in   Jharkhand    Elementary      School<\/p>\n
(Appointment) Rules, 2002. It is further stated that according<\/p>\n
to said Rules candidates are required to obtain two years<\/p>\n
teachers’ training from an institute recognized by N.C.T.E. It<\/p>\n
is further stated in the counter affidavit that Adibasi Socio-<\/p>\n
Educational & Cultural Association, from where petitioners<\/p>\n
obtained two years’ teachers’ training certificate , is not<\/p>\n
recognized either by N.C.T.E. or by the State Government.<\/p>\n
Thus, as per the aforesaid Rules, petitioners are not eligible<\/p>\n
to be appointed as Assistant Teachers. It is further submitted<\/p>\n
that Jharkhand Public Service Commission recommended the<\/p>\n
names of petitioners for appointment              on the post of<\/p>\n
Assistant Teachers       either in Santhali Language or in Ho<\/p>\n
Language. But , from perusal of the advertisement it is clear<\/p>\n
that there is no advertisement for appointment on the post<\/p>\n
of Assistant Teachers in Santhali Language or in Ho<\/p>\n
Language.     Thus,   recommendation        of   Jharkhand   Public
\n Service Commission for appointment of these petitioners as<\/p>\n
Assistant Teachers in Santhali Language or in Ho Language is<\/p>\n
against the advertisement. It is then submitted that though<\/p>\n
there is recommendation of Public Service Commission but<\/p>\n
the same will not give any legal right to the petitioners for<\/p>\n
being appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers. It is<\/p>\n
submitted that the State Government has got power to<\/p>\n
refuse    appointment,    if it   found that petitioners are        not<\/p>\n
eligible for appointment.\n<\/p>\n
5.          It is state by Mr. K.M.Verma, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioners that in similar circumstances, with respect to<\/p>\n
the candidates of the district of West Singhbhum, this Court<\/p>\n
vide Annexures- 5, 6 and 7 had directed the State<\/p>\n
Government to make appointment within four months . Mr.<\/p>\n
D.K.Prasad, JC to G.P.III submitted that against the said order,<\/p>\n
the State of Jharkhand had preferred an appeal i.e. L.P.A.No.<\/p>\n
328\/2011 and the same is still pending. However, Mr. Prasad<\/p>\n
further submitted that the said order                was passed on<\/p>\n
assumption that advertisement was made for appointment<\/p>\n
on the post of Assistant Teachers of ‘Ho’ Language.<\/p>\n
6.          Having heard the submissions , I have gone<\/p>\n
through    the   record     of    the    case.    From    perusal    of<\/p>\n
Annexure-3(Advertisement), it is clear that the same                was<\/p>\n
issued as per provisions contained in the                   Jharkhand<\/p>\n
Elementary School (Appointment) Rules, 2002(Annexure-B).<\/p>\n
Clause 4 of the said advertisement prescribes eligibility for<\/p>\n
appointment      on   the    post       of   Assistant   teachers   i.e.<\/p>\n
candidates :- (i) should be citizen of India, (ii) should have
\n passed    matriculation     examination     or equivalent and (iii)<\/p>\n
should     have    two       years       teachers’     training    or<\/p>\n
B.Ed.\/Dip.in.Ed.\/Dip.in.Teach, C.P.Ed.\/Dip.P.Ed. Rule 2(Kha)<\/p>\n
defines training. According to the said Rule, a candidate is<\/p>\n
required to obtain training from a recognized Institution. It is<\/p>\n
stated in the counter affidavit that in the year 1993 Nation<\/p>\n
Council for Teachers Education(NCTE) Act, 1993 was enacted<\/p>\n
and after enactment of the said Act it is mandatory that all<\/p>\n
the Teachers’ Training Institutes should obtain recognition<\/p>\n
from N.C.T.E. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that<\/p>\n
Adibasi Socio-Educational & Cultural Association is not<\/p>\n
recognized by N.C.T.E . Therefore, I find that any certificate<\/p>\n
obtained by the petitioners from the          said   Association will<\/p>\n
not make them eligible         for appointment on the post of<\/p>\n
Assistant teachers in Elementary Schools situated in the<\/p>\n
State of Jharkhand .\n<\/p>\n
7.          It is further submitted by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners that there is no Institute recognized by N.C.T.E<\/p>\n
which imparted training for Ho Language or Santhali<\/p>\n
Language.      Since      petitioners    were      recommended    for<\/p>\n
appointment on the          post of Assistant Teachers in Ho<\/p>\n
Languate or in Santhali Language, therefore, the said criteria<\/p>\n
will not apply. Thus,       petitioners can be appointed even<\/p>\n
without     obtaining     teachers’     training    from   recognized<\/p>\n
institute. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
relied upon the judgments contained in Annexures- 5, 6 and<\/p>\n
7. Aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners appears to be mis-conceived. Ass notice above,
\n there is no advertisement for appointment on the post of<\/p>\n
Assistant   Teachers    in   Santhali   Language   and\/or     Ho<\/p>\n
Language.     Annexure-3 clearly shows that        advertisement<\/p>\n
was made for        Assistant Teachers. It is also clarified in<\/p>\n
paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit that         in Elementary<\/p>\n
Schools all the teachers are required to teach all subjects.<\/p>\n
Thus, the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
8.          From perusal of Annexure-5, which is the basis for<\/p>\n
passing subsequent orders,        Annexures- 6 and 7, it is clear<\/p>\n
that the same was passed on the assumption that there was<\/p>\n
an advertisement        for the appointment on the post of<\/p>\n
Assistant teachers in Ho Language. This fact manifest from<\/p>\n
paragraph No.2 of Annexure-5 which runs as follows :-<\/p>\n
            ” Petitioner is aggrieved on account of failure on
\n            the part of the respondents to give appointment
\n            as Assistant Teacher in “Ho” language for which
\n            he\/she was duly selected and the Jharkhand Public
\n            Service Commission recommended his\/her case
\n            along with a list of 187 candidates after due
\n            selection for the language “Ho” and name of the
\n            petitioner figures in the list.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.          As noticed above, advertisement was only for<\/p>\n
Assistant teacher. There is nothing in it to show that it was<\/p>\n
made for appointment of Assistant teacher of any particular<\/p>\n
language eigher in the district of West Singhghum or in<\/p>\n
Saraikela. Thus, the ratio of judgment contained in Annexure-<\/p>\n
5,6 and 7 will not govern these orders, because said<\/p>\n
judgment based on mistake of facts.\n<\/p>\n
 10.         It is well settled that even if the the name of a<\/p>\n
candidate    recommended     for   appointment   by   Selection<\/p>\n
Committee or Public Service Commission the same will not<\/p>\n
provide any legal right for appointment on the post applied<\/p>\n
for.   In this connection,   I do no better then      to quote<\/p>\n
paragraph 7 of the judgment         of Constitution Bench of<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court in     “Shankarsan Dash.Vs. Union<\/p>\n
of India” reported in 1991(3)SCC-47, which runs as follow :-<\/p>\n
            “.7. It is not correct to say that if a number
\n            of vacancies are notified for appointment
\n            and adequate number of candidates are
\n            found fit, the successful candidates acquire
\n            and indefeasible       right to be appointed
\n            which     cannot    be    legitimately  denied.
\n            Ordinarily the notification merely amounts
\n            to an invitation to qualified candidates to
\n            apply for recruitment and on their selection
\n            they do not acquire any right to the post.
\n            Unless the relevant recruitment rules so
\n            indicate, the State is under no legal duty to
\n            fill up all or any of the vacancies. However,
\n            it does not mean that the State has the
\n            licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The
\n            decision not to fill up the vacancies has to
\n            be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.
\n            And if the vacancies or any of them are filled
\n            up, the State is        bound to respect the
\n            comparative merit of the candidates, as
\n            reflected at the recruitment test, and no
\n            discrimination can be permitted. This correct
\n            position has been consistently followed by
\n            this Court, and we do not find any
\n            discordant note in the decisions in the State
\n            of Haryana.v. Subhash Chander Marwaha,
\n            Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana,<\/a> or
\n            Jatendra Kumar v.State of Pubjab.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.         Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court, it is open for the State Government to refuse<\/p>\n
appointment of any candidate, whose name recommended<\/p>\n
by     Public Service Commission for valid reason. In this<\/p>\n
connection, I find that petitioners are not eligible to be<\/p>\n
appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers, because they
\n          have   not    obtained   Teachers’   Training    certificate    from<\/p>\n
         recognized Institute. Thus, I find that the State Government<\/p>\n
         has valid reason for refusing appointment of the petitioners.<\/p>\n
         Thus, petitioners have no legal right to be appointed on the<\/p>\n
         post   of    Assistant   teachers    for    which   their      names<\/p>\n
         recommended by Jharkhand Public Service Commission.<\/p>\n
         Consequently, I am of the view that no writ of mandamus can<\/p>\n
         be issued     commanding     the State of Jharkhand to issue<\/p>\n
         appointment letter in favour of petitioners. From perusal of<\/p>\n
         Annexures- 5, 6 and 7, I find that the aforesaid judgment of<\/p>\n
         Hon’ble Supreme Court       has not been considered by their<\/p>\n
         Lordship,     thus, respectfully, I disagree with the           said<\/p>\n
         judgments.\n<\/p>\n
         12.          In view of the discussions made above, I find no<\/p>\n
         merit in these writ applications. Accordingly, the same are<\/p>\n
         dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ( Prashant Kumar,J.)<\/p>\n
Raman\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Bimal Kumar Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4607 of 2011 with W.P.(S) Nos.4635,4671,4672,4277,4283,4746,4600,4806 4811, 4817,4859,5023,5027, 5271, 5293,5297,5355, 4609, 4643, 4861,5263 and 5357 of 2011. —– Kiran Majhi . Petitioner in 4607\/2011 Somra Soren Petitioner in 4635\/2011 […]<\/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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-77166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBimal Kumar Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011 - 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\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bimal Kumar Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-03T16:11:14+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bimal Kumar Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-03T16:11:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1633,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Bimal Kumar Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-03T16:11:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bimal Kumar Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Bimal Kumar Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011 - 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\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bimal Kumar Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-03T16:11:14+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bimal Kumar Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-03T16:11:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011"},"wordCount":1633,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011","name":"Bimal Kumar Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-03T16:11:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-majhi-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-14-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bimal Kumar Majhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 November, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/77166","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=77166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77166\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}