{"id":86463,"date":"2009-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-22T07:12:51","modified_gmt":"2019-03-22T01:42:51","slug":"rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh ` vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rajesh ` vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 October, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>           C.W.P. No.14460 of 2007                                   -1-\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                           AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                         C.W.P. No.14460 of 2007\n                         DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 26, 2009\nRajesh       `\n                                                        .....PETITIONER\n                                Versus\n\nState of Haryana and others\n                                                      ....RESPONDENTS\n\nCORAM:       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL\n                          ---\n\nPresent:     Mr.Pankaj Midha, Advocate,\n             for the petitioner.\n             Ms.Kirti Singh, A.A.G.,Haryana,\n             for respondents No.1 to 3.\n             Mr.Raman B.Garg, Advocate,\n             for respondent No.4.\n                    ..\n\nSATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>             The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of<\/p>\n<p>the Constitution of India for issuing direction to the respondents to adjust<\/p>\n<p>him against the post of Clerk in Municipal Council under the Policy of the<\/p>\n<p>State Government dated 21.3.2006 (Annexure P-9).\n<\/p>\n<p>             Briefly, in the present case, the petitioner was appointed by the<\/p>\n<p>Municipal Committee, Narwana (Jind) as Octroi Clerk on contract basis on<\/p>\n<p>16.12.1996 when the employees of the Municipal Committees\/Municipal<\/p>\n<p>Councils were on strike. It has been alleged that the petitioner discharged<\/p>\n<p>his duties sincerely and no complaint whatsoever was made against him.<\/p>\n<p>After the strike, when the petitioner was not adjusted in the Municipal<\/p>\n<p>service in terms of the Policy dated 13.5.1997, he made representation<\/p>\n<p>before the respondent authorities. It has been further alleged that the<\/p>\n<p>employees who could not be adjusted after the strike, made several<\/p>\n<p>representations like the petitioner. Ultimately, the respondents took decision<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">          C.W.P. No.14460 of 2007                                      -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>dated 24.4.2001 whereby those candidates were allowed to be adjusted who<\/p>\n<p>had worked throughout the period of strike. It has been further alleged that<\/p>\n<p>the petitioner had worked with the respondents for whole period of strike<\/p>\n<p>i.e. 16.12.1996 to 28.2.1997, but he was not adjusted.\n<\/p>\n<p>             In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.3 and<\/p>\n<p>4, it has been stated that as per records, the petitioner had never worked<\/p>\n<p>with the Municipality during the strike period. It has been specifically stated<\/p>\n<p>that the authenticity of the list (Annexure P3) showing that the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>had worked with the respondents, is also doubtful as the same does not<\/p>\n<p>carry any signatures of competent officer of the answering respondents. It<\/p>\n<p>has been further stated that the petitioner has not only made a false<\/p>\n<p>statement about his working with the Municipality during the strike period<\/p>\n<p>but also fabricated the document just to mislead the Court. It has been also<\/p>\n<p>stated that the petitioner is putting in his claim on the basis of the Policy<\/p>\n<p>dated 13.5.1997 made by the State government, whereby it has been decided<\/p>\n<p>that all ad hoc and daily wager employees recruited against the vacancies<\/p>\n<p>during the strike, should be adjusted as per their seniority and in case there<\/p>\n<p>is no vacancy, a seniority list be made for their adjustment on priority basis.<\/p>\n<p>It is stated that after an inordinate delay, the petitioner has filed the instant<\/p>\n<p>petition in the year 2007 on the basis of false facts.      It has been further<\/p>\n<p>averred that now the State Government has issued policy letter dated<\/p>\n<p>19.2.2007 finally to all the Municipalities and thereby conveyed its decision<\/p>\n<p>not to re-adjust the employees worked in the Municipalities during the<\/p>\n<p>strike. It has been stated that the State Government had to issue these<\/p>\n<p>instructions to prevent its misuse because so many people approached even<\/p>\n<p>after lapse of reasonable period, whose names could neither find mentioned<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">             C.W.P. No.14460 of 2007                                   -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>in the list supplied by the respective Municipal Committees nor they had<\/p>\n<p>worked throughout the strike period. In view of these facts, the petitioner is<\/p>\n<p>not entitled for being appointed on regular basis against the vacant posts in<\/p>\n<p>view of Policies of the State Government dated 13.5.1997 and 24.4.2001,<\/p>\n<p>respectively. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition.<\/p>\n<p>              I have heard the counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>              During the course of arguments, the aforesaid factual position<\/p>\n<p>has not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. However, counsel<\/p>\n<p>argued that some of the employees, who were appointed on ad hoc basis<\/p>\n<p>during the strike period in the Municipal Committees, like the petitioner,<\/p>\n<p>were given appointments, but the petitioner failed to receive any such<\/p>\n<p>communication. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the action of<\/p>\n<p>the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n<p>              On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued<\/p>\n<p>that in view of the Policy of the Government dated 13.5.1997, at no point of<\/p>\n<p>time the petitioner was entitled for appointment against the vacant posts<\/p>\n<p>because he never worked in the Municipality during the strike period. It has<\/p>\n<p>been further argued that even the policy decision taken by the Government<\/p>\n<p>on 19.2.2007 has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"\/doc\/1016554\/\">Narender Kumar v. The Municipal Council, Ambala City and others (CWP<\/p>\n<p>No.5280 of<\/a> 2006, decided on 11.3.2008), wherein it has been held that the<\/p>\n<p>mere fact that the petitioner had worked during the strike period, will not<\/p>\n<p>confer any right to seek appointment. Therefore, there is no merit in this<\/p>\n<p>petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>              After hearing the counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit<\/p>\n<p>in the instant petition. The petitioner is claiming appointment against the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">          C.W.P. No.14460 of 2007                                      -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>vacant post of Clerk in Municipal Committee\/Council, Narwana on the<\/p>\n<p>ground that he had worked on ad hoc basis as Octroi Clerk during the strike<\/p>\n<p>period from 16.12.1996 to 28.2.1997. In order to prove the fact that he had<\/p>\n<p>worked during the strike period, the petitioner is relying upon the list<\/p>\n<p>(Annexure P3) as well as the representation (Annexure P10) given by him<\/p>\n<p>in the year 2002. The respondents in their written statement have clearly<\/p>\n<p>denied and categorically stated that the petitioner had never worked on ad<\/p>\n<p>hoc basis as Octroi Clerk during the strike period from 16.12.1996 to<\/p>\n<p>28.2.1997. It has also been stated that no such list (Annexure P3) was<\/p>\n<p>prepared and the same was not authenticated by any person. Regarding<\/p>\n<p>representation, it has been stated that the same was never received by the<\/p>\n<p>office of the respondents. The petitioner has not placed on record any proof<\/p>\n<p>of his appointment or working as Octroi Clerk on ad hoc basis during the<\/p>\n<p>strike period from 16.12.1996 to 28.2.1997. Neither the appointment letter<\/p>\n<p>nor any salary slip have been produced which indicate that the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>had worked during the strike period. For the first time, the petitioner has<\/p>\n<p>filed the instant petition in the year 2007. Prior to that, the petitioner never<\/p>\n<p>put any application regarding employment in terms of the Policy decision<\/p>\n<p>dated 13.5.1997 on the ground that he had worked during the strike period.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, in my view the petitioner has no case to claim appointment on<\/p>\n<p>the basis that he had worked during the strike period. Even otherwise, the<\/p>\n<p>Policy dated 21.3.2006 only conveys the decision of the State Government<\/p>\n<p>to withdraw the Policy instructions dated 24.4.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>             In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the<\/p>\n<p>same is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>October 26, 2009                        (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)\nvkg                                             JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court Rajesh ` vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 October, 2009 C.W.P. No.14460 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14460 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 26, 2009 Rajesh ` &#8230;..PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others &#8230;.RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-86463","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rajesh ` vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 October, 2009 - 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\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh ` vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-22T01:42:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh ` vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-22T01:42:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1072,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Rajesh ` vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-22T01:42:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh ` vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajesh ` vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 October, 2009 - 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\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh ` vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-22T01:42:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh ` vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-22T01:42:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009"},"wordCount":1072,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009","name":"Rajesh ` vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-22T01:42:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-on-26-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh ` vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/86463","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=86463"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86463\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86463"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86463"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86463"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}