{"id":131739,"date":"2006-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006"},"modified":"2016-12-01T03:51:27","modified_gmt":"2016-11-30T22:21:27","slug":"minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & … vs C.B.S.E. & Ors on 13 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & … vs C.B.S.E. & Ors on 13 November, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4908 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nMinor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nC.B.S.E. & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No.11820 of 2006)<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tChallenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a
\nDivision Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the
\nLetters Patent Appeal which was filed by the Cambridge School
\nParents Association and another questioning legality of the
\njudgment and order dated 15.6.2006 passed by a learned
\nSingle Judge in a Writ Petition.  In the Writ Petition prayer was
\nfor a direction to the respondent-Central Board of Secondary
\nEducation (in short the ‘CBSE’) to allow the students to appear
\nin the examination conducted by CBSE and to publish their
\nresults.  The Writ Petition related to 159 students of Class X
\nand 121 students of class XII of the Cambridge School,
\nTatisilwai, Ranchi for appearing in the examination which was
\nscheduled to be held on 1st March, 2006. Though initially
\nlearned Single Judge had permitted candidates to appear
\npursuant to interim order dated 27.2.2006, subsequently the
\nwrit petition was dismissed on the ground that the school was
\nnot affiliated to the CBSE and, therefore, no direction sought
\nfor could be given.  In the appeal filed under Clause 10 of
\nLetters Patent, the view was endorsed.\n<\/p>\n
In support of the appeal learned counsel for the
\nappellants submitted that for no fault of theirs, the academic
\ncareer of nearly 300 students is being jeopardized. Non-
\naffiliation for some particular years has been highlighted by
\nlearned Single Judge and the Division Bench overlooking the
\nfacts that affiliation has been granted on 29.8.2006 for the
\nacademic session 2006-07 covering the period from 1.4.2006
\nto 31.3.2007.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn response, learned counsel appearing for CBSE and its
\nfunctionaries submitted that the present appellants were
\nproforma respondents before the High Court and the
\nCambridge School Parents Association purporting to be an
\nunregistered Association of Parents of children studying in the
\nsaid institution was the appellant. Further one of the proforma
\nrespondents was the appellant No. 2 before the High Court.  It
\nis pointed out that law is fairly well settled that students of
\nnon-affiliated schools cannot claim any relief on equitable
\nground. Any sympathy shown to the students of the
\nunaffiliated and\/or non-recognised institutions would be mis-
\nplaced sympathy.\n<\/p>\n
\tCertain facts which are undisputed need to be noted:\n<\/p>\n
The respondent No. 4 the Cambridge School had applied
\nfor grant of affiliation in September 1994 and was granted
\naffiliation for a period of three years i.e. with effect from
\n1.4.1994 to 31.3.1997.  The school applied for upgradation to
\nplus 2 stage and the school was accorded upgradation up to
\nplus 2 stage for a period of three years from 1.4.1996 to
\n31.3.1999.  The affiliation of the school at Secondary\/Sr.
\nSecondary level was further extended for a period of three
\nyears from 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2002 and thereafter up to
\n31.3.2005 subject to fulfillment of Examination Bye Laws and
\nthe Affiliation Bye Laws of CBSE.  As per the Affiliation Bye-
\nLaws of CBSE, the school applying for affiliation has to fulfill
\ncertain essential conditions.  The relevant provisions relating
\nto affiliation in the Bye Laws are as under:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tIt is mandatory for a school affiliated to
\nBoard to follow the Examination Bye-\n<\/p>\n
Laws of the Board in toto;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  No affiliated school shall endeavor to
\npresent the candidates who are not on its
\nroll nor shall it present the candidates of
\nits unaffiliated Branch\/School to any of
\nthe Board’s Examination.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) \tIf the Board has reasons to believe that
\nan affiliated school is not following the
\nSub-section 1 & 2 of this Section, the
\nBoard may resort to penalties as
\nprescribed hereunder.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) \tEvery affiliated school shall present a list
\nof number of students and their
\nparticulars in respect of Classes IX, X, XI
\n& XII at the time of beginning of an
\nacademic session.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to the respondent CBSE, the school in gross
\nviolation of Affiliation Bye-Laws was admitting large number of
\nstudents in the secondary and senior secondary classes
\nwithout providing support in terms of infrastructural facilities
\nand also without adequate provision of qualified teachers.
\nThere were 30 sections in the school in classes IX to XII
\nwhereas there were only 40 sections from Nursery to Class
\nVIII.  It was also found that the school had admitted students
\nfrom other unauthorized schools and sponsoring the students
\nof unaffiliated school through this school.  Inspection by the
\nInspection Committee constituted by CBSE was conducted
\nand the Inspection Committee found that the school was not
\nabiding by the Examination Bye Laws\/Affiliation Bye Laws of
\nthe CBSE.  It was further noticed that in clear violation of the
\nnorms, the Cambridge School, Tatiswal, Ranchi which was the
\nonly school affiliated with the CBSE was running three schools
\nwhich were not affiliated with the CBSE, they are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tKamla Nehru Vidya Mandir Tatisilwai, Ranchi,\n<\/p>\n
2.\tCambridge School, Kumartoli, Ranchi,\n<\/p>\n
3.\tCambridge School, Morhabodi, Ranchi.\n<\/p>\n
The Inspection Committee found that the said school was not
\nin a position to accommodate a large number of candidates as
\nhas been sponsored by it for taking All India Secondary School
\nExamination and All India Senior School Certificate
\nExamination to be held in the year 2002 and 2003.  Other
\ndeficiencies were also noticed.  One of the major infraction was
\nthat the school failed to produce the original school records,
\nnamely acquaintance roll of the teaching\/non teaching staff
\nworking the school affiliated with the CBSE, fee collection
\nregister and the  class wise attendance register. A large
\nnumber of students had been sponsored for appearance,
\nthough the number of bonafide students was much less.
\nNotice was sent to the school to show cause as to why
\nnecessary actions are not to be taken to withdraw provisional
\naffiliation granted.  Considering the replies to various
\ncommunications by letter dated 27\/28.2.2003 the school was
\ninformed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“However, taking into consideration the
\ncareer of students and to safeguard the
\nacademic future of present students studying
\nunder the CBSE pattern and are in the Classes
\nIX, X, XI & XII, the Competent Authority of the
\nBoard has agreed to permit all these students
\nto appear at the All India Secondary and All
\nIndia Sr. Secondary Certificate Examinations,
\nscheduled to be held in March, 2003 and
\n2004. But the school will not run any class
\nunder CBSE pattern specifically classes IX, X,
\nXI & XII w.e.f academic session 2003 and 2004
\nand in case of any violation in this regard the
\nresponsibility and consequences would rest
\nupon the school authorities and the Board
\nshall not be responsible.”\n<\/p>\n
CBSE was requested by the School to reconsider and
\nreview the decision regarding withdrawal of violation.  In reply
\nCBSE vide its letter dated 23.7.2003 advised the school not to
\nrun any Secondary\/Senior Secondary classes under CBSE
\npattern.\n<\/p>\n
A mercy appeal vide letter dated 19.1.2003 was
\nsubmitted by the school and request was made to safeguard
\nthe educational interest of the students.  The school instead of
\nremoving the deficiencies communicated to them by CBSE,
\nrequested for a sympathetic consideration by letter dated
\n16.3.2004.  Joint Secretary (Affiliation), CBSE informed the
\nschool to submit the status report of removal of deficiencies as
\nhad been intimated to the school and it was, therefore,
\nrequired to apply afresh for provisional affiliation as per the
\nrequirements of the Affiliation Bye Laws. The school applied
\nfor grant of fresh affiliation by application dated 31.5.2004.
\nAn Inspection Team was appointed for inspection of the
\nschool.  As the essential conditions had not been fulfilled, the
\napplication was rejected by letter dated 7.10.2004.  The school
\nwas informed about the glaring irregularities committed.  The
\nPresident of the school again requested CBSE to allow the
\nstudents to appear in Class X and XII Board Examinations
\nwhich was scheduled to be held in March, 2005.  School
\nreiterated its request and by letter dated 19.11.2004 made a
\nprayer for allowing students of Class X and XII to appear in
\n2005 Examination though their application for composite
\naffiliation had been rejected. Certain undertakings were given
\nin the said letter dated 19.11.2004 which, so far as relevant,
\nare as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“(a) We have not taken admission in Class
\nIX and XI and will not admit without the
\npermission of the Board.\n<\/p>\n
(b) We have not admitted any additional
\nstudent in class X and XII for 2005 Exam.\n<\/p>\n
(c) I firmly promise not to approach the
\nBoard in future for examinations to be held
\nafter the students currently in Class X and XII
\nare kindly allowed to take their examinations
\nin 2005 on humanitarian grounds.”\n<\/p>\n
On the basis of the undertaking the Joint Secretary
\n(Affiliation) CBSE by letter dated 9.12.2004 informed the
\nschool about the consideration of the request. It was noted
\nthat there were no students in classes IX and XI for the
\nexaminations to be held in 2006 and only students of class X
\nand XII were allowed to appear at the All India Secondary and
\nSenior Secondary Examination to be held in March, 2005
\nprovided no candidate was directly admitted in class X and XII
\nin the school.\n<\/p>\n
The school again applied for affiliation on 22.3.2005
\nclearly indicating that there was no student in class IX and XI.\n<\/p>\n
By letter dated 28.6.2005 CBSE informed the School that
\nits request shall be considered up to Secondary level in the
\nfirst instance. The school was clearly warned to stop
\nfunctioning of its classes upto senior secondary level, without
\nremaining the deficiencies pointed out on several earlier
\noccasions. Vide letter dated 6.2.2006 the school requested
\nCBSE to permit 159 students in class X and 121 students in
\nclass XII to appear examination which was to be held in
\nMarch, 2006.  The request was turned down.\n<\/p>\n
It is essentially the stand of CBSE that the School is not
\nan affiliated one to the CBSE and students whose schools are
\nnot affiliated with the Board cannot be allowed to sit in the
\nBoard’s Examination as regular students.  Though by interim
\norder dated 27.2.2006 the learned Single Judge directed CBSE
\nto allow the students of class X and XII of the school
\nprovisionally appear at the Examination, the same was subject
\nto the decision of the case.  Subsequently, the Writ Petition
\nwas dismissed and as noted above the Letters Patent Appeal
\nwas also dismissed.  By filing Additional affidavit the petitioner
\nhas stated that some of the students who have taken the
\nExamination pursuant to the interim order passed by the
\nBoard were in fact bona fide students. 32 students were
\nstudying from the lower schools and the 13 students were also
\nstudying from lower classes but had failed earlier appeared in
\nclass XII examination. Since these students are bona fide
\nstudents even if it is held that affiliation has not been granted
\nfor certain period, that cannot be taken as a weapon to
\npractically destroy the educational career of the students.  The
\nappellants have enclosed a list of 159 students of class X and
\n121 students of Class XII who were allowed to appear in the
\nSecondary School and Senior Secondary Examination, 2006 in
\nterms of the interim order passed.  CBSE in its affidavit had
\nclarified that 728 students appeared in Class X Secondary
\nSchool Examination which was held in 2006 from the school.
\nNames of only 16 students appear in the list of Class XII
\nexamination held in 2006. The details in this regard are stated
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
“..further say that out of 728 students
\nappeared in Class X examination (Secondary
\nSchool Examination) held in March, 2004 from
\nCambridge School, Tatisilwai, Ranchi names of
\nfollowing 16 students only appear in the list of
\nClass XII examination held in March, 2006
\nfrom this School:\n<\/p>\n
Roll No.                                    Name\nMarch\/July, 2004\n1. 5140574                      Kushal Chopra\n2. 5140578                      Manoj Kumar\n3. 5140616                      Renu KumariKarkusha\n4. 5140621 \t\t\tSweety Mahto\n5. 5140624\t\t\tInu Pradhan\n6. 5140658 \t\t\tAshish Kumar Choudhary\n7. 5140688 \t\t\tManali\n8. 5140733 \t\t\tRohit Kumar\n9. 5140803\t\t\tSubhankarPrabhakar\n10. 5140993\t\t\tShatabdi Gunjan\n11. 5141007 \t\t\tSanjay Kumar Srivastava\n12. 5141051\t\t\tMohit Rajan\n13. 5141065\t\t\tShailendra Chakram\n14. 5141172\t\t\tRavi Kumar\n15. 5141196\t\t\tDeepika Rani\n16. 5141281 \t\t  \tPancham kumar Basant Jonko\n\n<\/pre>\n
 I am stating hereunder the status of 121
\nstudents mentioned in Annexure 1 annexed by
\nthe Petitioner with the Special Leave Petition:\n<\/p>\n
SI. Nos. 6, 7, 14, 20 and 28, 36, 38, 44,
\n45,48, 49, 54, 56, 75, 78, 87, 104, 106, 117,
\n119 have not appeared in Class X Examination
\nconducted by the Central Board of Secondary
\nEducation but have appeared from other
\nBoard.\n<\/p>\n
The Roll Nos. of Candidates at SI. No. 34,
\n79, 121 as stated in Annexure I are wrong,
\nhence, their status has not been given.\n<\/p>\n
SI. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13,
\n16,17,18,19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32,
\n35, 39, 40,41, 42, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57,
\n58, 59, 61, 62, 65,69, 70, 74, 80, 82, 83, 84,
\n85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94, 95, 96, 97, 102,
\n103, 105, 109, 110, 111, 112,113, 114, 115,
\n116, 118, 120 have not appeared in Class X
\nExamination of CBSE from Cambridge School,
\nTetisilwai, Ranch.\n<\/p>\n
I am enclosing herewith Annexure R-13
\nshowing the details of the students and
\nschools from where they have passed Class X
\nexamination.”\n<\/p>\n
Now, we would refer to the law settled by this Court in
\nvarious Judgments to the effect that interim orders of the
\nnature passed in the present case are detrimental to education
\nand its efficient management. As a matter of course, such
\ninterim orders should not be passed, as they are aberrations
\nand it is subversive of academic discipline.\n<\/p>\n
In Regional Officer, CBSE  v. Sheena Pethambaran,
\n[(2003) 7 SCC 719], at page this Court has observed:\n<\/p>\n
“6. This Court has on several occasions earner
\ndeprecated the practice of permitting the
\nstudents to pursue their studies and to appear
\nin the examination under the interim orders
\npassed in the petitions.  In most of such cases
\nit is ultimately pleaded that since the course
\nwas over or the result had been declared, the
\nmatter deserves to be considered
\nsympathetically. It results in very awkward
\nand difficult situations. Rules stare straight
\ninto the face of the plea of sympathy and
\nconcessions, against the legal provisions”\n<\/p>\n
In the case of C.B.S.E. & Anr. v. P. Sunil Kumar & Ors.<\/a>
\n[(1998) 5 SCC 377], the institutions whose students were
\npermitted to undertake the examination of the Central Board
\nof Secondary Education were not entitled to appear in the
\nexamination. They were, however, allowed to appear in the
\nexamination under the interim orders granted by the High
\nCourt.  In that context the Supreme Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
“4 “But to permit students of an
\nunaffiliated institution to appear at the
\nexamination conducted by the Board under
\norders of the Court and then to compel the
\nBoard to issue certificates in favour of those
\nwho have undertaken examination would
\ntantamount to subversion of law and this
\nCourt will not be justified to sustain the orders
\nissued by the High Court on misplaced
\nsympathy in favour of the students.”\n<\/p>\n
In the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder
\nKr. Bansal<\/a> [(1993) 4 SCC, 401] the Supreme Court observed
\nthat such interim order is subversive of academic discipline.
\nThe relevant observations are as under:\n<\/p>\n
“We are afraid that this kind of administration
\nof interlocutory remedies, more guided by
\nsympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does
\nno service to anyone. From the series of orders
\nthat keep coming before us in academic
\nmatters, we find that loose, ill-conceived
\nsympathy masquerades as interlocutory
\njustice exposing judicial discretion to the
\ncriticism of degenerating into private
\nbenevolence. This is subversive of academic
\ndiscipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to
\nserious impasse in academic life. Admissions
\ncannot be ordered without regard to the
\neligibility of the candidates … The courts
\nshould not embarrass academic authorities by
\nthemselves taking over their functions.”\n<\/p>\n
Yet in another case i.e. in the case of A.R Christians
\nMedical Educational Society vs. Govt. of A.P. [(1986) 2 SCC
\n667] this Court held that:\n<\/p>\n
 \t“We cannot by our fiat direct the
\nUniversity to disobey the statute to which it
\nowes its existence and the regulations made by
\nthe University itself. We cannot imagine
\nanything more destructive of the rule of law
\nthan a direction by the court to disobey the
\nlaws.”\n<\/p>\n
In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. St. Joseph Teacher’s
\nTraining Institute<\/a> [(1991) 3 SCC 87] this Court observed that
\nthe direction of admitting the students of unauthorized
\neducational institutions and permitting them to appear at the
\nexamination has been looked on with disfavour and the
\nstudents of unrecognised institutions who are not legally
\nentitled to appear at the examination conducted by the
\nEducational Department of the Government cannot be allowed
\nto sit at the examination and the High Court committed an
\nerror in granting permission to such students to appear at the
\npublic examination.\n<\/p>\n
In the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v.
\nNikhil Gulati<\/a> [(1998) 3 SCC 5], this Court deprecated the
\npractice followed by the High Court to issue direction and also
\nobserved that such aberrations should not be treated as a
\nprecedent in future.\n<\/p>\n
In Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow<\/a>
\n[(1984)1 SCC 307], the Supreme Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
“3 Whenever a writ petition is filed provisional
\nadmission should not be given as a matter of
\ncourse on the petition being admitted unless
\nthe court is fully satisfied that the petitioner
\nhas a cast-iron case which is bound to succeed
\nor the error is so gross or apparent that no
\nother conclusion is possible.”\n<\/p>\n
In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale<\/a>
\n(1992) 4 SCC 435], it was held that
\nthe students of unrecognized and unauthorized educational
\ninstitutions could not have been
\npermitted by the High Court on a writ Petition being filed to
\nappear in the examination and to be accommodated in
\nrecognized institutions. This Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
“12. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat
\nto control the mode of education and
\nexamining system are detrimental to the
\nefficient management of the education.”\n<\/p>\n
Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the
\npractice of educational institution admitting the students
\nwithout requisite recognition or affiliation.  In all such cases
\nthe usual plea is the career of innocent children who have
\nfallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school
\nauthorities.  As the factual scenario delineated against goes to
\nshow the school has shown scant regards to the requirements
\nfor affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for
\nthe CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature.  Though
\nthe ultimate victims are innocent students that cannot be a
\nground for granting relief to the appellant.  Even after filing
\nthe undertakings the School non-challantly continued the
\nviolations.\n<\/p>\n
Students have suffered because of the objectionable
\nconduct of the school. It shall be open to them to seek such
\nremedy against School as is available in law, about which
\naspect we express no opinion.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is dismissed but without any order as to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & … vs C.B.S.E. & Ors on 13 November, 2006 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4908 of 2006 PETITIONER: Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & Ors RESPONDENT: C.B.S.E. & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/11\/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131739","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMinor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & ... vs C.B.S.E. & Ors on 13 November, 2006 - 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\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & ... vs C.B.S.E. & Ors on 13 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-30T22:21:27+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\\\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & … vs C.B.S.E. & Ors on 13 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-30T22:21:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2950,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006\",\"name\":\"Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & ... vs C.B.S.E. & Ors on 13 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-30T22:21:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & … vs C.B.S.E. & Ors on 13 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & ... vs C.B.S.E. & Ors on 13 November, 2006 - 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\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & ... vs C.B.S.E. & Ors on 13 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-30T22:21:27+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\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & … vs C.B.S.E. & Ors on 13 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-30T22:21:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006"},"wordCount":2950,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006","name":"Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & ... vs C.B.S.E. & Ors on 13 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-30T22:21:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-sunil-oraon-tr-guardian-vs-c-b-s-e-ors-on-13-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & … vs C.B.S.E. & Ors on 13 November, 2006"}]},{"@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\/131739","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=131739"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131739\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131739"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131739"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131739"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}