{"id":103535,"date":"2011-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011"},"modified":"2017-11-27T00:56:26","modified_gmt":"2017-11-26T19:26:26","slug":"madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Madhup Nath Jha vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan &amp; &#8230; on 4 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Madhup Nath Jha vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan &amp; &#8230; on 4 August, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S. Muralidhar<\/div>\n<pre>        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                               W.P. (C) 3918\/2000\n\n\n                                              Reserved on: July 20, 2011\n                                              Decision on: August 4, 2011\n\n\n        MADHUP NATH JHA                           ..... Petitioner\n                      Through: Ms. Rekha Palli with\n                      Ms. Punam Singh and Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advocates.\n\n\n                versus\n\n\n        RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN\n        &amp; ORS.                                           ..... Respondents\n                       Through: Mr. Ravinder Dayal, Advocate for R-5.\n\n        CORAM:         JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR\n\n                1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n                    allowed to see the judgment?                        No\n                2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?               No\n                3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?   No\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                04.08.2011<\/p>\n<p>1. The Petitioner challenges an order dated 10th May 2000 issued by the Rashtriya<br \/>\nSanskrit Sansthan, Respondent No. 1, reverting him from the post of Lecturer in<br \/>\nHistory to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (\u201ePGT\u201f) (History) in Respondent No. 3<br \/>\nRani Padmavati Tara Yogatantra Mahavidyalaya. The Petitioner also challenges the<br \/>\nconsequential order dated 3rd July, 2000 issued by Respondent No. 3 stating that since<br \/>\nno direction had been issued by Respondent No. 1, no salary would be paid to the<br \/>\nPetitioner in the reverted post.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Respondent No. 1 is under the administrative control of the Union of India through<br \/>\nthe Ministry of Human Resources Development (\u201eHRD Ministry\u201f) Respondent No. 2.<br \/>\nRespondent No. 3 is an institution in Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh affiliated to<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P. (C) No. 3918 of 2000                                                    Page 1 of 5<\/span><br \/>\n Respondent No. 1 and is an autonomous body functioning under the administrative<br \/>\nand financial control of Respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The Petitioner states that he was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (\u201eTGT\u201f)<br \/>\non 4th August, 1992 by the Managing Committee (\u201eMC\u201f) of Respondent No. 3 after<br \/>\nobserving the due formalities. The Petitioner states that at the time of his appointment<br \/>\nas a TGT, he had a BA degree. Subsequently he qualified for the MA degree securing<br \/>\nmore than 55% marks. According to the Petitioner he was promoted to the post of<br \/>\nPGT after passing through various tests and interviews. Although in para \u201eE\u201f of the<br \/>\nwrit petition the Petitioner has stated that he was promoted to the post of &#8220;PGT in the<br \/>\nDepartment of History as lecturer on 18th January 1996&#8221;, he has subsequently clarified<br \/>\nin response to an application filed by the Respondents that this was a typographical<br \/>\nerror. The Petitioner has clarified that his claim is that he was promoted to the post of<br \/>\nPGT on 18th January, 1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. It is the Petitioner&#8217;s case that on 17th November 1998, Respondent No. 1 issued an<br \/>\noffice order relating to the recognition of Respondent No. 3 and about the grant of<br \/>\nfinancial assistance to institutions recognized by Respondent No. 1. In the said office<br \/>\norder the name of the Petitioner finds place at serial number 8 under the caption<br \/>\nteaching staff in which he is shown as a lecturer. The Petitioner claims that when an<br \/>\nExpert Committee (\u201eEC\u201f) constituted by Respondent No.1 visited Respondent No. 3<br \/>\non 14th April 1997, it examined the relevant records of appointments of teaching and<br \/>\nnon-teaching staff. The EC came to the conclusion that there were irregularities and<br \/>\ntherefore decided to screen, meticulously and closely, performance of the teaching<br \/>\nstaff. It is claimed by the Petitioner that the EC found that Respondent No. 5 was not<br \/>\nqualified for the post of lecturer in history. He claims that the EC found the Petitioner<br \/>\nto be suitable for the post of lecturer and made a recommendation in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The Petitioner states that on 2nd December, 1998 a letter was issued appointing the<br \/>\nPetitioner as a lecturer in history on probation with effect from 29th October 1998 for a<br \/>\nperiod of two years. A second review committee met on 24th September 1999 and<br \/>\nreviewed the appointments made to both teaching and non-teaching staff in<br \/>\nRespondent No.3. This committee recommended that Respondent No. 5 be appointed<br \/>\nas lecturer in history, that the Petitioner be reverted to the post of PGT, and that one<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P. (C) No. 3918 of 2000                                                     Page 2 of 5<\/span><br \/>\n post of PGT in history be created for him. This led to the impugned orders being<br \/>\npassed.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Aggrieved by the decision of the EC not to recommend his appointment as lecturer,<br \/>\nRespondent No. 5 approached the High Court of Allahabad by filing W. P. (C) No.<br \/>\n43882 of 1998. Respondent No. 3 contested this writ petition and filed an affidavit<br \/>\nstating that Respondent No. 5 in fact had much less marks in his post graduate degree<br \/>\nin comparison to the Petitioner and therefore, was found unsuitable for the post of<br \/>\nlecturer in history. However, the said writ petition was subsequently withdrawn and<br \/>\nRespondent No. 5 was appointed as lecturer in history. The case of the Petitioner is<br \/>\nthat his reversion to a non-existent post of PGT was stigmatic and punitive, and in any<br \/>\nevent violative of the principles of natural justice. Further, the Petitioner\u201fs salary has<br \/>\nalso not been paid by Respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Respondent No. 5 in his reply to the present writ petition has pointed out that he<br \/>\nwas appointed initially as a lecturer in history on ad hoc basis in Respondent No. 3<br \/>\nwith effect from 4th August 1992.        At the time of such appointment he had a<br \/>\npostgraduate degree in history. He had passed the B. Ed. examination in 1992. He also<br \/>\nhad an M. Phil. degree. He had enrolled for a Ph.D. from the Banaras Hindu<br \/>\nUniversity and a provisional Ph.D. degree was awarded to him on 4th December 2000.<br \/>\nRespondent No. 5 states that in 1993 the requisite qualifications for being appointed as<br \/>\na lecturer was an MA in 2nd class in the subject concerned, a B. Ed. degree and at least<br \/>\n3 years\u201f teaching experience. He states that by the time the EC was constituted by<br \/>\nRespondent No. 1 visited Respondent No. 3 on 14th April 1997 Respondent No. 5 had<br \/>\n4 years and 8 months\u201f teaching experience as lecturer in history. At the time when<br \/>\nRespondent No. 5 joined as lecturer in history the Petitioner only had a BA degree and<br \/>\nwas appointed, therefore, only as a TGT. He did not possess even a B. Ed. degree. It is<br \/>\npointed out that the Petitioner qualified in MA in 1993 with 58.5% marks but was<br \/>\nwrongly promoted from TGT to PGT without the approval of a duly constituted expert<br \/>\ncommittee. When the second expert committee visited the college it was realised that<br \/>\nthe Petitioner was not even qualified to be appointed as a TGT in history. Respondent<br \/>\nNo. 5 further states that as per the norms of the University Grants Commission<br \/>\n(\u201eUGC\u201f) he is fully qualified as he had in 1990 itself a master\u201fs degree in History with<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P. (C) No. 3918 of 2000                                                      Page 3 of 5<\/span><br \/>\n 52.5%. This was above the requirement of 50% as mentioned in the UGC Guidelines.<br \/>\nOn the other hand, the Petitioner did not fulfill the UGC norms.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. The stand of Respondent No. 5 has been fully supported by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.<br \/>\nIt is contended that apart from the fact that the Petitioner was not qualified to be<br \/>\nappointed to the post of even a TGT as he did not have a B. Ed. degree, his promotion<br \/>\nto the post of PGT was illegal. The inclusion of the Petitioner\u201fs name in the circular<br \/>\ndated 17th November, 1998 showing him to be a lecturer in history is stated to be a<br \/>\nmistake. Further, the letter appointing him as lecturer dated 2nd December 1998 made<br \/>\nit clear that he was to be on probation for a period of two years. Consequently the<br \/>\nPetitioner could not claim any right to hold the post.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. The stand of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is that Respondent No. 3 has to abide by the<br \/>\nnorms laid down by Respondent No. 1. This includes strict application of the UGC<br \/>\nnorms in the matter of recruitment of teaching staff. It is reiterated that the Petitioner<br \/>\nwas not qualified to hold the post of PGT in history as he did not possess the B. Ed.<br \/>\ndegree.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. The principal issue to be decided in the present case is whether the reversion of the<br \/>\nPetitioner from the post of lecturer in history to a PGT in history is justified in law?<br \/>\nThe comparative merits of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 for being appointed as<br \/>\nlecturers in history is an incidental issue.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. The Petitioner states that he has a postgraduate degree in history with 58.5%<br \/>\nmarks. It is not in dispute that for appointment as a lecturer in history a candidate<br \/>\nshould possess a second class postgraduate degree, i.e., MA, a B. Ed. degree and at<br \/>\nleast three years\u201f teaching experience. It is further not in dispute that the UGC norms<br \/>\nrequired the candidate to have a masters degree in the relevant subject with at least<br \/>\n55% marks or its equivalent grade. This according to Respondent No.5 is relaxable up<br \/>\nto 50%. However, as further clarified by the Respondents 1 to 4 the norms stipulated<br \/>\nfor the 95% grant-in-aid required the candidate to have a B. Ed and a Ph.D. degree or<br \/>\nto have qualified the NET. Respondent No.5 had a Ph.D at the time of his appointment<br \/>\nas ad hoc lecturer. However the Petitioner did not possess a B. Ed. on the date that he<br \/>\nwas promoted as a PGT in the Department of History. He was not a Ph.D at the time<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P. (C) No. 3918 of 2000                                                      Page 4 of 5<\/span><br \/>\n of his appointment as Lecturer. The Petitioner has not been able to deny that<br \/>\nRespondent No. 5 possessed a higher qualification. Apart from an M.A. and a B. Ed.<br \/>\ndegree, he also had an M. Phil. and 4 years and 8 months of teaching experience. In<br \/>\nthe circumstances, the stand taken by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 about the Petitioner<br \/>\nhaving been promoted as a PGT in History by mistake and further not being qualified<br \/>\nto be appointed as a lecturer in history appears to be justified. In terms of seniority<br \/>\nRespondent No. 5 was appointed as an ad hoc lecturer in 1992 itself and on a regular<br \/>\nbasis with effect from 1993, whereas the Petitioner was only appointed as a TGT in<br \/>\n1992 for which again he was not qualified as he did not possess a B. Ed. degree. In the<br \/>\ncircumstances the decision of Respondent No. 3 to not continue the Petitioner in the<br \/>\npost of lecturer history cannot be held to be illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on 17th April 2001 by Respondent<br \/>\nNos. 1 to 4 is that since the Petitioner was not qualified he was not fit to be retained.<br \/>\nHowever, the impugned order does revert the Petitioner to the post of PGT in history.<br \/>\nDuring the course of submissions it was stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner<br \/>\nthat the Petitioner has been paid the salary as TGT from 12th January 2007 onwards. A<br \/>\ncopy of a letter dated 12th January 2007 addressed by the Principal of Respondent No.<br \/>\n3 to the Petitioner shows that the Petitioner was, pursuant to a letter dated 18th<br \/>\nDecember 2006 of Respondent No. 1 and the decision dated 16th December 2006 of<br \/>\nthe Managing Committee of Respondent No. 3, appointed as PGT History on<br \/>\ntemporary basis for a period of two years. However, the said letter asks the Petitioner<br \/>\nto withdraw the present petition. Considering that the impugned order already reverted<br \/>\nthe Petitioner to the post of PGT History with effect from 10th July 2000, the further<br \/>\ndecision ten years later to appoint him to the said post on temporary basis appears to<br \/>\nbe intriguing. The Petitioner ought to be paid the salary as PGT History for the entire<br \/>\nperiod he has worked on the said post. Accordingly it is directed that the Petitioner<br \/>\nshould within a period of eight weeks be paid by the Respondents his salary as PGT<br \/>\nHistory for the entire period that he has served on the said post after adjusting the<br \/>\namount already paid to him. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                             S. MURALIDHAR, J<br \/>\nAUGUST 04, 2011<br \/>\ndp<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P. (C) No. 3918 of 2000                                                     Page 5 of 5<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Madhup Nath Jha vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan &amp; &#8230; on 4 August, 2011 Author: S. Muralidhar IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) 3918\/2000 Reserved on: July 20, 2011 Decision on: August 4, 2011 MADHUP NATH JHA &#8230;.. Petitioner Through: Ms. Rekha Palli with Ms. Punam Singh and [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103535","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Madhup Nath Jha vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan &amp; ... on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madhup Nath Jha vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan &amp; ... on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-26T19:26:26+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madhup Nath Jha vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan &amp; &#8230; on 4 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-26T19:26:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1857,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Madhup Nath Jha vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan &amp; ... on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-26T19:26:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madhup Nath Jha vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan &amp; &#8230; on 4 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Madhup Nath Jha vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan &amp; ... on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madhup Nath Jha vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan &amp; ... on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-26T19:26:26+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madhup Nath Jha vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan &amp; &#8230; on 4 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-26T19:26:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011"},"wordCount":1857,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011","name":"Madhup Nath Jha vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan &amp; ... on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-26T19:26:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhup-nath-jha-vs-rashtriya-sanskrit-sansthan-on-4-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madhup Nath Jha vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan &amp; &#8230; on 4 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/103535","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=103535"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103535\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103535"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103535"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103535"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}