{"id":132683,"date":"2002-10-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002"},"modified":"2017-04-01T03:58:20","modified_gmt":"2017-03-31T22:28:20","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers &#8230; on 23 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers &#8230; on 23 October, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Pattanaik<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, Ruma Pal.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7404 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nUnion of India &amp; Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nShah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers College\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/10\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nG.B.  PATTANAIK &amp; RUMA PAL.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>With<\/p>\n<p>Civil Appeal Nos. 6040, 6043, 6044, 6038, 6046, 6042, 6041,<br \/>\n6039, 6045, 6049, 6047, 6048 and 6050 of 2001 and C.A.<br \/>\nNo. 3225 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>PATTANAIK, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis Appeal by the Union of India is directed against the<br \/>\nJudgment of Rajasthan High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed<br \/>\nbefore it.  A private educational institution conducting courses leading<br \/>\nto the degree of Bachelor of Education filed a Writ petition<br \/>\nchallenging the order passed by the Northern Regional Committee of<br \/>\nNational Council for teachers education rejecting the application of<br \/>\nthe institution for recognition of the B.Ed (Vacation Course).\tThe<br \/>\ninstitution was directed not to admit students in the vacation course<br \/>\nfrom 1999-2000 onwards.\t In the Writ Petition, the constitutional<br \/>\nvalidity of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993<br \/>\n(Act 73 of 1993, hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Act&#8217;) was also<br \/>\nchallenged. The High Court by the impugned judgment came to hold<br \/>\nthat the order de-recognising the vacation course is bad in law.  The<br \/>\nHigh Court also struck down Section 17(4) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The parliament enacted the Act and provided for the<br \/>\nestablishment of a council for teacher education with a view to<br \/>\nachieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher<br \/>\neducation system throughout the country and for regulation of proper<br \/>\nmaintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system.<br \/>\nSection 17 of the Act, with which we are concerned in the present<br \/>\ncase, is extracted herein below:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tSection 17. &#8220;Contravention of provisions of the Act and<br \/>\nconsequences thereof. (1) Where the Regional Committee is,<br \/>\non its own motion or on any representation received from<br \/>\nany person, satisfied that a recognised institution has<br \/>\ncontravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules,<br \/>\nregulations orders made or issued thereunder, or any<br \/>\ncondition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3)<br \/>\nof section 14 or permission under sub-section 15 was<br \/>\ngranted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised<br \/>\ninstitution for reasons to be recorded in writing:\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided  that no such order against the recognised<br \/>\ninstitution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of<br \/>\nmaking representation against the proposed order has been<br \/>\ngiven to such recognised institution:\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided further that the order withdrawing or<br \/>\nrefusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall<br \/>\ncome into force only with effect from the end of the academic<br \/>\nsession next following the date of communication of such<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) A copy of every order passed by the Regional<br \/>\nCommittee under sub-section (1),-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tshall be communicated to the recognised<br \/>\ninstitution concerned and a copy thereof<br \/>\nshall also be forwarded simultaneously to<br \/>\nthe university or the examining body to<br \/>\nwhich such institution was affiliated for<br \/>\ncancelling affiliation; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tshall be published in the Official Gazette<br \/>\nfor general information.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3) Once the recognition of a recognised institution is<br \/>\nwithdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall<br \/>\ndiscontinue the course or training in teacher education, and<br \/>\nthe concerned University or the examining body shall cancel<br \/>\naffiliation of the institution in accordance with the order<br \/>\npassed under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the<br \/>\nacademic session next following the date of communication<br \/>\nof the said order.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)\tIf an institution offers any course or training in<br \/>\nteacher education after the coming into force of the order<br \/>\nwithdrawing recognition under sub-section (1), or where an<br \/>\ninstitution offering a course or training in teacher education<br \/>\nimmediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to<br \/>\nobtain recognition or permission under this Act, the<br \/>\nqualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such<br \/>\ncourse or training or after undertaking a course or training<br \/>\nin such institution, shall not be treated as a valid<br \/>\nqualification for purposes of employment under the Central<br \/>\ngovernment, any State Government or University, or in any<br \/>\nschool, college or other educational body aided by the<br \/>\nCentral Government or any State Government.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn and from the date of enforcement of the Act, every<br \/>\ninstitution, offering or intending to offer the course or training in<br \/>\nteacher education, was required to make application to the Regional<br \/>\nCommittee in such form and manner as may be determined by the<br \/>\nregulations as provided in Section 14 of the Act.  In accordance with<br \/>\nthe said provision the respondent institution made an application for<br \/>\ngrant of recognition to the Bachelor of Education (vacation course).<br \/>\nThis application, having been rejected by the Northern Regional<br \/>\nCommittee of the Council, the respondent had approached the High<br \/>\nCourt.\tHaving regard to the Entry 66 of the List I of the Seventh<br \/>\nSchedule of the Constitution, the High Court did record a conclusion<br \/>\nthat the Parliament has the legislative competence for enacting the Act<br \/>\nwith a view for achieving planned and coordinated development of the<br \/>\nteacher education system.  But so far as Section 17(4) of the Act is<br \/>\nconcerned, the High Court held that the Parliament cannot make law<br \/>\nprescribing qualification for entry into the service under the State<br \/>\nGovernment and such law can be made only under the Proviso to<br \/>\nArticle 309 of the Constitution.  In the opinion of the High Court,<br \/>\nwhen NCTE cannot force a State or State funded institution to employ<br \/>\nonly teachers having a particular qualification like B.Ed or  B.P.Ed. or<br \/>\nit cannot force the State Government for the employee to have B.Ed<br \/>\ndegree then it cannot have power under any law to de-recognize any<br \/>\nsuch degree for the purpose of employment and as such Sub-section<br \/>\n(4) of Section 17 is unconstitutional and ultra-vires of the<br \/>\nConstitution.  Having struck down Section 17 (4) of the Act, the High<br \/>\nCourt further directed the NCTE to issue certificate of recognition to<br \/>\nthe B.Ed (vacation course) of the institution since the regulation of<br \/>\nB.Ed course imparted by the same institution was recognised by the<br \/>\ncouncil.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is contended, on behalf of the council, that sub-section (4) of<br \/>\nSection 17 is in fact a law dealing with coordinated development of<br \/>\nthe teacher education system to provide consequences if an institution,<br \/>\nwithout obtaining recognition or after the recognition being<br \/>\nwithdrawn, offers any course or training in teacher education.<br \/>\nAccording to the learned counsel, the legislation in pith and substance<br \/>\nis a legislation dealing with the topic of coordination and<br \/>\ndetermination of standards in institutions for higher education coming<br \/>\nwithin the legislative Entry 66 of the List I of the Seventh Schedule<br \/>\nand  even if it is construed to be an encroachment relating to service<br \/>\nunder a State Government the same is merely consequential and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the legislation cannot be declared to be ultra-vires.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr. Sanghi, appearing for the respondent, on the other hand<br \/>\ncontended that though it would be within the competence of the<br \/>\nParliament to make law for coordinated development of education but<br \/>\nif the law deals with the question of minimum qualification for the<br \/>\nservice under the State Government the same would be a law referable<br \/>\nto Article 309 of the Constitution and not referable to a law dealing<br \/>\nwith coordinated development of the teacher education system and<br \/>\ntherefore, sub-section (4) of Section 17 must be held to be ultra-vires<br \/>\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn view of the rival submissions at the bar, the question that<br \/>\narises for consideration is whether the impugned legislation can be<br \/>\nheld to be a law dealing with coordinated development of education<br \/>\nsystem within Entry 66 of the List I of the Seventh Schedule or it is a<br \/>\nlaw dealing with the service conditions of an employee under the<br \/>\nState Government.  The power to legislate is engrafted under Article<br \/>\n246 of the Constitution and the various entries for the three lists of the<br \/>\nSeventh Schedule are the &#8220;fields of legislation&#8221;.  The different entries<br \/>\nbeing  legislative  heads are all of enabling character and are designed<br \/>\nto define and delimit the respective areas of legislative competence of<br \/>\nthe Union and the State legislatures.  They neither impose any<br \/>\nrestrictions on the legislative powers nor prescribe any duty for<br \/>\nexercise of the legislative power in any particular manner. It has been<br \/>\na cardinal principle of construction that the language of the entries<br \/>\nshould be given the widest scope of which their meaning is fairly<br \/>\ncapable and while interpreting an entry of any List it would not be<br \/>\nreasonable to import any limitation therein.  The rule of widest<br \/>\nconstruction, however, would not enable the legislature to make a law<br \/>\nrelating to a matter which has no rational connection with the subject<br \/>\nmatter of an entry.  When the vires of enactment is challenged, the<br \/>\ncourt primarily presumes the constitutionality of the statute by putting<br \/>\nthe most liberal construction upon the relevant legislative entry so that<br \/>\nit may have the widest amplitude and the substance of the legislation<br \/>\nwill have to be looked into.  The Court sometimes is duty bound to<br \/>\nguard against extending the meaning of the words beyond their<br \/>\nreasonable connotation in anxiety to preserve the power of the<br \/>\nlegislature.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is further a well-settled principle that entries in the different<br \/>\nlists should be read together without giving a narrow meaning to any<br \/>\nof them.  Power of the Parliament as well as the State legislature are<br \/>\nexpressed in precise and definite terms.  While an entry is to be given<br \/>\nits widest meaning but it cannot be so interpreted as to over-ride<br \/>\nanother entry or make another entry meaningless and in case of an<br \/>\napparent conflict between different entries, it is the duty of the court<br \/>\nto reconcile them.  When it appears to the Court that there is apparent<br \/>\noverlapping between the two entries the doctrine of &#8220;pith and<br \/>\nsubstance&#8221; has to be applied to find out the true nature of a legislation<br \/>\nand the entry within which it would fall. In case of conflict between<br \/>\nentries in List I and List II, the same has to be decided by application<br \/>\nof the principle of &#8220;pith and substance&#8221;. The doctrine of &#8220;pith and<br \/>\nsubstance&#8221; means that if an enactment substantially falls within the<br \/>\npowers expressly conferred by the Constitution upon the legislature<br \/>\nwhich enacted it, it cannot be held to be invalid, merely because it<br \/>\nincidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another legislature.<br \/>\nWhen a law is impugned as being ultra-vires of the legislative<br \/>\ncompetence, what is required to be ascertained is the true character of<br \/>\nthe legislation. If on such an examination it is found that the<br \/>\nlegislation is in substance one on a matter assigned to the legislature<br \/>\nthen it must be held to be valid in its entirety even though it might<br \/>\nincidentally trench on matters which are beyond its competence.\t In<br \/>\norder to examine the true character of the enactment, the entire Act,<br \/>\nits object and scope and effect, is required to be gone into.  The<br \/>\nquestion of invasion into the territory of another legislation is to be<br \/>\ndetermined not by degree but by substance.  The doctrine of &#8220;pith and<br \/>\nsubstance&#8221; has to be applied not only in cases of conflict between the<br \/>\npowers of two legislatures but in any case where the question arises<br \/>\nwhether a legislation is covered by particular legislative power in<br \/>\nexercise of which it is purported to be made.\n<\/p>\n<p>Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of rule of construction,<br \/>\nif the provisions of the impugned statute, namely, the National<br \/>\nCouncil of Teacher Education Act, 1993 are examined and more<br \/>\nparticularly Section 17(4) thereof which we have already extracted,<br \/>\nthe conclusion is irresistible that the statute is one squarely dealing<br \/>\nwith coordination and determination of standards in institutions for<br \/>\nhigher education within the meaning of Entry 66 of List I of the<br \/>\nSeventh Schedule.  Both Entries 65 and 66 of List I empower the<br \/>\nCentral Legislature to secure the standards of research and the<br \/>\nstandards of higher education. The object behind being that the same<br \/>\nstandards are not lowered at the hands of the particular State or States<br \/>\nto the detriment of the national progress and the power of the State<br \/>\nlegislature must be so exercised as not to directly encroach upon<br \/>\npower of Union under Entry 66.\tThe power to coordinate does not<br \/>\nmean merely the power to evaluate but it means to harmonise or<br \/>\nsecure relationship for concerted action.  A legislation made for the<br \/>\npurpose of coordination of standards of higher education is essentially<br \/>\na legislation by the Central legislature in exercise of its competence<br \/>\nunder Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule and sub-section (4)<br \/>\nof Section 17 merely provides the consequences if an institution offers<br \/>\na course or training in teacher education in contravention of the Act<br \/>\nthough the ultimate consequences under sub-section (4) of Section 17<br \/>\nmay be that unqualified teacher will not be entitled to get an<br \/>\nemployment under the State or Central Government or in a university<br \/>\nor in a college. But by no stretch of imagination the said provision can<br \/>\nbe construed to mean a law dealing with employment as has been held<br \/>\nby the High Court in the impugned Judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn our considered opinion, the High Court committed gross<br \/>\nerror in construing the provisions of sub-section(4) of Section 17 of<br \/>\nthe Act to mean that it is a legislation dealing with recruitment and<br \/>\nconditions of services of persons in the State service within the<br \/>\nmeaning of Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution  The High Court<br \/>\ncommitted the aforesaid error by examining the provisions of sub-<br \/>\nsection (4) on its plain terms without trying to examine the true<br \/>\ncharacter of the enactment which has to be done by examining the<br \/>\nenactment as a whole, its object and scope and effect of the<br \/>\nprovisions.  Even, the High Court does not appear to have applied the<br \/>\ndoctrine of &#8220;pith and substance&#8221; and, thus, committed the error in<br \/>\ninterpreting the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 17 to mean to<br \/>\nbe a provision dealing with conditions of service of an employee<br \/>\nunder the State Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the aforesaid premises, the conclusion of the High Court that<br \/>\nSection 17(4) is ultra-vires being beyond the competence of the Union<br \/>\nlegislature cannot be sustained and the said conclusion is accordingly<br \/>\nset aside.  On examining the statute as a whole and on scrutiny of the<br \/>\nobject and scope of the statute, we have no manner of doubt that even<br \/>\nsub-section (4) of Section 17 is very much a law dealing with the<br \/>\ncoordination and determination of standards in institution for higher<br \/>\neducation coming within Entry 66 of the List III of the Seventh<br \/>\nSchedule and, thus, the Union legislature did have the competence for<br \/>\nenacting the said provision.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe are also of the further opinion that the de-recognition of the<br \/>\nB.Ed (Vacation course) cannot be nullified on the ground of failure to<br \/>\ncomply with the principle of natural justice.  In the judgment under<br \/>\nchallenge, the High Court has held also that when the institution is<br \/>\nimparting the B.Ed (Vacation Course) then National Council for<br \/>\nTeacher Education could not have refused to recognise the said<br \/>\ncourse.\t We are unable to accept this reasoning inasmuch as the<br \/>\nNCTE is an expert body created under the provisions of the National<br \/>\nCouncil for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the Parliament has<br \/>\nimposed upon such expert body the duty to maintain the standards of<br \/>\neducation, particularly, in relation to the teachers education.<br \/>\nEducation is the backbone of every democracy and any deterioration<br \/>\nin the Standard of teaching in the B.Ed course would ultimately<br \/>\nproduce sub-standard prospective teachers who would be teaching in<br \/>\nschools and colleges throughout the country and on whose efficiency<br \/>\nthe future of the country depends.  Inasmuch  as  the  teacher\t himself<br \/>\nhas received a sub-standard education it is difficult to expect from him<br \/>\na higher standard of teaching to the students of the schools or other<br \/>\ninstitutions.  It is from this perspective, the conclusion of an expert<br \/>\nbody should not be lightly tinkered with by court of law without<br \/>\ngiving due weightage to the conclusion arrived at by such expert<br \/>\nbody.  From this standpoint, we are of the considered opinion that the<br \/>\nHigh Court committed error in holding that there was no reasonable<br \/>\njustification for not recognising the B.Ed (Vacation Course) which<br \/>\nwas being imparted by the institution of Shah Goverdhan Lal Kabra<br \/>\nTeachers College.  In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the<br \/>\nimpugned Judgment of the High Court and allow this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn other Civil Appeals which have been filed by the State of<br \/>\nRajasthan, the respondents having been denied employment to them,<br \/>\nhad approached the High Court for issuance of mandamus.\t The High<br \/>\nCourt allowed the same in view of its judgment in Shah Goverdhan<br \/>\nLal Kabra Teachers College case striking down Section 17 (4) of the<br \/>\nAct. Since the appeal of the Union Government against the said<br \/>\nJudgment has been allowed, Section 17(4) of the Act has been held by<br \/>\nus to be intra-vires,  the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.  The<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the respondents, however, contended before us<br \/>\nthat there are several other grounds which are required to be examined<br \/>\nand since the impugned judgment proceeded because of  invalidity of<br \/>\nthe Section 17(4) of the Act, in Shah Goverdhan Lal Kabra Teachers<br \/>\nCollege case and the said judgment of the High Court having been<br \/>\nreversed by this Court the matter should be remitted back to the High<br \/>\nCourt for reconsideration of other grounds.  We are not in a position<br \/>\nto appreciate as to what other grounds are to be urged.\t However,<br \/>\nsince the impugned judgment proceeds because of Section 17(4) of<br \/>\nthe Act having been struck down, and the judgment of the High Court<br \/>\nin Shah Goverdhan Lal Kabra teachers college case having been<br \/>\nreversed by us, we set aside the impugned judgment in each of the<br \/>\nappeals\t and  allow  the  Civil\t Appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan.\n<\/p>\n<p>We, however, remit the Writ Petitions back to the High Court for<br \/>\nbeing considered if any other point survives for consideration.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers &#8230; on 23 October, 2002 Author: Pattanaik Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, Ruma Pal. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7404 of 2000 PETITIONER: Union of India &amp; Ors. RESPONDENT: Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers College DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/10\/2002 BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK &amp; [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132683","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers ... on 23 October, 2002 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers ... on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-31T22:28:20+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\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers &#8230; on 23 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-31T22:28:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2921,\"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\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002\",\"name\":\"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers ... on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-31T22:28:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers &#8230; on 23 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers ... on 23 October, 2002 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers ... on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-31T22:28:20+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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers &#8230; on 23 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-31T22:28:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002"},"wordCount":2921,"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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002","name":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers ... on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-31T22:28:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shah-goverdhan-l-kabra-teachers-on-23-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers &#8230; on 23 October, 2002"}]},{"@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\/132683","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=132683"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132683\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132683"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132683"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132683"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}