{"id":89677,"date":"2009-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009"},"modified":"2015-07-26T20:52:09","modified_gmt":"2015-07-26T15:22:09","slug":"kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kumbha Ram Nitharwal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court<\/div>\n
Kumbha Ram Nitharwal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 December, 2009<\/div>\n
    \n\n \n \n \n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\nAT JAIPUR BENCH\n\n[1]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3229\/09\nSurajmal Jat & Ors. Versus State & Anr.\n[2]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2683\/09\nRam Niwas Regar Versus State & Ors.\n[3]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2860\/09\nSushila Versus State & Ors.\n[4]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4868\/09\nPapendra Chhabadi Vs The Principal Secy. & Ors.\n[5]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6591\/09\nSmt. Saroj Sharma Versus State & Ors.\n[6]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6647\/09\nAmti Jain Versus The Principal Secy. & Ors.\n[7]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7460\/09\nBhagwan Sahay Raigar Versus State & Ors.\n[8]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8203\/09\nVinod Kumar & Ors. Versus State & Ors.\n[9]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8226\/09\nChoth Mal Raigar Versus State & Ors.\n[10]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8239\/09\nLaxman Singh Baghel Versus State & Ors.\n[11]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8251\/09\nHari Singh Mali Versus State & Ors.\n[12]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8266\/09\nDaleep Singh & Ors. Versus State & Ors.\n[13]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8324\/09\nVijay Kumar Yadav Versus State & Ors.\n[14]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8372\/09\nArchana Sharma Versus State & Ors.\n[15]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8398\/09\nMohan Lal Bijarniya Versus State & Ors.\n[16]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8399\/09\nHemraj Sain Versus State & Ors.\n[17]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8471\/09\nSuman Kumari Yadav Versus State & Ors.\n\n[18]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8500\/09\nGhanshyam Sharma Versus State & Ors.\n[19]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8766\/09\nMahender Singh Versus State & Ors.\n[20]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8937\/09\nDinesh Kumar Saini Versus State & Ors.\n[21]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9145\/09\nOm Prakash Sharma Versus State & Ors.\n[22]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9161\/09\nBabu Lal Yadav & Anr. Versus State & Ors.\n[23]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9162\/09\nKumbha Ram Nitharwal Versus State & Ors.\n[24]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9210\/09\nIshwar Bhardwaj Versus State & Ors.\n[25]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9219\/09\nSube Singh & Anr. Versus State & Ors.\n[26]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9230\/09\nPradeep Kumar Gaur Versus State & Ors.\n[27]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9366\/09\nBajrang Lal Saini Versus State & Ors.\n[28]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9371\/09\nMrs. Meena Sharma Versus State & Ors.\n[29]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9388\/09\nDeepak Haritwal Versus State & Ors.\n[30]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9451\/09\nKishore Mal & Anr. Versus State & Ors.\n[31]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9518\/09\nJyoti Sharma Versus State & Ors.\n[32]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13135\/09\nJagdish Prasad Vasisth Versus State & Ors.\n[33]  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14035\/09\nSmt. Neelam Sisodia Versus State & Ors.\n\nDATE OF ORDER     :        08\/12\/2009\n\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI\n\nAdvocates for petitioners\nSarva Shri SP Sharma, HK Saini, Sandeep Pathak, Anoop Dhand,\nSatyapal Poshwal,  BM Sharma,  JK Yogi, Mukesh Punia, \nSK Singodiya, Tanveer Ahmed, VK Sharma, DN Yadav, \nKC Sharma, D. Barala, Vijay Yadav, Prahlad Sharma, \nVirendra Manjhu,  RP Saini, Mahendra Sharma, Sanjay Rahar\nAmardeep Atwal, CM Verma, Ms Manju Sharma & \nMrs. Pradeeplata Mathur \nMr. N.A. Naqvi, AAG, for respondents\n\n***\n<\/pre>\n
\tSince bunch of instant petitions involve common controversy raised at the bar, hence are being decided by this order at joint request.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the bunch of instant writ petitions, the question requires for determination by this Court is as to whether the experience certificate of teaching which has been obtained by petitioner from a recognized educational institution can be rejected on the premise that the standard which have been laid down by the respondents in their letter dt. 16\/06\/2008 (Anx.R-2) for verification of experience certificate was not fulfilled.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe petitioners herein submitted their application for participation in the selection process initiated by the respondents for the post of Prabodhak which is included in the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (‘Rules of 2008’) in pursuance to an advertisement dt. 31\/05\/2008. It has not been controverted that  petitioners fulfilled academic qualifications and have also furnished their teaching experience certificate of recognized educational institution which is one of the condition of eligibility for an applicant to participate in the process initiated by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\tEarlier a restriction was imposed by the respondents that the experience certificate which has been furnished by the applicant from a recognized educational institution must be countersigned by an officer of the department in absence whereof they will not be considered to be eligible to participate in the process of selection and at that point of time a bunch of petitions in CWP-5951\/2008, Smt. Priti Dixit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors and other connected writ petitions were decided on 07\/01\/2009 and the question with respect to certificate of experience obtained by the applicants also came up for consideration and this Court in para No. 20, 21 and 22 of the judgment referred to (supra), after taking note of the objections raised by respondents, granted liberty to respondents to get the certificate verified from the concerned educational institution and it was held that if it is found to be correct, the same may be countersigned and the applicant may be considered for appointment according to the order of merit if finally found to be suitable.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe relevant paragraphs-20, 21 & 22 of the judgment (supra) dealing with the teaching experience certificate either not verified by the District Education Officer or verification was revoked under directions of the Government, are being reproduced here under:-\n<\/p>\n
20. Many of the writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners on the ground they have gained the requisite experience but the experience certificate given by the school concerned has not been countersigned by the concerned District Education Officer and in absence of counter signature, their candidature has not been considered for appointment on the post of Prabodhak.\n<\/p>\n
21. In this regard, this Court deem it proper to direct the respondents to verify the experience certificate submitted by the petitioners from the record of the concerned school and if it is found correct, then the same may be countersigned by the concerned District Education Officer. However, it is made clear that the experience certificate which have been issued by the recognized educational institution or project, can only be considered.\n<\/p>\n
22. In few of the cases, the District Education Officer has countersigned the experience certificate but later on the same has been withdrawn. In such cases also, the respondents are directed to verify the experience of the particular petitioner from the record of the school and if it is found correct, then the same be considered for appointment on the post of Prabodhak even the counter signature on the post of Prabodhak even the counter signature has been withdrawn by the District Education Officer.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt appears that earlier the applicants were not permitted to participate on the premise that their teaching experience certificate has not been countersigned by an officer of the department to whom the power was delegated for countersigning such certificates and in some cases where the District Education Officer countersigned the experience certificate, it was later on withdrawn under some directives of the Government but what was those directions on account of which the concerned authority or the District Education Officer withdrew its signature dt.10\/06\/2008 (Anx.R-1) which was further modified by their subsequent communication dt.16\/06\/2008 (Ann. R-2) placed on record by the respondents was not made available to this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhile disposing of the bunch of writ petitions by a common judgment dt.07\/01\/2009, this Court granted a liberty to the respondents to verify the experience certificate which was submitted by the respective applicant issued from the recognized educational institution and what has been averred by the respondents in their reply after the judgment (supra) passed by this Court,  that a  communication was sent to respective recognized educational institutions demanding information as desired by the respondents in terms of their communication dt.16\/06\/2008 (Anx. R-2) and the institution, which failed to furnish the desired information demanded by the respondent-State, their certificates were neither verified nor countersigned by the authority and certificates which were earlier countersigned, it was recalled – in absence whereof, they were not considered to be eligible to participate in the process initiated by the respondents in pursuance to advertisement dt.31\/05\/20008 and this in-fact is a second round of litigation which has come to this Court to settle the issue as to whether the conditions, which have been circulated by the respondents vide its communication dt.16\/06\/08 (Ann.R\/2), can be considered to be valid and in conformity with the requirement provided under Rules of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel for petitioners jointly submit that that the requirement under the scheme of Rules of 2008 is that the applicant must possess five years of continuous teaching experience from a recognized educational institution which indisputably has been submitted by the respective petitioner and the conditions, which have been incorporated by the respondents in regard to the verification of their certificate under its communication Anx.-R-2 dt.16\/06\/2008 is wholly arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and by their administrative fiat, the respondents have incorporated these impugned conditions in regard to verification of their experience certificate which is contrary to the scheme of the Rules of 2008 and the same deserves to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the reply filed by the respondents and what has been urged before this Court, is that the conditions were incorporated only to verify the experience certificate and the administrative decision taken by the State Government is  to supplement the requirement for a proper verification of the teaching experience which is always permissible under law and those petitioners\/applicants, who had been appointed without following the procedure of recruitment  provided under Chapter V of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grants In Aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (Rules, 1993), such teaching experience certificate even if obtained by them of working as a teacher for continuous five years in a recognized educational institution, cannot be considered as a valid experience for the purpose of recruitment under the Rules of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
\tI have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance  examined the material available on record. \tThe relevant requirement for qualification for the post of Prabodhak under the schedule appended to the Rules of 2008 for the post of Prabodhak is reproduced as under:-\n<\/p>\n
Senior Secondary Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent, with Diploma or certificate in basic teachers training of a duration of not less than two years or Diploma or certificate in elementary teachers training of a duration of not less than two years.\t\t\t\tOR\nBachelor of Elementary Education (B.EL.Ed.)\t\t\tOR\nGraduation with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAND\nMust have at least 5 years continuous teaching experience without any break in any recognized educational institution\/educational project.\n\n\tThe dispute is only with regard to the teaching experience certificate and not for the academic qualification in the instant petition. The teaching experience has been defined under Rule 2(k) of the Rules of 2008. The same is being reproduced here as under:-\n(2)(k) Teaching Experience for the purpose of direct recruitment includes the experience gained in supervisory capacity in any recognized educational institution or project.\n\n\tAt the same time, the word service or experience has also been referred to under Rule 2(L) of the Rules of 2008. The same is also referred to as under:-\n<\/pre>\n
2(L) Service or Experience wherever prescribed in these rules as a condition for promotion from one service to another or within the service from one category to another or to senior posts, in the case of a person holding a lower post eligible for promotion to higher post shall include the period for which the person has continuously worked on such lower post after regular selection in accordance with rules promulgated.\n<\/p>\n
\tRule 2(L) refers to service or experience  is in regard to those who are member of service and same has to be noticed for the purpose of promotion from one service to other or within service but relevant for the present purpose is Rule 2(K) which relates to Teaching Experience gained by an incumbent in recognized educational institution\/ project. No distinction has been made by the rule making authority in regard to the nature of experience acquired by the incumbent. It may be either on adhoc\/urgent temporary\/ contractual or on regular basis and so far as the word experience is concerned, it has been well defined in the new  shorter oxford dictionary at Page 886 as under:-\n<\/p>\n
Actual observation of or practical acquaintance with facts or events considered as a source of knowledge. Knowledge resulting from actual observation or practical acquaintance, or from what one has undergone.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe same has also been referred to in Black’s Law Dictionary, Centennial (Sixth Edn (1891-1991) at p.578, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
Experience – A state, extent, or duration of being engaged in a particular study or work; the real life as contrasted with the ideal or imaginary. A word implying skill, facility, or practical wisdom gained by personal knowledge, feeling, and action, and also the course or process by which one attains knowledge or wisdom.\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom the Scheme of the Rules of 2008 and to be more particular Rule 2(k) (supra), it clearly emerges that the requirement is of five years continuous teaching experience from a recognized educational institution\/project and it depicts about the teaching experience required for the purpose but Rule making authority has not made any distinction as regards nature of teaching experience duly acquired by applicant from a recognized educational institution\/project. What has been sought for by respondents in terms of letter dt.16\/06\/2008 (Ann.R\/2) (being relevant for present purpose, is quoted ad infra) for verification of experience certificate duly submitted by petitioners\/applicants
\n\t???????? ?????? ???????? ??????, ????????, ????????\n<\/p>\n
\t???????-??????\/?????\/????????\/?-2-3\/?????\/2208 ??????:16.6.2008
\n\t???? ?????? ???????\n<\/p>\n
\t(????????)\t??????\n<\/p>\n
\t????:- ????? ?????? ???? ????? ????????? ???? ?? ??????? ???.\n<\/p>\n
\t??????? ???????????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????? ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????-????????? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????-????????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????-\n<\/p>\n
1.???????\/???????? ?? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ????????? ?????? ?? ?? ???\n<\/p>\n
2. ???????\/???????? ?? ????????\/??????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ??????\n<\/p>\n
3. ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??????\n<\/p>\n
4.?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????????? ???\n<\/p>\n
5. ??? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ??, ???? ??????? ???????\n<\/p>\n
6. ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ???\n<\/p>\n
7. ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????\n<\/p>\n
8. ???????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????\n<\/p>\n
???? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????????? ???? ?? ????????? ????? ???? ??? ??: ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ????????? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ?? ???????? ?????????\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \t\t ??????,
\n\t\t\t\t???????? ?????? ????????, \t\t\t\t\t             ????????”\n<\/p>\n
It appears to have been incorporated with the object to examine as to whether procedure provided under Chapter V of Rules, 1993 while making appointment of Teachers has been followed by Recognized institution in regard to Teaching experience which the applicant has gained while working there as Teacher.\n<\/p>\n
\tR.2(k) of Rules, 2008 only requires Teaching Experience from a recognized institution. The word, experience quoted (supra) from dictionary contemplates about practical acquaintance with facts or events having as a source of knowledge of implying skill, facility or practical wisdom as an experience having been gained by personal knowledge & feelings. In absence of any provision to the contrary, no distinction could have been made as regards Teaching Experience being acquired by a teacher working either on adhoc\/urgent temporary\/contract or regular basis. What is required under Scheme of Rules, 2008 is that the incumbent must hold\/possess Teaching Experience of continuous five years from a recognized institution; in such circumstances, what has been referred to (supra) by respondents in letter dt.16\/06\/08 (Ann.R\/2) is that if applicant has not been appointed as a Teacher after due advertisement of vacancies or has not been paid regular pay scale; or there may be some sort of impediments or he might have been absent or having any sort of break in service holding that he did not possess Teaching Experience of continuous five years from a recognized institution, as required as an eligibility for  appointment as Prabodhak under Rules, 2008.  When distinction has not been made by Rule making authority as regards nature of Teaching Experience required as a clause of eligibility under Rules, 2008; the respondents cannot be permitted to supplement requirement of eligibility  particularly Teaching Experience of continuous five years from a recognized institution, by issuance of administrative directions dt.16\/06\/08 (Ann.R\/2) under the garb of verification of experience certificate and in the opinion of this Court, what has been required by respondents for verification of certificate of Teaching Experience as required under Rules, 2008 furnished by applicant\/petitioner pursuant to letter dt.16\/06\/08, is not in conformity & consonance with Scheme of Rules, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
     \tAt the same time, it may not be construed that respondents are precluded from adopting any mechanism for verification of experience certificate being furnished by applicant\/petitioner so as to fulfill eligibility of having Teaching Experience of continuous five years from a recognized institution, as required under Rules, 2008 and respondents are always at liberty to examine\/ scrutinize their experience certificate for its verification, upon which if it is found to be forged\/fabricated\/false, action can certainly be taken against applicant in accordance with law; but if concerned institution fails to furnish requisite information as desired for purposes of verification of experience certificate of an applicant, under the garb whereof, applicant in no manner can be held to be in-eligible under Rules, 2008; and right of fair consideration certainly cannot be jeopardized.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn the light of what has been observed (supra), all these writ petitions are allowed. Conditions quoted (supra) in letter dt.16\/06\/08 (Ann.R\/2) for verification of experience certificate as held are not in conformity & consonance with the Scheme of Rules, 2008 are quashed & set aside. Consequently, the petitioners\/applicants who have furnished their certificates of five years continuous experience from a recognized institution as required under Rules, 2008 will be considered as eligible for appointment to the post of Prabhodhak. However, respondents will be at liberty to scrutinize their experience certificate for verification from concerned educational institution and if found to be forged\/fabricated\/false, action may be taken against such applicant\/petitioners in accordance with law. All exercise to comply with the directions (supra) be completed within three months. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t           [AJAY RASTOGI], J.\n<\/p>\n
Raghu\/ K.Khatri\/p.17
\n\/3229CW09(33)PrbdhkRsrDec8.do<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court Kumbha Ram Nitharwal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH [1] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3229\/09 Surajmal Jat & Ors. Versus State & Anr. [2] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2683\/09 Ram Niwas Regar Versus State & Ors. [3] […]<\/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":[8,29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-89677","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKumbha Ram Nitharwal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 December, 2009 - 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\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kumbha Ram Nitharwal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-26T15:22:09+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kumbha Ram Nitharwal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-26T15:22:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2239,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Kumbha Ram Nitharwal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-26T15:22:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kumbha Ram Nitharwal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 December, 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:\/\/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":"Kumbha Ram Nitharwal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 December, 2009 - 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\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kumbha Ram Nitharwal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-26T15:22:09+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kumbha Ram Nitharwal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-26T15:22:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009"},"wordCount":2239,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009","name":"Kumbha Ram Nitharwal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-26T15:22:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumbha-ram-nitharwal-vs-state-of-raj-and-ors-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kumbha Ram Nitharwal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 December, 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:\/\/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\/89677","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=89677"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89677\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89677"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89677"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89677"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}