{"id":97098,"date":"2009-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009"},"modified":"2019-02-07T21:36:09","modified_gmt":"2019-02-07T16:06:09","slug":"union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India And Others vs Prem Singh on 24 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India And Others vs Prem Singh on 24 February, 2009<\/div>\n
                       CWP No.5284-CAT of 2004                            -1-\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                  CASE NO.: CWP No.5284-CAT of 2004\n\n                                 DATE OF DECISION: February 24, 2009\n\n\nUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                                ...PETITIONERS\n\n                                 VERSUS\n\nPREM SINGH                                               ...RESPONDENTS\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.\n       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR.\n\n\nPRESENT: MR. NAMIT KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS.\n         MR. S.K. SUD, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT.\n\n\nASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This petition has been filed under Article 226\/227 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India, by Union of India, for quashing order dated<\/p>\n
27.02.2004 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,<\/p>\n
Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short `the Tribunal’), whereby the<\/p>\n
Original Application filed by the respondent No.1 – Prem Singh has been<\/p>\n
allowed and the appointment of respondent No.2 – Ram Niwas to the post of<\/p>\n
Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster (herein after called ‘EDBPM’),<\/p>\n
Gurana has been quashed and a direction has been issued for appointment of<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 to the said post. The Tribunal has further directed that the<\/p>\n
department shall consider the possibility of accommodating respondent<\/p>\n
No.2 on any other alternative post.\n<\/p>\n
          Brief facts of the case are that the Superintendent of Post Offices,<\/p>\n
Hissar Division had invited all candidates, including respondents No.1 and
\n                        CWP No.5284-CAT of 2004                             -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
2, whose names had been forwarded by Employment Exchange, to submit<\/p>\n
their applications with requisite documents on or before August 20, 1998<\/p>\n
for appointment to the post of ‘EDBPM’. Though respondent No.1 was<\/p>\n
placed at Serial No.1 in the Merit list on account of having secured 57.3%<\/p>\n
marks as against respondent no 2 who was placed at No.2 having secured<\/p>\n
51.6% marks in Matric, however, the Sub Divisional Inspector (Postal) who<\/p>\n
was asked to scrutinize the applications submitted a report to the effect that<\/p>\n
the respondent No.1 does not fulfill the qualification relating to income and<\/p>\n
ownership of property as envisaged in the instructions dated 06.12.1993.<\/p>\n
Consequently the appointment of respondent No.2 was approved on<\/p>\n
27.08.1998, by the Superintendent of Post Offices and the charge of post<\/p>\n
was handed over to him on 02.09.1998. The representation of respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 against his non selection was decided vide order dated 12.06.2001<\/p>\n
(Annexure A-1), the operative portion of which reads as under:-<\/p>\n
            “…..You also stood at Sr. No. 1 according to the marks<\/p>\n
            obtained in Matric. But you have no immoveable property\/<\/p>\n
            agriculture land in your name which according to the rules of<\/p>\n
            the Department is essential. At no 2 of the merit list is the name<\/p>\n
            of Sh Ram Niwas s\/o Sh. Prithi Singh who fulfilled all the<\/p>\n
            conditions according to the rules of the department and as<\/p>\n
            such he was selected for the post”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.1, filed an Original Application,<\/p>\n
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, being OA. No 185-HR of 2002, inter alia, praying for quashing of<\/p>\n
order dated 12.6.2001 (Annexure A-1), as well as the appointment of
\n                         CWP No.5284-CAT of 2004                             -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent No 2, along with a prayer to appoint respondent No.1 to the said<\/p>\n
post. The stand of the petitioner-Union of India before the Tribunal was<\/p>\n
that respondent No.1, though higher in merit, yet he did not possess the<\/p>\n
essential and mandatory qualification of Income and ownership of property<\/p>\n
as he was stated to be working occasionally in the Village as Mason,<\/p>\n
whereas on the other hand respondent No.2 was stated to be running a<\/p>\n
Karyana Shop in the Village. The said original application was allowed by<\/p>\n
the Tribunal, in the first instance, vide order dated 14.11.2002, by holding<\/p>\n
that since the respondent No.1 was having higher marks than respondent<\/p>\n
No.2, the appointment of respondent No.2 was bad in law. The Tribunal<\/p>\n
quashed the appointment of respondent No.2 and directed that if the<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 fulfills all the other requisite eligibility criterion, he shall<\/p>\n
be given appointment in preference to the respondent No 2. It was also<\/p>\n
directed that since respondent No.2 has served the department for about 4<\/p>\n
years by that time, the Department shall consider the feasibility of<\/p>\n
accommodating him on any other alternative post.\n<\/p>\n
             The aforesaid order dated 14.11.2002 passed by the Tribunal<\/p>\n
was challenged by Union of India by filing CWP No.198-CAT-2003, titled<\/p>\n
Union of India and others versus Prem Singh and others, which was<\/p>\n
allowed by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 24.07.2003,<\/p>\n
relying on an earlier decision of this Court in the case CWP No.15356 of<\/p>\n
1996, titled as Union of India versus Prem Chand and another. The<\/p>\n
operative part of the judgment\/order dated 24.07.2003, is reproduced<\/p>\n
hereunder for facility of reference:\n<\/p>\n
             “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused<\/p>\n
             the record. In our opinion, the impugned order is liable to be
\n            CWP No.5284-CAT of 2004                             -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
set aside because while allowing the original application filed<\/p>\n
by the respondent no 1, the Tribunal ignored an important fact<\/p>\n
he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria laid down for<\/p>\n
appointment to the post of EDBPM. In CWP No 15356 of 1996<\/p>\n
Union of India vs. Prem Chand and<\/a> another decided on<\/p>\n
23.03.1998, this Court considered the question whether the<\/p>\n
qualifications   prescribed     for   appointment     of    Extra<\/p>\n
Departmental Agents, the qualification of property is<\/p>\n
mandatory and observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“A careful reading of the qualifications and the contents of the<\/p>\n
letter issued by the Government of India shows that the<\/p>\n
property qualifications prescribed for recruitment of EDBPM<\/p>\n
is an essential and mandatory qualification. The tenor of the<\/p>\n
language used in the rules does not indicate that the rule<\/p>\n
making authority had intended this qualification to directory<\/p>\n
or only a preferential qualification. The letter dated 6.12.1993<\/p>\n
issued by the Government of India also does not give any such<\/p>\n
indication. Therefore it must be held that the Tribunal has<\/p>\n
erred in holding that the provision regarding “adequate means<\/p>\n
of livelihood” is not an essential pre- requisite but is only a<\/p>\n
preferential qualification. Any other interpretation of the letter<\/p>\n
issued by the Government of India would be contrary to the<\/p>\n
rules regulating recruitment to the service.”\n<\/p>\n
It is regrettable that the Tribunal has ignored the law laid<\/p>\n
down by this Court and quashed the appointment of respondent<\/p>\n
No 2.\n<\/p>\n
                         CWP No.5284-CAT of 2004                            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
            At this stage, Shri S.K. Sud counsel for respondent No.1<\/p>\n
            submitted that even if this court is inclined to quash the<\/p>\n
            impugned order his client may be given an opportunity to show<\/p>\n
            that he satisfies other conditions of eligibility and was entitled<\/p>\n
            to be selected for appointment as EDBPM. The prayer of Shri<\/p>\n
            Sud appears reasonable and merits acceptance.\n<\/p>\n
            Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed<\/p>\n
            by the Tribunal is quashed and the case is remanded for fresh<\/p>\n
            decision of the original application filed by respondent No.1.<\/p>\n
            The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on<\/p>\n
            1.09.2003″\n<\/p>\n
            In pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 24.07.2003, passed by<\/p>\n
this Court, the Tribunal re-examined the matter but without any change in<\/p>\n
the result and the Original Application filed by the respondent No.1 has<\/p>\n
again been allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.02.2004. The<\/p>\n
relevant extract of the order of the Tribunal, also containing the reasons<\/p>\n
advanced by the Tribunal in support of its order, is reproduced here under<\/p>\n
for ready reference:-\n<\/p>\n
            “We have considered the rival contentions. Admittedly<\/p>\n
            applicant is more meritorious on the basis of the marks<\/p>\n
            obtained by him in the matriculation examination. Although<\/p>\n
            in the order dated 24.07.2003, the Hon’ble High Court<\/p>\n
            observed that the qualification of property is mandatory for<\/p>\n
            eligibility for appointment to the post of EDBPM, yet it is found<\/p>\n
            that the Hon’ble High Court has not considered the CAT Full
\n            CWP No.5284-CAT of 2004                            -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
Bench Bangalore decision dated 02.12.2002 in the case of<\/p>\n
“H.Lakshmana” (supra) in which the Full Bench after<\/p>\n
considering the various decisions rendered by different courts,<\/p>\n
had held that the condition pertaining to adequate means of<\/p>\n
livelihood in department’s circular of 06.12.93 was invalid. It<\/p>\n
is further observed that possession of adequate means of<\/p>\n
livelihood is neither an absolute condition nor a preferential<\/p>\n
condition required to be considered for the above said post. In<\/p>\n
these circumstances, we are bound by the Full Bench decision<\/p>\n
of the Tribunal. Realising the futility of income and property<\/p>\n
qualification, the Deptt. Of Posts vide circular dated<\/p>\n
17.09.2003 deleted the condition of income preferably from<\/p>\n
landed property\/ immoveable property for recruitment to the<\/p>\n
post of Gram Dak Sevaks.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As such, the candidature of the applicant has to be considered<\/p>\n
on the basis of the basis of the marks obtained by him in<\/p>\n
matriculation examination. Respondents have admitted that<\/p>\n
applicant had obtained the higher marks among the candidates<\/p>\n
considered. His candidature has been rejected only on the<\/p>\n
ground of income and property. No infirmity has been pointed<\/p>\n
out by the respondents in regard to other requisite<\/p>\n
qualification for the post of EDBPM.\n<\/p>\n
Having regard to the facts, circumstances and law as discussed<\/p>\n
above, this O.A. must succeed. Accordingly, Annexure A-1<\/p>\n
dated 14.6.2001 is quashed and set a side. The respondents are<\/p>\n
directed to offer to the applicant the appointment to the post of
\n                         CWP No.5284-CAT of 2004                           -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
            EDBPM, village Gurana BO immediately. It is further directed<\/p>\n
            that since respondent no 5 has served the respondent<\/p>\n
            department for the last over 4 years, the respondent<\/p>\n
            department shall consider the possibility of accommodating<\/p>\n
            him on any alternative post. These order must be complied by<\/p>\n
            the respondents within a period of one month from today. No<\/p>\n
            costs.”\n<\/p>\n
            Against the said order dated 27.02.2004, passed by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, petitioner-Union of India has again approached this Court by way<\/p>\n
of the present writ petition. A bare perusal of the case file shows that while<\/p>\n
issuing notice of motion, notice regarding stay was also issued vide order<\/p>\n
dated 20.03.2004. However thereafter no order either granting or declining<\/p>\n
the stay was passed, infact the issue of stay was never raised before the<\/p>\n
Court. However respondent No.1 moved C.M. Application No.16856 of<\/p>\n
2007 praying for early hearing of the case, in which it has been averred that<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 is out of service. This shows that the petitioner-Union of<\/p>\n
India has not yet implemented the order of the Tribunal dated 27.02.2004<\/p>\n
and has not appointed respondent No.1 to the post of ‘EDBPM’, on account<\/p>\n
of pendency of the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Union of India has<\/p>\n
vehemently argued that the Tribunal fell in grave error in not appreciating<\/p>\n
the fact that the qualification\/condition regarding property prescribed vide<\/p>\n
instructions dated 06.12.1993 (Annexure R-2), for recruitment to the post of<\/p>\n
‘EDBPM’ is essential and mandatory qualification. Since respondent No.1<\/p>\n
did not fulfill the said essential and mandatory qualification of income and<\/p>\n
ownership of property, respondent No.2 who was next at Serial No.2 in the
\n                        CWP No.5284-CAT of 2004                            -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
merit list was rightly selected and appointed as ‘EDBPM’.<\/p>\n
            The learned counsel further contended that this court in Prem<\/p>\n
Chand’s case (supra), has already held that the property qualifications<\/p>\n
prescribed for recruitment of ‘EDBPM’ is an essential and mandatory<\/p>\n
qualification and on the basis of the said judgment, even in the present case<\/p>\n
the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 14.11.2002, has been set aside by this<\/p>\n
Court vide order dated 24.07.2003. The Tribunal has committed patent<\/p>\n
illegality by disregarding the judgment of this Court once again by<\/p>\n
observing that the judgment of this Court has not considered a Full Bench<\/p>\n
Judgment of the Tribunal in H.Lakshmana and ors vs. The Superintendent<\/p>\n
of Post Offices Bellary and ors, reported as 2003(1) Administrative Total<\/p>\n
Judgements 277. The learned counsel relying on the decision of Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs Bhagaben Sarangi and<\/p>\n
others<\/a>, reported as (1995) SCC (L&S) 320 argued that the Tribunal is bound<\/p>\n
by the decision of the High Court of the State and cannot side track or bye<\/p>\n
pass the decision of the High Court, more so, in the present case as the<\/p>\n
judgment was given in a case inter se the parties themselves.<\/p>\n
            On the other hand the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has<\/p>\n
supported the decision of the Tribunal by relying upon the H.Lakshmana’s<\/p>\n
case (supra). He argued that in the said case it has been held that the<\/p>\n
qualification regarding possessing of adequate means of livelihood in the<\/p>\n
circular dated 06.12.1993, is neither an absolute condition nor a preferential<\/p>\n
condition required to be considered for the appointment as ‘EDBPM’. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel further contended that the decision of this Court in Prem<\/p>\n
Chand’s case (supra) has been considered by the Tribunal in the said case.<\/p>\n
            We find that the controversy in present case is no longer res-
\n                        CWP No.5284-CAT of 2004                              -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
integra and is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner-Union of India by<\/p>\n
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt.<\/p>\n
Kiran Singh v. Union of India,<\/a> reported as 2007 (2) S.C.T. 257, wherein the<\/p>\n
same rules and instructions dated 06.12.1993, were considered with regard<\/p>\n
to same post of ‘EDBPM’ and Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-<\/p>\n
            “18. The CAT allowed the application of respondent No.5<\/p>\n
            merely on the sole ground that as respondent No.5 has secured<\/p>\n
            more marks in the High School Examination as against the<\/p>\n
            appellant but it has lost sight of the other eligibility conditions<\/p>\n
            contained in the Service Rules and the Circular governing the<\/p>\n
            selection of the candidate to the post in question. The High<\/p>\n
            Court in its impugned orders has not recorded independent<\/p>\n
            reasons except to agree with the order of the CAT.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the<\/p>\n
            order of the CAT which has been affirmed by the High Court is<\/p>\n
            manifestly erroneous and cannot be sustained. The appellant<\/p>\n
            and respondent No.5 both have qualified the High School<\/p>\n
            Examination by securing first division. The eligibility and<\/p>\n
            criterion for the selection of the candidate to the post of<\/p>\n
            EDBPM as per the Service Rules was not only the merit<\/p>\n
            between the two candidates in High School Examination but<\/p>\n
            the additional criterion was that the candidate must be one<\/p>\n
            who has “adequate means of livelihood derived from landed<\/p>\n
            property or immovable assets” if the candidate is otherwise<\/p>\n
            eligible for appointment. The instructions governing the<\/p>\n
            eligibility of the candidates also provide that no weightage
\n                        CWP No.5284-CAT of 2004                         -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
            will be given for any higher qualification. The appellant has<\/p>\n
            fulfilled the essential qualification and required eligibility<\/p>\n
            criterion and as such her selection to hold the post in<\/p>\n
            question was valid whereas respondent No. 5 was not eligible<\/p>\n
            to be appointed on the post for lack of income criterion in<\/p>\n
            terms of the Circular.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            20. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
            order of the High Court dated 19.12.2003 passed in CMWP<\/p>\n
            No. 56142 of 2003 and order dated 28.01.2005 recorded in<\/p>\n
            CM Review\/Recall Application No.9847 of 2004 are quashed<\/p>\n
            and set aside. As a result thereof, the order dated 24.11.2003<\/p>\n
            of the CAT in OA No. 1041 of 1996 by which the application of<\/p>\n
            respondent No.5 has been allowed and appointment of the<\/p>\n
            appellant has been set aside, shall also stand quashed and set<\/p>\n
            aside.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                       (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
            We find that as was the case in the order under challenge before<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal in the present case has also<\/p>\n
allowed the application of respondent No.1 merely on the sole ground that<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 has secured more marks in the Matriculation Examination<\/p>\n
as against the respondent No 2. However, the Tribunal failed to appreciate<\/p>\n
the fact that respondent No.1 was not eligible to be appointed on the post<\/p>\n
for lack of income criterion in terms of the instructions dated 06.12.1993,<\/p>\n
whereas the respondent No.2 fulfilled the essential qualification and<\/p>\n
required eligibility criterion and as such his selection to the post of<\/p>\n
‘EDBPM’ was valid.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                        CWP No.5284-CAT of 2004                       -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
            In view of the above, we find that the impugned order dated<\/p>\n
27.02.2004 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Tribunal, by which the Original<\/p>\n
Application of the respondent No.1 has been allowed, is not sustainable in<\/p>\n
law. Consequently, the same is quashed and set aside. The appointment of<\/p>\n
the respondent No.2 to the post of ‘EDBPM’ by the petitioner-Union of<\/p>\n
India is held to be in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
            Writ Petition allowed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                        (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)\n                                              JUDGE\n\n\n\nFebruary 24, 2009                             (NIRMALJIT KAUR)\nGulati                                            JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Union Of India And Others vs Prem Singh on 24 February, 2009 CWP No.5284-CAT of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.5284-CAT of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: February 24, 2009 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …PETITIONERS VERSUS PREM SINGH …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. […]<\/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-97098","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India And Others vs Prem Singh on 24 February, 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\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India And Others vs Prem Singh on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-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=\"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-07T16:06:09+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Prem Singh on 24 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-07T16:06:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2623,\"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\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Prem Singh on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-07T16:06:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Prem Singh on 24 February, 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":"Union Of India And Others vs Prem Singh on 24 February, 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\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India And Others vs Prem Singh on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-07T16:06:09+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India And Others vs Prem Singh on 24 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-07T16:06:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009"},"wordCount":2623,"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\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009","name":"Union Of India And Others vs Prem Singh on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-07T16:06:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-prem-singh-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India And Others vs Prem Singh on 24 February, 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\/97098","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=97098"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97098\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97098"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97098"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97098"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}