{"id":95308,"date":"1997-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2"},"modified":"2016-10-27T14:13:52","modified_gmt":"2016-10-27T08:43:52","slug":"dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 July, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 July, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: M S Manohar<\/div>\n
Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, V. N. Khare<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDR. AMI LAL BHAT\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/07\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nSUJATA V. MANOHAR, V. N. KHARE\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
(With  C.A.Nos.\t  3920-22\/1992,\t  6129\/1994,   3423-25\/1995,
\nC.A.Nos 4298  to 4301  of  1997\t (Arising  out\tof  SLP\t (C)
\nNos.8730\/95,  10659\/95,\t  10251\/95)  and  C.A.Nos.  6297\/95,
\n93\/95)
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nMRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     In all  these appeals  the common question which arises
\nfor consideration is whether a Rule-making Authority can fix
\na cut  off date\t with reference\t to the\t calender  year\t for
\ndetermining the\t maximum age  of a  candidate who  is to  be
\nconsidered for\tdirect recruitment  to a  service under\t the
\nState.\t The petitions\tand  appeals  before  us  deal\twith
\ndifferent  Rules  of  service  in  the\tState  to  Rajasthan
\npertaining to various services under the State.\t Some of the
\nRules which  are under challenge before us are the Rajasthan
\nMedical Services  (Collegiate Branch) Rules. 1962. Rajasthan
\nPanchayat Samiti  and Zila parisad Service Rules   Rajasthan
\nClass IV Services (Recruitment and other service conditions,
\nRules, 1963,  and Rajasthan  Educational Subordinate Service
\nRules. 1971.   All these Rules provide that the cut off date
\nfor deciding  the maximum age prescribed for a candidate for
\nappointment will  be the  1st day  of January  following the
\ndate of application.  The affected candidates who are before
\nus contend that such a cut off date which is uniformly fixed
\nunder all  the Service\tRules of  the State of Rajasthan, is
\narbitrary or unreasonable and must be struck down.\n<\/p>\n
     For the sake of convenience we are citing Rule 11(1) of
\nthe Rajasthan  Medical Services\t (Collegiate Branch)  Rules,
\n1962 which  came up  for consideration\tin a  writ  petition
\nfiled by  Dr. Rajeev Mathur before the Rajasthan High Court.
\nThe Rajasthan  High Court  held that  the portion of Rule 11
\nwhich prescribes  determination\t of  the  maximum  age\twith
\nreference to  1st of  January following\t the last date fixed
\nfor receipt  of applications, was arbitrary and unreasonable
\nand struck it down.  The appeal before us from this judgment
\nand order  is Civil appeal No. 2691\/91 which is filed by the
\ncandidate who  was 2nd\tin  the\t order\tof  merit  for\tthat
\nparticular selection. Rule 11(1) provides as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “11(1):-  A  candidate  for  direct
\n     recruitment  to   a   junior   post
\n     enumerated\t in   Part  C\tof   the
\n     Schedule must not have attained the
\n     age of 35 years on the first day of
\n     January  following\t the  last  date
\n     fixed for receipt of applications.
\n     Provided:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (1)  That\t the  upper   age  limit
\n     mentioned in  sub-rule (1)\t and (2)
\n     above, may be relaxed by 5 years in
\n     exceptional cases\tby Government in
\n     consultation with the Commission.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The High  Court held  that the  words “the first day of
\nJanuary following” in Rule 11(1) must be deleted.\n<\/p>\n
     Is such a cut off date fixed by the Rules applicable to
\nthe relevant  service, arbitrary?   It has been urged before
\nus by  the petitioners\tand\/or appellants  that the  cut off
\ndate of\t 1st of\t January following  the last  date fixed for
\nreceipt of  applications is  arbitrary.\t  The cut  off\tdate
\nshould only  be fixed  with reference  to the  last date  of
\nmaking the  application in question.  It is submitted before
\nus that\t the date  of 1st  of January  has no nexus with the
\napplication in question and, therefore, must be struck down.\n<\/p>\n
     This contention,  in our  view, is not sustainable.  In
\nthe first place the fixing of a cut off date for determining
\nthe maximum  of minimum of minimum age prescribed for a post
\nof not,\t per se,  arbitrary.  Basically, the fixing of a cut
\noff date for determining the maximum or minimum age required
\nfor  a\tpost,  is  in  the  discretion\tof  the\t Rule-making
\nAuthority or  the employer  as the  case may  be.   One must
\naccept that  such a  cut off  date cannot  be fixed  with an
\nmathematical precision\tand in\tsuch a manner as would avoid
\nhardship in all conceivable cases. As soon as a cut off date
\nis fixed  there will  be some  persons who fall on the right
\nside of\t the cut  off date and some persons who will fall on
\nthe wrong  side of  the cut  off date.\tThat cannot make the
\ncut off\t date, per  se, arbitrary unless the cut off date is
\nso wide\t off the  mark as  to make  it wholly  unreasonable.
\nThis view was expressed by this court i n Union of India and
\nanother etc. V. M\/s. Parameswaran Match Works etc. (AIR 1974
\nS.C. 2349)  and has been reiterated in subsequent cases.  In
\nthe cases  of A.P.  Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and
\nanother v.  . Sharat  Chandra and  Ors. (1990 2 SCC 669) the
\nrelevant service  rule stipulated  that the candidate should
\nnot have  completed the\t age of\t 26 years  on the 1st day of
\nJuly of the year in which the selection is made.  Such a cut
\noff date  was challenged.  This Court considered the various
\nsteps required\tin the\tprocess of selection and said, “when
\nsuch are the different steps in the process of selection the
\nminimum age  of suitability  of a  candidate for appointment
\ncannot\tbe   allowed  to  depend  upon\tany  fluctuating  or
\nuncertain date.\t  If the final stage of selection is delayed
\nand  more   often  it\thappens\t for  various  reasons,\t the
\ncandidates who\tare eligible  on the date of application may
\nfind themselves\t eliminated at\tthe final stage for no fault
\nof theirs.   The  date to  attain the minimum or maximum age
\nmust,  therefore,  be  specific\t and  determinate  as  on  a
\nparticular  date   for\tcandidates   to\t appl  and  for\t the
\nrecruiting agency  to scrutinise  the applications”.\tThis
\nCourt, therefore, held that in order to avoid uncertainly in
\nrespect of minimum or maximum age of a candidate.  Which may
\narise if  such an  age is linked to the process of selection
\nwhich may taken an uncertain time, it is desirable that such
\na cut  off date\t should be  with reference  to a fixed date.
\nTherefore, fixing  in independent  cut off  date,  far\tfrom
\nbeing arbitrary,  makes for  certainty\tin  determining\t the
\nmaximum age.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  case of Union of India and Anr. v. Sudhir Kumar
\nJaiswal<\/a> (1994 4 SCC 212) the date for determining the age of
\neligibility was\t fixed at 1st of August of the year in which
\nthe examination\t was to\t be held.  At the time when this cut
\noff date was fixed, here used to be only one examination for
\nrecruitment.   Later on,  a preliminary examination was also
\nintroduced.   Yet the  cut off\tdate was  not modified.\t The
\nTribunal held that after the introduction of the preliminary
\nexamination  the   cut\toff   date  had\t  become  arbitrary.
\nNegativing this\t view  of  the\tTribunal  and  allowing\t the
\nappeal.\t This Court Cited with approval the decision of this
\nCourt in  Parmeshwar Match  Works case (supra) and said that
\nfixing of  the cut  off date  can be considered as arbitrary
\nonly if\t it can be looked upon as so capricious or whimsical
\nas to  invite judicial\tinterference.\tUnless the  date  is
\ngrossly unreasonable,  the court wold be reluctant to strike
\ndown such a cut off date.\n<\/p>\n
     In the present case, the cut off date has been fixed by
\nthe State  of Rajasthan\t under its Rules relating to various
\nservices with  reference to the 1st of January following the
\nyear in\t which the  applications are  invited.\t All service
\nRules are  uniform on  this point.   Looking  to the various
\ndates on  which different departments and different heads of
\nadministration\t may\tissue\ttheir\tadvertisements\t for
\nrecruitment, a\tuniform cut  off  date\thas  been  fixed  in
\nrespect of  all such  advertisements as\t 1st January  of the
\nyear following.\t  This\tis to  make for\t certainty.   Such a
\nuniform\t date\tprescribed  under   all\t service  Rules\t and
\nRegulations makes  it easier  for the prospective candidates
\nto understand their eligibility for applying for the post in
\nquestion.   Such a date is not so wide off the mark as to be
\nconstrued as  grossly unreasonable  or arbitrary.   The time
\ngap between  the advertisement\tand the cut off date is less
\nthan a\tyear.  It takes into account the fact that after the
\nadvertisement,\ttime  has  to  be  allowed  for\t receipt  of
\napplications, for their scrutiny, for calling candidates for
\ninterview, for\tpreparing a panel of selected candidates and
\nfor actual appointment.\t The cut off date, therefore, cannot
\nbe considered as unreasonable.\tIt was, however, strenuously
\nurged before us that the only acceptable cut off date is the
\nlast  date   for  receipt  of  applications  under  a  given
\nadvertisement.\t Undoubtedly, this can be a possible cut off
\ndate.\tBut there  is no  basis for  urging that this is the
\nonly reasonable cut off date.  Even such a date is liable to
\nquestion in given circumstances.  In the first place, making
\na cut  off date\t dependent on  the last\t date for  receiving
\napplications, makes  it more  subject  to  vagaries  of\t the
\ndepartment concerned,  making it  dependant on the date when
\neach department\t issues an advertisement, and the date which
\neach  department  concerned  fixes  as\tthe  last  date\t for
\nreceiving applications.\t  A person who may fail on the wrong
\nside of\t such a\t cut off  date may well contend that the cut
\noff date  is unfair, since the advertisement could have been
\nissued earlier:\t Or in the alternative that the cut off date
\ncould have  been fixed\tlater at  the point  of selection or
\nappointment.   Such an argument is always open, irrespective
\nof the\tcut off\t date fixed  and the  manner in\t which it is
\nfixed.\t That is  by this  court has  said in  the  case  of
\nParameshwaran Match  Works(supra) and  later cases  that the
\ncut off\t date  is  valid  unless  it  is  so  capricious  or
\nwhimsical as to be wholly unreasonable. To say that the only
\ncut  off   date\t can   be  the\t last  date   for  receiving
\napplications, appears  to be without any basis.\t In our view
\nthe cut\t off date  which is  fixed in  the present case with
\nreference to  the beginning  of the  Calendar year following
\nthe date  of application, cannot be considered as capricious
\nor unreasonable.   On  the contrary,  it is  less  prone  to
\nvagaries and is less uncertain.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned advocate  for Dr. Rajeev Mathur in Civil Appeal
\nNO. 2691\/91 drew our attention to Rule 8(A) of the Rajasthan
\nMedical (Collegiate  Branch) Rules, 1962. Under Rule 8(A) as
\noriginally framed  the appointing  authority was required to
\ndetermine each\tyear the  number  of  vacancies\t anticipated
\nduring the  following 12  months and  the number  of persons
\nlikely to  be recruited\t by each  method.    This  rule\t was
\namended at the material time under a notification dated 21st
\nof  February,  1981.\tUnder  the  amended  rule  8(A)\t the
\nappointing authority shall determine on 1st April every year
\nthe  actual   number  of   vacancies  occurring\t during\t the
\nfinancial year.\t He contended that in the light of this rule
\nall  vacancies\tmust  be  advertised  soon  after  they\t are
\ndetermined.   In the  case  in\tquestion,  the\tvacancy\t had
\noccurred in  September, 1987.\tIt  was, however, advertised
\nonly in January, 1988. Dr. Rajeev Mathur became over aged on
\n1st of January of the following year.  It was submitted that
\nhad the\t vacancy been  advertised in  1987, the cut off date
\nwould have  been the  1st of  January 1988,  and Dr.  Rajeev
\nMathur would have been eligible.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  first place.  While construing  the validity of
\nany given  Rule, we  cannot  decide  the  reasonableness  or
\nunreasonableness of  that  rule\t by  looking  at  borderline
\ncases.\t There is  no allegation  that the advertisement was
\ndeliberately postponed\tto eliminate  Dr. Rajeev  Mathur  or
\nthat there was any deliberate delay in advertising the post.
\nThe delay between September and the following January cannot
\nbe considered  as unreasonable.\t Rule 8(a) is merely for the
\npurpose\t of  determining  the  actual  number  of  vacancies
\noccurring during  the financial\t year.\tIt does not cast any
\nobligation  on\t the  appointing   authority  to   issue  an
\nadvertisement within  any specific  time for  recruitment to
\nsuch a\tvacancy. so  long as such an advertisement is issued
\nwithin a  reasonable time,  and there is no mala fide delay,
\nthe action  of\tthe  appointing\t authority  in\tissuing\t the
\nadvertisement  cannot\tbe  challenged\tsimply\tbecause\t the
\nmaximum age qualification is fixed with reference to a fixed
\ndate.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t  is\tnext   contended    on\t behalf\t   of\t the
\nappellants\/petitioners that  under all the concerned service
\nrules there is a provision for age relaxation. In Rule 11(A)
\nof the\tRajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rule,
\nthere is  a provision  for age\trelaxation by 5 years by the
\nGovernment in  consultation with  the commission.   There is
\nalso Rule  35 in  the said Rules which gaves a general power
\nto relax  rules in exceptional cases where the Government is
\nsatisfied that\tit is  necessary, inter\t alia, to  relax any
\nprovision of  these Rules  with respect to age or experience
\nof any\tperson and  this can be done with the concurrence of
\nthe Department\tof Personnel  and Administrative Reforms and
\nin  consultation   with\t  the\tRajasthan   Public   Service
\nCommission.   It is  urged that\t in the\t case of  all  those
\npersons who are adversely affected because the advertisement
\nfor recruitment\t is issued  later than the occurrence of the
\nvacancy.   Corresponding age  relaxation should\t be given to
\nall candidates.\t  In  other words, what is contended is that
\nif on  the date\t when the  vacancy occurred,  the candidates
\nwere within  the maximum  age prescribed by reference to the
\ncut off date, the if the advertisement is delayed, their age
\nshould be  considered with  reference to the cut off date of
\n1st January  following the  date of  occurrence of  vacancy.
\nFor example,  if the vacancy has occurred on 1st of April of
\na given\t year, and the applicant would be within the maximum
\nage on the 1st of January of the following year, then such a
\ncandidate  will\t be  considered\t as  eligible  even  if\t the
\nadvertisement is  issued not  n April  of that\tyear but say
\nFebruary of the following year.\t All the candidates will get
\nage relaxation of one year.\n<\/p>\n
     In our  view this\tkind of\t an interpretation cannot be
\ngiven to  a rule  for relaxation  of  age.    The  power  of
\nrelaxation is required to be exercised in public interest in
\na given\t case; as  for example, if other suitable candidates
\nare not\t available for\tthe post, and the only candidate who
\nis suitable  has  crossed  the\tmaximum\t age  limit;  or  to
\nmitigate hardship  in a\t given case.   Such  a relaxation in
\nspecial circumstances  of a given case is to be exercised by
\nthe  administration   after  referring\t that  case  to\t the
\nRajasthan Public  Service Commission.\tThere  cannot be any
\nwholesale relaxation because the advertisement is delayed or
\nbecause the  vacancy occurred  earlier especially when there
\nis no  allegation of  any mala\tfides in connection with any
\ndelay in  issuing an  advertisement.   This kind of power of
\nwholesale relaxation  would make  for total  uncertainty  in
\ndetermining the\t maximum age  of a  candidate. It  might  be
\nunfair to  be  large  number  of  candidates  who  might  be
\nsimilarly situated,  but who  may not  apply, thinking\tthat
\nthey are  age barred.\tWe  fail to  see how  the  power  of
\nrelaxation can be exercised in the manner contended.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  premises we  do not see any reason to set aside
\nthe cut\t off date fixed by the relevant rules. The judgments
\nof the\tDivision Benches  of the  Rajasthan High Court in so
\nfar as they strike down 1st of January of the following year
\nas the\tcut off\t date for  determining the  maximum age of a
\ncandidate for selection, require to beset aside.\n<\/p>\n
     Of the  various judgments\tof the\tRajasthan High Court
\nwhich are before us, it is necessary to note that a Division
\nBench of  the Rajasthan\t High Court, differing from the view
\ntaken by the earlier Division Benches referred this question
\nto a  Full Bench  of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of
\nSurinder Singh\tv.  The State of Rajasthan (1995 1 WLR 197).
\nThe Full  Bench of  the Rajasthan  High Court  overruled the
\nearlier\t judgments  of\tthe  two  Division  Benches  of\t the
\nRajasthan High\tCourt and upheld the relevant service Rules.
\nWe agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Full Bench
\nof the Rajasthan High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     It was,  however,\tpointed\t out  to  us  by  the  third
\nrespondent (Dr.\t Rajeev Mathur)\t in C.A.  No. 2691\/1991 that
\nfrom the  decision of  the Division  Bench of  the Rajasthan
\nHigh Court  in his  own case (Dr. Rajeev Mathur v. The State
\nof Rajasthan)  the Rajasthan Public Service Commission filed
\na Special  leave petition  before this\tCourt being  Special
\nLeave Petition\tNo. 6931  of  1991.  In\t the  Special  Leave
\nPetition, on  30th of  April, 1991  this  Court\t passed\t the
\nfollowing order :-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We express  on  view\t on  the
\n     question of law raised but on facts
\n     found we  decline to interfere. The
\n     Special\tLeave\t  Petition    is
\n     dismissed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  contended by  Dr. Mathur  that in  view  of\t the
\ndismissal  of  the  Special  Leave  Petition  filed  by\t the
\nRajasthan Public  Service Commission,  the decision  of\t the
\nDivision Bench\tof the\tRajasthan High\tCourt in the case of
\nDr. Rajeev Mathur v. The State of Rajasthan has become final
\nand cannot be set aside. Hence the appointment of Dr. Rajeev
\nMathur cannot  now be challenged. Dr. Rajeev Mathur was over
\nage on the 1st of January of the year following the dated of
\napplication.  And   his\t application  was  rejected  by\t the
\nRajasthan Public  Service Commission  on the  ground that he
\nwas over  age. Immediately  he\tpreferred  a  writ  petition
\nbefore the  Rajasthan High  Court. In  the writ\t petition he
\naverred that his case was being considered by the Government
\nof Rajasthan  for age  relaxation. The\tHigh Court, under an
\ninterim order,\tdirected the  Rajasthan Public Commission to
\nconsider his  application and  interview Dr.  Rajeev Mathur.
\nAccordingly he\twas interviewed.  His  application  for\t age
\nrelaxation has been rejected by the Rajasthan Public Service
\nCommission as well as by the State. But in view of his being
\ninterviewed, his  case was  considered and  he was selected.
\nHis position  was 1st  in the merit list. The High Court has
\ndirected that  he should be appointed. Does the dismissal of
\nspecial leave petition filed by the Rajasthan Public Service
\nCommission against this decision make this decision final as
\nfar as\tDr. Mathur  is concerned  ? In\torder dismissing the
\nspecial leave  petition this  Court has left the question of
\nlaw open.  But what  is more relevant, the candidate who was
\nsecond in  the merit list in that case also thereafter filed
\na special  leave petition  before this\tCourt from  the same
\njudgment. He was granted leave and his appeal in numbered as
\nC.A. 2691\/1991.\t This  appeal,\twhich  before  us,  directly
\nchallenges the appointment of Dr. Rajeev Mathur and the High
\nCourt judgment\tunder which  he is  appointed. If Dr. Rajeev
\nMathur is not eligible, then the appellant in this appeal is
\nentitled to  be appointed  to that  post. Therefore,  at the
\ninstance of  the Rajasthan  Public Service  Commission\tthis
\nCourt  was  not\t inclined  to  examine\tthe  merits  of\t the
\nindividual case\t before it;  though it\tleft the question of
\nlaw open.  But when  the affected  candidate came  up before
\nthis Court  asking for\tspecial leave  to appeal against the
\nsame judgment  of the  Division Bench, leave was granted and
\nthe appeal  has been  entertained.  It\tis,  therefore,\t not
\npossible to  hold that the decision of the Division Bench of
\nthe Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dr. Rajeev Mathur v.
\nThe State of Rajasthan is final on the facts of the case and
\nthe appointment\t of Dr.\t Rajeev Mathur cannot be challenged.
\nThis appointment  is directly  under challenge\tin C.A.\t No.
\n2691\/1991 which\t require to  be considered  and\t decided  on
\nmerit. Therefore,  we do  not see  any reason  to  make\t any
\nexception in the case of Dr. Rajeev Mathur.\n<\/p>\n
     Lastly,  in  the  appeal  arising\tfrom  Special  Leave
\nPetition No. 10659 of 1995, the respondent contended that he
\nwas in\tfact not  over age on the cut off date which was, in
\nthat case 1st of January, 1992. The contention was raised on
\na wrong\t reading of the date of birth. It is now accepted by
\nthe parties that the correct date of birth of the petitioner
\nin that\t case was  1st of January, 1959 and not 19th January
\n1959 as\t originally urged.  The petitioner would, therefore,
\ncomplete  33   years  of  age  which  was  the\tmaximum\t age
\nprescribed in the concerned advertisement, on 1st of January
\n1992,  the  cut\t off  date.  His  case,\t therefore,  is\t not
\ndifferent from the case of other aggrieved candidates before
\nus who are age barred on the cut off date.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  premises the appeals of the candidates who have
\nchallenged the\tcut off\t date under  the relevant  Rules are
\ndismissed while\t the appeal  filed by the State of Rajasthan
\nare allowed. The validity of the concerned Rules relating to
\nthe cut\t off date  being fixed with reference to 1st January
\nof the\tyear following the application is upheld. There will
\nbe no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 July, 1997 Author: M S Manohar Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, V. N. Khare PETITIONER: DR. AMI LAL BHAT Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/07\/1997 BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, V. N. KHARE ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-95308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Ami Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 July, 1997 - 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\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2\" \/>\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=\"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-27T08:43:52+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 July, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-27T08:43:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2\"},\"wordCount\":3453,\"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\\\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2\",\"name\":\"Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-27T08:43:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 July, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 July, 1997 - 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\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-27T08:43:52+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 July, 1997","datePublished":"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-27T08:43:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2"},"wordCount":3453,"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\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2","name":"Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-27T08:43:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-ami-lal-bhat-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-july-1997-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 July, 1997"}]},{"@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\/95308","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=95308"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95308\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}