{"id":116901,"date":"2008-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-29T15:32:32","modified_gmt":"2018-08-29T10:02:32","slug":"shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shri Sampat Dattu Bhosale vs Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde on 5 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Sampat Dattu Bhosale vs Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde on 5 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Nishita Mhatre<\/div>\n
bsb\n\n                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2092 OF 1998\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n      Shri Sampat Dattu Bhosale                        ... Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n                   v\/s\n\n      1. Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde\n      2. The Education Officer (Secondary)\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n         Zilla Parishad, Sangli.\n      3. The Chairman\/Secretary,\n         Shri Chhatrapati Shikshan Sanstha,\n         Agran Dhulgaon, Tal.Kavathe Mahankal,\n         Dist.Sangli.\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n      4. The Dy. Director of Education,\n         Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur.\n      5. Kum. Anusaya Rama Sapkal\n                          \n      6. The Presiding Officer,\n         School Tribunal, Kolhapur.          ... Respondents\n                         \n      Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioner.\n\n      Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the Respondent No.1.\n\n      Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.4.\n        \n\n\n                                  CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.\n     \n\n\n\n                                  DATED: 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2008\n\n      ORAL JUDGMENT:\n           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      1.      The petition is challenging the order of the School<\/p>\n
      Tribunal      passed in Appeal No.53 of 1995.          The     petition<\/p>\n
      has     been filed by an employee who is directly recruited<\/p>\n
      as    Head    Master pursuant to an advertisement issued                  by<\/p>\n
      the institution.       Writ Petition No.2142 of 1998 has been<\/p>\n
      filed    by the institution contending that the               appellant<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
    before      the      School Tribunal did not deserve any                         relief<\/p>\n
    from the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
    2.      The petitioner worked as an Assistant Teacher                               from<\/p>\n
    1.9.1977        to    31.5.1990 in a school run by the                       Khanapur<\/p>\n
    Shikshan        Prasarak Mandal.          An advertisement was                   issued<\/p>\n
    on   16.5.1990 in a local newspaper for filling the                                 post<\/p>\n
    of   Head       Master       in the school run by              respondent            No.3<\/p>\n
    institution.              Interviews          were      held        and      although<\/p>\n
    respondent         No.1      applied for the post pursuant                     to     the<\/p>\n
    advertisement,            she     did not appear for             the       interview.\n<\/p>\n
    The petitioner was selected and appointed as Head Master<\/p>\n
    from 1.6.1990 on probation for two years.                            The Education<\/p>\n
    Officer      approved           this   appointment by an               order        dated<\/p>\n
    21.2.1995,           retrospectively            from           1.6.1990.              The<\/p>\n
    institution           had       appointed      respondent            No.1      as       an<\/p>\n
    Assistant         Teacher        on    probation for two             years       w.e.f.\n<\/p>\n
    11.6.1990.            Prior       to    that,        she    was      appointed          as<\/p>\n
    Assistant         Teacher in each year from 1985 to                        1989-1990.\n<\/p>\n
    Thus,     the        respondent No.1 has worked as                   an     Assistant<\/p>\n
    Teacher      for      5     years      prior    to     1990.         However,         the<\/p>\n
    appointment was for a limited period of one year on each<\/p>\n
    occasion        and the appointment was on a temporary                           basis.\n<\/p>\n
    Undisputedly,          she       was   not appointed           as      a    permanent<\/p>\n
    teacher.          By an order dated 7.6.1990, she was appointed<\/p>\n
    as an Assistant Teacher on probation w.e.f.                             11.6.1990.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
    3.      The petitioner after being selected, assumed office<\/p>\n
    on      20.5.1990.          Undisputedly,           the        respondent              No.1<\/p>\n
    completed five years of service, assuming they are to be<\/p>\n
    treated as continuous, only on 12.6.1990.\n<\/p>\n
    4.     The petitioner continued to work in the school after<\/p>\n
    his     appointment        in     1990.        Respondent         No.1       filed       an<\/p>\n
    appeal         before      the     School        Tribunal           on       24.4.1995<\/p>\n
    contending that, (i) her seniority was wrongly fixed and<\/p>\n
    that     she     was in fact senior to another teacher who                               is<\/p>\n
    respondent       No.5
\n                           ig   in    the petition;            (ii) that          she       was<\/p>\n
    entitled       to     be    appointed to the post of head                         of    the<\/p>\n
    school     and      that     she     had        been     superseded           by        the<\/p>\n
    petitioner       who       was    an outsider in             the      school.           The<\/p>\n
    appeal     was      heard and finally disposed of by                         an     order<\/p>\n
    dated     3.4.1998.        The Tribunal has held that                      respondent<\/p>\n
    No.1     was     entitled to the post of Head Mistress of                              the<\/p>\n
    school w.e.f.          24.4.1995 i.e.           the date of filing of the<\/p>\n
    appeal.        The Tribunal set aside the order appointing the<\/p>\n
    petitioner       as     Head       Master.        The      Tribunal          has       also<\/p>\n
    declared that the approval granted to the appointment of<\/p>\n
    the petitioner as a Head Master was illegal, ineffective<\/p>\n
    and void ab initio.              Respondent No.2 i.e.                 the Education<\/p>\n
    Officer was directed to take steps to recover the salary<\/p>\n
    from     respondent        Nos.1 and 3 i.e.              the       petitioner          and<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
    respondent No.3 herein.                   The institution was directed to<\/p>\n
    pay     respondent           No.1       the salary in the cadre               of     Head<\/p>\n
    Master from 24.4.1995.\n<\/p>\n
    5.      Mr.Bandiwadekar for the petitioner submits that the<\/p>\n
    appeal     itself is not maintainable.                     He points out             that<\/p>\n
    what     is contemplated under Section 9 sub-section (1)(b)<\/p>\n
    of      the     Maharashtra              Employees      of     Private            Schools<\/p>\n
    (Conditions           of          Service)           Regulation            Act,      1977<\/p>\n
    (hereinafter          referred           to    as the    M.E.P.S.            Act),       is<\/p>\n
    supersession            by        the     management         while         making        an<\/p>\n
    appointment<\/p>\n
                         to a post by promotion.                 He further submits<\/p>\n
    that     the     present           case is not one of           supersession             as<\/p>\n
    there     is no question of the management having appointed<\/p>\n
    the     petitioner           by     way of promotion,           superseding            the<\/p>\n
    claim     of the respondent No.1.                  The petitioner has                been<\/p>\n
    appointed        directly           and,      therefore,      the      question          of<\/p>\n
    superseding          the      claim of the respondent No.1 does                        not<\/p>\n
    arise.         He then submits that the Tribunal has not taken<\/p>\n
    into     consideration the delay in filing the appeal.                                   He<\/p>\n
    concedes that an appeal to the Tribunal against an order<\/p>\n
    of     supersession need not be filed within the period                                  of<\/p>\n
    limitation        mentioned             in    Section    9    sub-section            (2).\n<\/p>\n
    However,        he    submits,           it nevertheless          must       be     filed<\/p>\n
    within     a     reasonable             time.     He points          out     that      the<\/p>\n
    present        appeal        has        been filed five       years        after       the<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
    appointment          of    the   petitioner          and,        therefore,           that<\/p>\n
    period     cannot be considered to be a reasonable                               period.\n<\/p>\n
    The     learned       advocate     then argued on merits                      that      the<\/p>\n
    respondent        No.1 had not completed five years continuous<\/p>\n
    service        to be appointed as the head of the school.                                 He<\/p>\n
    draws     my     attention       to     Rule         3    of     the      Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    Employees       of        Private Schools (Conditions                   of     Service)<\/p>\n
    Rules,     1981       (hereinafter referred to as                      the     M.E.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
    Rules),         which        provides          the        qualifications                and<\/p>\n
    appointment          as the Head of the School.                    A person to            be<\/p>\n
    appointed       as        head of the school must have put                       in     not<\/p>\n
    less<\/p>\n
             than five years service.               He points out that                    this<\/p>\n
    service must be continuous and on a permanent basis.                                      He<\/p>\n
    contends that the respondent No.1 in any event could not<\/p>\n
    have been appointed to the post of Head of the School as<\/p>\n
    she did not have the requisite qualifications.\n<\/p>\n
    6.      Reliance          is placed by the learned advocate on                          the<\/p>\n
    judgment       in the case of Secretary, Shri Jamnadas Adukia<\/p>\n
    Charity Trust, Bombay & ors.                 v\/s Chintamani Birjaprasad<\/p>\n
    Dubey     & ors., reported in 2000 II C.L.R.                           142, where           a<\/p>\n
    learned    Single Judge of this Court has held that                                  there<\/p>\n
    can    be no supersession of a person in service in case a<\/p>\n
    person    is appointed as a direct recruit.                            He also draws<\/p>\n
    my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the<\/p>\n
    case     of Union Public Service Commission v\/s                             Hiranyalal<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
    Dev     &     ors.,       reported in A.I.R.          1988 S.C.                1069,       in<\/p>\n
    support          of his contention that supersession is possible<\/p>\n
    only     in        case    of promotion and not of                  selection.             He<\/p>\n
    submits          that, if the appeal itself is not maintainable,<\/p>\n
    then     the        question       of    granting          any      relief          to     the<\/p>\n
    respondent No.1 does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
    7.      Mr.Joshi,          appearing          for   the        institution               i.e.<\/p>\n
    respondent No.3 herein, supports the submission advanced<\/p>\n
    by     Mr.Bandiwadekar.            He further contends that                     assuming<\/p>\n
    the     appointment of the petitioner is irregular inasmuch<\/p>\n
    as no permission was obtained from the Education Officer<\/p>\n
    prior       to      advertising         the     post of        Head      Master,          the<\/p>\n
    respondent          No.1 would not automatically be entitled                               to<\/p>\n
    the post of Head Mistress.                    He further contends that the<\/p>\n
    petitioner          has     been in service with the school for                            18<\/p>\n
    long     years          and this fact should be considered by                            this<\/p>\n
    Court       while        passing the final order in                   the      petition.\n<\/p>\n
    The     learned advocate also submits that respondent                                    No.1<\/p>\n
    ought         to        have    challenged          the      issuance           of         the<\/p>\n
    advertisement             itself      as the rights of respondent                        No.1<\/p>\n
    were     crystlized            when     the     advertisement            was      issued.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore,          he     submits, the delay in filing the                         appeal<\/p>\n
    would       be      a     hurdle for the respondent                 No.1       to        cross<\/p>\n
    before any reliefs can be granted to her.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
    8.      Mr.Mankapure,          the learned advocate for                respondent<\/p>\n
    No.1,     submits          that the appeal is maintainable                  as     any<\/p>\n
    order     of        supersession can be challenged in the                     School<\/p>\n
    Tribunal.            He      submits         that    supersession                means<\/p>\n
    replacement,          by     relying on the dictionary               meaning         of<\/p>\n
    “supersession”             and, therefore, any order replacing                     the<\/p>\n
    respondent          No.1,     who    was acting as a          Head       Mistress,<\/p>\n
    amounts        to    supersession.           He places reliance             on     the<\/p>\n
    judgment        of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the<\/p>\n
    case     of     Nagpur       Shikshan Mandal & anr.               v\/s     Haribhau<\/p>\n
    Nathuji        Mohod       & ors., reported in 2008(3) All                  MR     171<\/p>\n
    another        judgment
\n                            ig   between the same parties reported                       in<\/p>\n
    2007(2)        Bom.C.R.       50.    He submits that the               petitioner<\/p>\n
    was appointed pursuant to an advertisement issued by the<\/p>\n
    institution          although       the latter was well aware of                   the<\/p>\n
    fact     that       respondent No.1 had completed five years                         in<\/p>\n
    service and, therefore, would be entitled to the post of<\/p>\n
    Head     of     the School.         He submits, therefore,               that      the<\/p>\n
    appeal        is maintainable as held by the School                      Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
    As     regards       the    question of       limitation,          the      learned<\/p>\n
    advocate        submits      that right from 1989, the                 respondent<\/p>\n
    No.1     was     corresponding with both, the school                      and      the<\/p>\n
    Education        Department, contending that her seniority had<\/p>\n
    been wrongly fixed.             According to him, had the seniority<\/p>\n
    of     respondent No.1 been fixed correctly, she would have<\/p>\n
    been     shown       senior to respondent No.1 and,                  would       have<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
    automatically            been eligible to be appointed as head                       of<\/p>\n
    the    School.          The learned advocate then submits that                       in<\/p>\n
    any    event the appointment of the petitioner is illegal,<\/p>\n
    because       no    permission was obtained from the                     Education<\/p>\n
    Department         prior to advertising the post of Head of the<\/p>\n
    School.        He       submits,      while placing       reliance          on      the<\/p>\n
    judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case<\/p>\n
    of     Tara    Ramesh          Tupkar v\/s     Pramod     Shikshan         Sanstha,<\/p>\n
    reported       in       1999 (Supp.) Bom.C.R.          119, in support               of<\/p>\n
    this     contention,           that the management of a              school        can<\/p>\n
    advertise      a        post    of    head of the      school        only         after<\/p>\n
    obtaining<\/p>\n
                   permission from the Education                    Officer\/Deputy<\/p>\n
    Director.          He     urges that sub-rule 5(b) of Rule                    3    has<\/p>\n
    been     breached by the institution, as admittedly,                             prior<\/p>\n
    permission         was not sought while advertising the post of<\/p>\n
    Head of the School.\n<\/p>\n
    9.     The     first issue which will have to be                     decided         is<\/p>\n
    whether       the appeal itself is maintainable.                     The meaning<\/p>\n
    of     the     verb       “supersede”       in   the      Conscise            Oxford<\/p>\n
    Dictionary         is – “(a) “adopt” or appoint another                       person<\/p>\n
    or thing in place of.                (b) set aside;       cease to employ.”\n<\/p>\n
    The    meaning       assigned        to the word “supersede”                in     the<\/p>\n
    Black’s       Law   Dictionary (Eighth Edition) is –                      “1.        To<\/p>\n
    annul,    make void, or repeal by taking the place of;                               2.\n<\/p>\n
    To    invoke       or make applicable the right of                   supersedeas<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
    against.”         Therefore,      the          term    “supersession”              means<\/p>\n
    replacing a person or thing.\n<\/p>\n
    10.      In the case of Union Public Service Commission v\/s<\/p>\n
    Hiranyalal Dev & ors., reported in A.I.R.                            1988 SC 1069,<\/p>\n
    the    Supreme       Court     has    considered             whether        a    direct<\/p>\n
    recruit      could     supersede          persons who were               already        in<\/p>\n
    service.          A Selection Committee had been appointed                            and<\/p>\n
    the    Committee       selected       a        person        in     preference          to<\/p>\n
    another.      The Supreme Court has observed that this could<\/p>\n
    not    amount to supersession of a junior by a senior.                                  It<\/p>\n
    also held that the concept of “supersession” is relevant<\/p>\n
    in    the    context of promotion and not in the context                                of<\/p>\n
    selection.          Similarly,       in     the       case     of     Secy.         Shri<\/p>\n
    Jamnadas Adukia Charity Trust v\/s Chintamani Birjaprasad<\/p>\n
    Dubey & ors., reported in 2000 II C.L.R.                           142, a learned<\/p>\n
    Single      Judge     of   this      Court has held               that      a    direct<\/p>\n
    appointee to a post could not supersede a person who was<\/p>\n
    already      in     service.      Supersession, it                 was      observed,<\/p>\n
    takes place only when a junior employee is promoted to a<\/p>\n
    higher      post, overriding the claim of a senior                           employee<\/p>\n
    in his cadre.\n<\/p>\n
    11.   I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by<\/p>\n
    the   learned       Single Judge of this Court in Secy.                             Shri<\/p>\n
    Jamnadas     Adukia Charity Trust (supra).                        When there is a<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
    case of supersession it presupposes that a person who is<\/p>\n
    junior      in     rank overrides the claim of a person who                                is<\/p>\n
    senior      to     him and is appointed instead of his                          senior.\n<\/p>\n
    Section      9 of the M.E.P.S.                Act clearly stipulates                  that<\/p>\n
    an    appeal is maintainable by a person who is superseded<\/p>\n
    by    the    management while making an appointment                             to        any<\/p>\n
    post by promotion.              Obviously some meaning would have to<\/p>\n
    be assigned to the expression “by promotion” used in the<\/p>\n
    section.         In my opinion, there can be no supersession by<\/p>\n
    a     direct recruit.            The submission of Mr.Mankapure                       that<\/p>\n
    any    replacement          of     a person by        whatever          means         i.e.<\/p>\n
    whether<\/p>\n
                 by overriding the claim of a senior by a junior<\/p>\n
    or    by overriding a claim by appointing an outsider                                     can<\/p>\n
    be      challenged         before       the       School       Tribunal.                  The<\/p>\n
    submission         is unsustainable because the School Tribunal<\/p>\n
    is    not    competent to decide disputes between                           a    direct<\/p>\n
    recruit      and     a     person       in        service     as     there           is     no<\/p>\n
    supersession in fact.                 Assuming Mr.Mankapure is right in<\/p>\n
    submitting         that        a supersession means replacement of                          a<\/p>\n
    person,      the     expression “by promotion” used in                          Section<\/p>\n
    9(1)(b)      of the M.E.P.S.             Act cannot be ignored and must<\/p>\n
    be given effect.           Thus, only the replacement of a person<\/p>\n
    by    promotion          can     be     challenged         before       the      School<\/p>\n
    Tribunal.          The     appeal itself filed by respondent                          No.1<\/p>\n
    was    not competent and the Tribunal had no                          jurisdiction<\/p>\n
    to    decide       the     same.        The        Tribunal        ought        to        have<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
    therefore dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    12.      Turning          now to the issue of limitation, it is                             no<\/p>\n
    doubt       true that a supersession can be challenged                                 under<\/p>\n
    Section          9(1)(b)       before    the Tribunal at any                    time      and<\/p>\n
    there       is     no fixed period of limitation.                          However,         it<\/p>\n
    would       not     give a licence to a person to challenge                               the<\/p>\n
    order       passed        in favour of another who she                      claims        has<\/p>\n
    superseded          her       after     an    inordinate           delay.          In     the<\/p>\n
    present case, respondent No.1 has contended that she was<\/p>\n
    pursuing          other       remedies       of      corresponding              with      the<\/p>\n
    authorities<\/p>\n
                             in     order    to        redress         her        grievance.\n<\/p>\n
    Admittedly,          the       respondent          No.1     has      not      filed       any<\/p>\n
    application          for       condoning       the        delay      in     filing        her<\/p>\n
    appeal.           Instead,        it was only after the management                          in<\/p>\n
    its     written          statement       contended          that       there       was      no<\/p>\n
    application          filed       for     condoning the             delay        and      that<\/p>\n
    therefore          the        appeal    should       be     dismissed,           that       an<\/p>\n
    application          for       condoning the delay was filed                       by     the<\/p>\n
    respondent          No.1.         That application was opposed by                         the<\/p>\n
    petitioner          by filing his reply.                  However, the           Tribunal<\/p>\n
    chose       not     to        pass any order on that               application            and<\/p>\n
    instead          decided all issues together.                    The Tribunal             was<\/p>\n
    of    the        opinion that there was no delay on the part                                of<\/p>\n
    the respondent No.1 in filing the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
    13.       It        is     now     trite   that     merely         engaging           in<\/p>\n
    correspondence              for redressal of one’s grievance over                       a<\/p>\n
    long     period           of time is not sufficient to              explain         the<\/p>\n
    delay     in        filing an appeal.           In the present           case,      the<\/p>\n
    respondent           No.1     was aware that the          advertisement             was<\/p>\n
    issued        on        16.5.1990.    She chose not to           challenge          the<\/p>\n
    issuance           of     the advertisement and instead applied                     for<\/p>\n
    the     post of Head of the School.                 Thus, she was aware of<\/p>\n
    the     advertisement             having   been      issued        on     16.5.1990<\/p>\n
    itself.            She     was     also aware that the         petitioner           was<\/p>\n
    appointed           on     28.5.1990 as she was working in the                    same<\/p>\n
    school.\n<\/p>\n
                       If the petitioner’s contention that she was in<\/p>\n
    continuous service is accepted, she completed five years<\/p>\n
    on     12.6.1990.           Therefore, according to her, she                   should<\/p>\n
    have     been appointed on that date as Head of the School.\n<\/p>\n
    However,           she chose to remain silent even on                   completion<\/p>\n
    of     five        years.        She continued her      correspondence              and<\/p>\n
    claims        that the Education Officer had assured her                          that<\/p>\n
    approval           could not be granted to the appointment of the<\/p>\n
    petitioner           to     the post of Head Master and,                 therefore,<\/p>\n
    she     did        not     challenge his appointment.              It     was     only<\/p>\n
    after     the           approval     was accorded that she              decided       to<\/p>\n
    challenge           the     appointment     of    the     petitioner.             This<\/p>\n
    submission again cannot be accepted.                      The requirement of<\/p>\n
    approval           of the appointment of a person to a particular<\/p>\n
    post,     if        not     met, does not necessarily              lead      to     the<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
    inference         that the appointment is illegal.                      As held         by<\/p>\n
    the Full Bench of our Court in the case of St.Ullai High<\/p>\n
    School       &    anr.        v\/s Devendra Prasad            Jagannath           Singh,<\/p>\n
    reported         in     2007     (1) Mh.L.J.      597,
\n                                                      597 the            rejection          of<\/p>\n
    approval         for an appointment would not necessarily                           mean<\/p>\n
    that    the       management can terminate the services                          of     an<\/p>\n
    employee         automatically;           nor   would it mean               that      the<\/p>\n
    services         would       automatically come to an end after                       the<\/p>\n
    approval         was     refused.       Thus, assuming no approval                    was<\/p>\n
    granted,         the petitioner was entitled to continue on the<\/p>\n
    post    at       the risk of the management.                   Respondent             No.1<\/p>\n
    ought<\/p>\n
             to have filed the appeal within a reasonable time<\/p>\n
    and,    in my opinion, a period of five years is certainly<\/p>\n
    not a reasonable time in the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
    14.     On       merits,       there     can be    no       dispute         that       the<\/p>\n
    advertisement            which       was issued for appointment of                    the<\/p>\n
    Head    of       the School had not been issued                    in     compliance<\/p>\n
    with    Rule       3(5)(a)        of     the    M.E.P.S.           Rules.          Prior<\/p>\n
    permission         of the Education Officer\/Deputy Director for<\/p>\n
    advertising            the    post     is mandatory.           Admittedly,            the<\/p>\n
    management         has not obtained this permission as required<\/p>\n
    under    Rule          3(5)(a).       The Division Bench of this                   Court<\/p>\n
    has     observed in the judgment of Tara Ramesh Tupkar                                v\/s<\/p>\n
    Pramod    Shikshan            Sanstha    &      ors.        (supra),         that       an<\/p>\n
    appointment           which    is in violation of sub-rule 5(a)                         of<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
    Rule    3,     must be quashed.             However, these           observations<\/p>\n
    were    made     in the matter where the appeal filed by                             the<\/p>\n
    employee       was        maintainable.       Post facto            approval         has<\/p>\n
    undoubtedly          been     given    to      the     appointment            of     the<\/p>\n
    petitioner.           His     appointment      has         been      approved          on<\/p>\n
    21.2.1995       with effect from 1.6.1990.                  However, it            must<\/p>\n
    be     borne in mind that the grant-in-aid was extended                                to<\/p>\n
    the    school        by     the order of the          Education          Department<\/p>\n
    dated 4.6.1990.             Thus, when the advertisement was issued<\/p>\n
    on      16.6.1990,           the    School      was      not        getting          any<\/p>\n
    grant-in-aid          and, therefore, in my opinion, no approval<\/p>\n
    was necessary from
\n                           ig      the Education         Department            prior       to<\/p>\n
    issuance of the advertisement.\n<\/p>\n
    15.      In    my     view, the Tribunal has erred                   in     granting<\/p>\n
    relief to the respondent No.1 when the appeal itself was<\/p>\n
    not    maintainable and had been filed after an inordinate<\/p>\n
    delay of five years.               The petition must succeed.\n<\/p>\n
    16.      The    impugned order is set aside.                      Writ      petition<\/p>\n
    allowed.\n<\/p>\n
    17.    Rule made absolute.             No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
    18.      Respondent          No.1 may approach any other forum                       for<\/p>\n
    redressal       of her grievance.            If any litigation is filed<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                         15<\/span><\/p>\n
    by     respondent No.1 in respect of the subject matter                      of<\/p>\n
    this    petition,      the     appropriate forum will          take      into<\/p>\n
    account     the     pendency     of this petition in         this       Court<\/p>\n
    while     deciding     whether    the application or           any      other<\/p>\n
    litigation        filed by the respondent No.1 has been                 filed<\/p>\n
    within the period of limitation.\n<\/p>\n
    19.      Civil     Application     No.1768 of    2008      also       stands<\/p>\n
    disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:26 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri Sampat Dattu Bhosale vs Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde on 5 September, 2008 Bench: Nishita Mhatre bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2092 OF 1998 Shri Sampat Dattu Bhosale … Petitioner v\/s 1. Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde 2. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-116901","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Sampat Dattu Bhosale vs Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde on 5 September, 2008 - 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\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Sampat Dattu Bhosale vs Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-29T10:02:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Sampat Dattu Bhosale vs Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde on 5 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-29T10:02:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2971,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Shri Sampat Dattu Bhosale vs Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-29T10:02:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Sampat Dattu Bhosale vs Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde on 5 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Sampat Dattu Bhosale vs Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde on 5 September, 2008 - 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\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Sampat Dattu Bhosale vs Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-29T10:02:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Sampat Dattu Bhosale vs Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde on 5 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-29T10:02:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008"},"wordCount":2971,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008","name":"Shri Sampat Dattu Bhosale vs Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-29T10:02:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sampat-dattu-bhosale-vs-sou-archana-chandrakant-shinde-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Sampat Dattu Bhosale vs Sou Archana Chandrakant Shinde on 5 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/116901","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=116901"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116901\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}