{"id":77881,"date":"2007-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007"},"modified":"2017-03-15T04:39:25","modified_gmt":"2017-03-14T23:09:25","slug":"ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Ram Avtar Patwari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram Avtar Patwari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 September, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4562 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nRam Avtar Patwari and Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Haryana and Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/09\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.   4562            OF 2007
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No.18772 of 2005
\nWITH
\n(Civil Appeal No.                \/07 @SLP (C) 18768\/2005,
\nCivil Appeal No.    4564             \/07 @SLP (C) 18765\/2005,
\nCivil Appeal No.    4565             \/07 @SLP (C) 18769\/2005,
\nCivil Appeal No.    4566             \/07 @SLP (C) 18261\/2005,
\nCivil Appeal No.    4567             \/07 @SLP (C) 18771\/2005,
\nCivil Appeal No.    4568             \/07 @SLP (C) 18766\/2005,
\nCivil Appeal No.    4569             \/07 @SLP (C) 18770\/2005,
\nCivil Appeal No.    4570             \/07 @SLP (C) 18373\/2005,
\nCivil Appeal No.    4571             \/07 @SLP (C) 18767\/2005,
\nCivil Appeal No.    4572             \/07 @SLP (C) 20014\/2005,
\nCivil Appeal No.    4573             \/07 @SLP (C) 8270\/2006.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tChallenge in these appeals is to the judgment of Punjab
\nand Haryana High Court allowing the Civil Writ Petitions filed
\nby non official respondents.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter
\nreferred to as the ‘Board’) issued an advertisement dated
\n7.11.1992 calling for applications for filling up 1248 posts of
\nPatwar candidates to be deputed to the Patwar Training School
\nand on completion of training, for appointment as Patwaris.
\nAppellants had applied for the said posts. The list of the
\nselected candidates was finalized and displayed from which it
\ntranspired that against the advertised posts 2395, candidates
\nhad been recommended by the Board for admission to the
\nPatwar Training School. One of the writ petitioners filed an
\napplication to the Board asking for the supply of details of the
\nperformance of the selected candidates, but those were not
\ngiven. The selection was impugned in the writ petitions on
\nseveral grounds.  It was pointed out that the selection beyond
\nthe advertised posts was bad in law, the marks for
\nperformance in the interview were to be restricted to 15%
\nwhereas in the present case 25 marks were allotted for the
\ninterview and 10 marks were given for handwriting. It was
\nsubmitted that a similar provision made for selection for
\nPatwari candidates was quashed  by the High Court in Satpal
\nSingh and Ors. v. State of Haryana<\/a> (1995 (3) SLR 787) and the
\njudgment was affirmed by this Court in Satpal and Ors. v.
\nState of Haryana and Ors.<\/a> (1995 Supp (1) SCC 206). It was
\nemphasized that the criteria for selection was not only
\ndesigned to give undue weightage to viva voce and to bye-pass
\nthe observations in Satpal Singh’s case (supra), it was even
\notherwise unsustainable as the guidelines were framed on
\n19.5.1993, whereas the process of interview had started on the
\nvery next date.  There was room for manipulation as the
\nrecords pertaining to all candidates were with the Board well
\nbefore 19.5.1993. The then Chief Minister Ch. Bhajan Lal on
\n26.5.1994 in a meeting held in his Assembly Constituency of
\nAdampur had clearly stated that promise of one post of
\nPatwari to each family  has been made  possible.  This had
\ninfluenced the selection which is clearly reflected from the fact
\nthat large number of candidates were selected from the
\nAdampur and Kalka Assembly constituencies represented by
\nCh. Bhajan Lal and his son Sh. Chander Mohan.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tStand of the Board was that though 1248 posts were
\nadvertised, 485 candidates who had been earlier selected as a
\nconsequence of the advertisement dated 19.3.1987 out of
\nwhich 377 candidates had cleared the course  had been given
\nappointment. \tIt was also pointed out that this selection had
\nbeen challenged in Satpal Singh’s case (supra) and the
\nselection and appointment had been quashed and SLP Nos.
\n2944-45 of 1993 filed by the State of Haryana had been
\ndismissed by this Court by judgment dated 14.9.1993 with
\nliberty to the 485 candidates to participate in a fresh selection.
\nTherefore, after the advertisement 485 posts were available. It
\nvacant every year and the advertisement was issued in the
\nyear 1992. The projected demands for two years i.e. 1993 and
\n1994 were taken note of. Further, as a substantial percentage
\nof Patwaris candidates could not clear the Patwar Training
\nSchool  course,  therefore, the same was also taken into
\naccount and ultimately the total number of candidates was
\nfixed. It was pointed out that selection pursuant to the
\nadvertisement made in 1987 was quashed on the ground that
\n85% of the marks was reserved for interview, which was
\nconsidered excessive. The Board had revised the criteria to
\nbring it within the framework of Satpal Singh’s case (supra)
\nand had accordingly reduced the marks for the interview from
\n85% to 25%. It was also stated that the allegation about the
\nthen Chief Minister influencing the selection was unfounded.
\nIt was also pointed out that it is not a fact that nearly 500
\ncandidates from Adampur and 300 candidates from Kalka had
\nbeen selected, as only 350 candidates from district Hisar
\nwhich included Adampur constituency and 150 candidates
\nfrom Ambala of which Kalka constituency was a part amongst
\nthe first 1200 candidates and this was because of the large
\nnumber of applications from that area i.e. about 19000 from
\nHisar and 6000 from Ambala district.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tA separate reply was filed by the Chief Minister who
\nstated that his speech was being read out of context.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe High Court found that perhaps there was no serious
\nflaw in the fact that candidates beyond the advertised 1248
\nposts had been selected.  But it was found that the other
\npoints had merit.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIt was held that in view of what has been stated by this
\nCourt in Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors.
\netc. (AIR 1981 SC 487) fixing 25% marks for interview and
\nanother 10 marks for handwriting on the face of it was
\nunjustified.  It was held that the guidelines indicated in Satpal
\nSingh’s case (supra) were not followed.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIt was held that allotment of marks was designed in a
\nway to bye-pass the order of the High Court in Satpal Singh’s
\ncase (supra) and pre-eminence was given to viva voce.
\nFurther, there was doubt about the sanctity of the selection.
\nAccordingly, it was held that the selection was bad and there
\nwas no equity in favour of the selected candidates. There were
\nmala fides involved in selection. However, time was granted to
\nappear in a fresh selection and the 1248 Patwaris who are
\npresently in position were allowed to continue till the end of
\nJuly 2007.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tChallenge was made by some others to the non-
\nappointment of some candidates who were selected  in terms
\nof advertisement No.4\/97. The writ petitioners in those cases
\nclaimed that though they were successful in the selection they
\nwere not issued appointment letters.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tStand of the State Government was that the Government
\nhad decided not to appoint the selected candidates on account
\nof financial problems. The High Court found that they had
\noption to appear in subsequent selection when subsequently
\nany fresh selection process is initiated and their writ petitions
\nwill be considered but it was made clear that there should be
\nrelaxation of conditions of eligibility particularly with regard to
\nthe age of the selected candidates.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIn support of the appeals, learned counsel for the
\nappellants submitted that the approach of the High Court is
\nclearly erroneous. The High Court failed to notice that the
\nposition in Satpal Singh’s case (supra) was different. In fact
\nvarious other decisions which were clearly applicable to the
\nfacts of the present cases had not been taken note of.
\nReference in this case was made to the decisions of this Court
\nin Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1994 (1) SCC 150),
\nKiran Gupta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2000 (7) SCC\n<\/p>\n
719), Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.<\/a> (1981 (4) SCC\n<\/p>\n
159) and Vijay Syal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.<\/a> (2003
\n(9) SCC 401).  Board supported this stand.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tLearned counsel for the State supported the judgment of
\nthe High Court and learned counsel for the respondents-writ
\npetitioners on the other hand submitted that the High Court
\nwas justified in its view.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe criteria for selection as fixed by the Board was as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\tAcademic record\t\t\t\t60 marks \n\tSports curriculum \t\t \t\t 5 marks \n\tHandwriting \t\t\t\t\t 10 marks\n\tInterview \t\t\t\t\t \t25 marks \n\n<\/pre>\n
14.\tFor the process of interview, seven different Committees
\nwere appointed which functioned between 20.5.1993 to
\nFebruary, 1994. About 1.10 lakhs candidates were interviewed
\nwho were short listed from amongst 1.25 lakhs candidates.
\nThe final result was declared and 2395 candidates were
\nselected for appointment in terms of Haryana Revenue
\nPatwaris (Group ‘C’) Service Rules, 1981. It is to be noted that
\nthe decision in Satpal Singh’s case (supra) was rendered on
\n14.9.1993 whereas the criteria had only been framed on
\n19.5.1993. In  Anzar Ahmad’s case (supra) it was held that
\n100% marks can be ear-marked for the interview,  if there was
\nno composite test.  In para 20 it was held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In the instant case, we find that the
\nState Government in its letter dated September
\n20, 1990 has clearly stated that selection
\nshould be made on the basis of interview. On
\nthe basis of this letter the Commission could
\nhave made the selection wholly on the basis of
\nmarks obtained at the interview. But in
\naccordance with the past practice, the
\nCommission has made the selection on the
\nbasis of interview while keeping in view the
\nacademic performance and with that end in
\nview the Commission has allocated 50% marks
\nfor academic performance and 50% marks for
\ninterview. It cannot be held that the said
\nprocedure adopted by the Commission suffers
\nfrom the vice of arbitrariness. By giving equal
\nweight to academic performance the
\nCommission has rather reduced the possibility
\nof arbitrariness.”\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThe Anzar Ahmad’s case (supra) was followed by this
\nCourt in A.P. State Financial Corporation v. C.M. Ashok Raju<\/a>
\n(1994 (5) SCC 359). In para 9 it was observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“We respectfully agree with the ratio in Anzar
\nAhmad’s case and hold that the High Court
\nwas not justified in setting aside the allocation
\nof 25% marks in the viva voce test.”\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIn Kiran Gupta’s case (supra) it was noted in para 25 as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar (1994
\n(1) SCC 150) for appointment to the posts of
\nUnani Medical Officer the Government
\nprescribed that the Public service Commission
\nshall select the candidates on the basis of
\ninterview. The Commission allocated 50%
\nmarks for academic qualification and 50% for
\ninterview. This Court, after referring to the
\naforementioned cases and relying upon Lila
\nDhar case (1981 (4) SCC 159) upheld the
\nmethod of selection by interview alone. That
\ndecision was followed in A.P. State Financial
\nCorporation V. C.M. Ashok Raju<\/a> (1994 (5) SCC\n<\/p>\n
359). In that case also selection of candidates
\nby interview without a written test was upheld
\nby this Court. The posts of Managers in the
\nA.P. Financial Corporation were to be filled by
\ninterview without a written test. The
\nCorporation approved the promotion criteria by
\nviva voce without a written test and allocated
\nmarks under various heads; among them for
\ninterview 25% and for length of service 15%
\nmarks were prescribed. A Division Bench of
\nthe High Court while upholding the allocation
\nof marks under various heads, reduced the
\npercentage of marks for interview from 25% to
\n15% and increased percentage of marks for
\nlength of service from 15% to 25%. On appeal
\nthis court held that the High Court fell into
\npatent error in reaching the conclusion that
\n25% marks for interview were, in the facts of
\nthat case, excessive. It was observed that there
\nwas no dispute that no written test was
\nprescribed for promotion to the post of
\nManager and above and the
\nselection\/promotion was only by viva voce test,
\nso no limit could be imposed for prescribing
\nthe marks for interview.”\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThe view was re-iterated in Jaswinder Singh v. State of J
\n& K (2003 (2) SCC 132) and Vijay Syal’s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
18.\tEmphasis laid by the High Court on the speech of Ch.
\nBhajan Lal appears to  be not wholly appropriate in view of
\nwhat has been stated by this Court in Satpal Singh’s case
\n(supra) in para 5.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tPursuant to the directions, the marks secured at the
\ninterview and in the handwriting by the selected candidates
\nwere filed. It appears that so far as the marks obtained for
\nhandwriting are concerned, in no case any selected candidate
\nhas secured more than 5 marks. The number of candidates
\nand the marks secured by them are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tNo. of Candidates\t\t\tMarks obtained
\n8\t1
\n258\t2
\n508\t3
\n300\t4
\n55\t5<\/p>\n
20.\tLearned counsel for the Board stated that records of 119
\ncandidates were not available.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tSo far as the marks obtained by the selected candidates
\n(2395) at the interview are concerned, the details are as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tNo. of Candidates\t\tMarks Obtained
\n5\t10
\n7\t\t\t\t11
\n15\t12
\n11\t13
\n22\t14
\n38\t15
\n129\t16
\n306\t17
\n381\t18
\n475\t19
\n410\t20
\n239\t21
\n100\t22
\n31\t23
\n6\t\t\t\t24
\n\t\t\t1\t\t\t\t25<\/p>\n
22.\tIt is stated that the records of 219 candidates were not
\navailable.\n<\/p>\n
23.\tThese details and the records therefore do not appear to
\nhave been considered by the High Court. Further, the
\ndistinguishing features noted by this Court vis-`-vis  those in
\nSatpal Singh’s case (supra) were also not noticed.\n<\/p>\n
24.\tSince the High Court has not examined the materials in
\ndetail, it would be appropriate for the High Court to reconsider
\nthe matter in the light of decisions referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
25.\tLearned counsel for the appellants have submitted that
\nSatpal Singh’s case (supra) is factually distinguishable. It
\nshould also be considered by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
26.\tSince the matter is pending since long, we request the
\nHigh Court to dispose of the matter as early as possible
\npreferably within six months from the receipt of copy of our
\njudgment. The appellants who are continuing to function as
\nPatwaris in terms of the order passed by the High Court and
\ncontinued by this Court, shall continue till the disposal of the
\nmatter by the High Court. It shall be open to the High Court to
\npass such interim orders as it may deem appropriate in
\naccordance with law.  The appellants were not parties before
\nthe High Court.  If they apply for impleadment, necessary
\norders shall be passed by High Court.\n<\/p>\n
27.\tThe appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram Avtar Patwari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 September, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4562 of 2007 PETITIONER: Ram Avtar Patwari and Ors RESPONDENT: State of Haryana and Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/09\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT […]<\/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-77881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Avtar Patwari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 September, 2007 - 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\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Avtar Patwari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-14T23:09:25+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Avtar Patwari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-14T23:09:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2256,\"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\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Ram Avtar Patwari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-14T23:09:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Avtar Patwari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram Avtar Patwari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 September, 2007 - 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\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Avtar Patwari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-14T23:09:25+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Avtar Patwari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-14T23:09:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007"},"wordCount":2256,"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\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007","name":"Ram Avtar Patwari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-14T23:09:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-avtar-patwari-and-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-28-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Avtar Patwari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 September, 2007"}]},{"@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\/77881","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=77881"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77881\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}