{"id":146339,"date":"2009-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-26T08:34:16","modified_gmt":"2015-09-26T03:04:16","slug":"samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Samarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr vs Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour & Ors on 3 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Samarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr vs Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour & Ors on 3 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: ________________J.<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph<\/div>\n
                                                                   1\n\n\n              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n            CIVIL APPEAL NO.598 OF 2009\n      (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)NO.3027 of 2008)\n\n\nSamarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr.             ...   Appellants\n\n\n                             Vs.\n\n\nBir Bahadur Singh Rathour & Ors.          ...   Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                     J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR,J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.   The Appellant No.1, Samarth Shiksha Samiti, is a<\/p>\n
Society registered under the Societies Registration<\/p>\n
Act, 1860 and was established with the object of<\/p>\n
catering to the educational needs of society.            In<\/p>\n
fulfillment    of   its   object,   the   Appellant-Society
\n                                                                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
established              and    began       running       several     recognized<\/p>\n
schools all over Delhi in the name of Bal Mandirs.<\/p>\n
One such school is Mahashya Chunni Lal Saraswati Bal<\/p>\n
Mandir situated at Hari Nagar, Delhi, the Appellant<\/p>\n
No.2 herein.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.     On     9th        May,       1992,    the        Society    (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred            to     as        `the        Samiti’)      appointed         the<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1, Shri Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour, as<\/p>\n
a     Lower     Division             Clerk       and     posted    him    in     the<\/p>\n
Appellant No.2 School.                      From the appointment letter<\/p>\n
issued to the Respondent No.2 by way of an Office<\/p>\n
Memorandum dated 9th May, 1992, it will be apparent<\/p>\n
that    he     was        appointed         by     the    Samiti    and    was    an<\/p>\n
employee of the Samiti.                      Condition No.4 of the terms<\/p>\n
and    conditions              of    his    appointment        also      indicates<\/p>\n
that during his service period, the respondent could<\/p>\n
be transferred to the Samiti or to any of the Bal<\/p>\n
Mandirs       managed           by    the        Samiti.       Condition       No.6<\/p>\n
provides       that        during          his    period      of   service,      the<\/p>\n
Respondent           No.1           would        have    to    abide      by     the<\/p>\n
discipline of the Samiti.                           Condition No.8 enjoins
\n                                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
the Respondent No.1, while reposing trust in the<\/p>\n
aims and objects of the Samiti, to participate in<\/p>\n
all    activities         organized     by     the     Samiti     with<\/p>\n
devotion.        Condition     No.11        prescribes     that    the<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 would have to obey all the rules as<\/p>\n
mentioned in Chapter-9 of the Delhi School Education<\/p>\n
Rules, 1973.         However, what is of consequence is<\/p>\n
Condition No.15 which provides as follows :-<\/p>\n
           “15. In case he failed to comply with
\n                the aforesaid conditions and the
\n                rules as mentioned in 123 of Delhi
\n                Education Act the Samiti will have
\n                full right to remove him from
\n                service according to the law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.    As    will     be      evident        from     the   aforesaid<\/p>\n
conditions, the Respondent No.1 was an employee, not<\/p>\n
of the School, but of the Samiti, though he was<\/p>\n
posted in the School as a Lower Division Clerk.<\/p>\n
5.    On   9th   August,     1999,    the    Respondent    No.1    was<\/p>\n
promoted as Upper Division Clerk and was posted at<\/p>\n
the same School at Hari Nagar.               Such promotion being
\n                                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
ad-hoc in nature, the same was regularized on 18th<\/p>\n
September, 2000 with effect from 1st August, 2000.<\/p>\n
6.    It appears that in September, 2003, interviews<\/p>\n
were held for the post of Superintendent Grade II<\/p>\n
and a list of selected candidates was drawn up by<\/p>\n
the Selection Committee and out of the said selected<\/p>\n
candidates, only the name of one Shri Arun Kumar was<\/p>\n
recommended for the said post.         According to the<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1, he too submitted a representation<\/p>\n
for promotion to the said post and, although, his<\/p>\n
case was recommended by the Manager of the School to<\/p>\n
the General Secretary of the Appellant No.1-Samiti,<\/p>\n
not only was he not granted such promotion, but by<\/p>\n
an order dated 16th July, 2005, he was transferred<\/p>\n
from the School to the office of the Appellant No.1-<\/p>\n
Samiti.   Subsequently, on 9th September, 2005, in an<\/p>\n
incident involving the Respondent No.1 and one Shri<\/p>\n
Shiv Nath Pandey, an order of suspension was issued<\/p>\n
against the Respondent No.1 by the Appellant No.1 on<\/p>\n
21st September, 2005.    While the disciplinary inquiry<\/p>\n
was   pending,   the   Respondent   No.1   filed   a   writ
\n                                                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
petition challenging the transfer order dated 16th<\/p>\n
July,     2005;       the     suspension       order        dated      21st<\/p>\n
September,        2005;       the    charge-sheet           dated      29th<\/p>\n
September, 2005 and the letter dated 26th October,<\/p>\n
2005,    initiating         the   departmental     enquiry        against<\/p>\n
him.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.     The writ petition filed by the Respondent No.1<\/p>\n
was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the<\/p>\n
High    Court    on   3rd    November,     2006.       On    an     appeal<\/p>\n
preferred by the Respondent No.1, notice was issued<\/p>\n
to the appellants in the month of January, 2007.                        In<\/p>\n
the appeal, it was contended on behalf of Respondent<\/p>\n
No.1    that    his   services      were     governed       not   by   the<\/p>\n
rules and regulations of the Samiti but by the Delhi<\/p>\n
School Education Act, 1973, and the Rules framed<\/p>\n
thereunder.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.     Accepting the submissions made on behalf of the<\/p>\n
Respondent      No.1,       the   Division    Bench     of    the      High<\/p>\n
Court reversed the judgment of the learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge dismissing the writ petition and held that
\n                                                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
since the said respondent was working in the School<\/p>\n
as a Lower Division Clerk on permanent appointment<\/p>\n
with    effect      from   1st   April,   1992    and    was     given<\/p>\n
promotion     in     the    said    School,      which    was     also<\/p>\n
regularized, for all practical intents and purposes<\/p>\n
he must be considered as an employee in the school<\/p>\n
and, therefore, the provisions of the Delhi School<\/p>\n
Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder would<\/p>\n
apply    to   his    services.      The   Division       Bench   also<\/p>\n
directed that if the Samiti and the School wished to<\/p>\n
take any disciplinary action against the Respondent<\/p>\n
No.1, they would have to follow the procedure laid<\/p>\n
down in the aforesaid Act and the Rules.<\/p>\n
9.     This appeal has been filed by the Samiti and the<\/p>\n
School against the said decision of the High Court<\/p>\n
in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 herein.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10. From the facts as disclosed herein above, it<\/p>\n
would be more or less clear that primarily three<\/p>\n
questions arise for decision in this appeal, namely,
\n                                                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
    i)   Is the Respondent No.1 an employee of<\/p>\n
         the Samiti or of the School?\n<\/p>\n
    ii) If the Respondent No.1 is found to be<\/p>\n
         an employee of the Samiti, could it be<\/p>\n
         said    that      the    Respondent’s        service<\/p>\n
         would be governed by the Delhi School<\/p>\n
         Education       Act,    1973    and    the        Rules<\/p>\n
         framed thereunder or under the rules of<\/p>\n
         the Samiti?\n<\/p>\n
    iii) If it is held that the provisions of<\/p>\n
         the Delhi School Education Act and the<\/p>\n
         Rules    framed     thereunder       would    govern<\/p>\n
         the    services    of    the   Respondent         No.1,<\/p>\n
         would such a condition of service stand<\/p>\n
         altered    on    the    Respondent     No.1       being<\/p>\n
         transferred       to    the    office        of     the<\/p>\n
         Samiti?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11. Referring to the Office Order dated 16th July,<\/p>\n
2005, whereby the Respondent No.1 was appointed, Mr.<\/p>\n
Puneet Taneja, learned Advocate appearing for the<\/p>\n
Appellant-Samiti,       emphasized      the    fact        that    the
\n                                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 had been appointed by the Samiti and<\/p>\n
was, therefore, an employee of the Samiti and not of<\/p>\n
the School. He pointed out the different conditions<\/p>\n
in the said Office Order, which indicated that the<\/p>\n
service    of     the    Respondent   No.1   was   transferable<\/p>\n
between the different schools managed and run by the<\/p>\n
Samiti and also to the Samiti itself, as was done in<\/p>\n
the instant case.          He also referred to the various<\/p>\n
other      documents,         including      the    Experience<\/p>\n
Certificate and the Office Order dated 9th August,<\/p>\n
1999, whereby the Respondent No.1 had been promoted<\/p>\n
to the post of Upper Division Clerk by the Samiti<\/p>\n
and his subsequent confirmation therein and the fact<\/p>\n
that his salary was being paid by the Samiti.<\/p>\n
12. Mr. Taneja denied the claim of the Respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 that inspite of being an employee of the Samiti<\/p>\n
and being governed by the rules and regulations of<\/p>\n
the     Samiti,    his    services    were   governed   by   the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973<\/p>\n
and the Rules framed thereunder.              Mr. Taneja made<\/p>\n
special reference to the letter dated 3rd October,
\n                                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
2005 addressed by the Respondent No.1 to the General<\/p>\n
Secretary of the Samiti acknowledging the fact that<\/p>\n
his services were under the control and disposal of<\/p>\n
the Samiti.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13. Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, learned Advocate appearing<\/p>\n
for the Respondent No.1, reiterated the stand taken<\/p>\n
on behalf of the said respondent before the High<\/p>\n
Court that even though the said respondent had been<\/p>\n
appointed     by    the   Samiti,    once    his   services      were<\/p>\n
placed at the disposal of the School in question,<\/p>\n
his services came to be governed by the provisions<\/p>\n
of   the    Delhi   School    Education      Act   and   the    Rules<\/p>\n
framed     thereunder.       Mr.   Bisaria    referred     to     and<\/p>\n
relied on Condition No.11 of the Appointment Order,<\/p>\n
which provides that during the period of his service<\/p>\n
with the Samiti, the Respondent No.1 would have to<\/p>\n
obey all the rules as mentioned in Chapter 9 of the<\/p>\n
Delhi      School   Education       Rules,    1973.       He     also<\/p>\n
referred to Condition No.15 extracted hereinabove,<\/p>\n
which stipulates that in case the Respondent No.1<\/p>\n
failed to comply with the various conditions and the
\n                                                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
rules as mentioned in Rule 123 of the Delhi School<\/p>\n
Education Rules, the Samiti would have full right to<\/p>\n
remove him from service according to the law.<\/p>\n
14. Mr. Bisaria urged that not having taken recourse<\/p>\n
to     the   provisions         of   the    Delhi   School     Education<\/p>\n
Rules, the Samiti had erroneously issued the order<\/p>\n
of     transfer        dated    16th   July,     2005,    whereby     the<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 had been transferred from the school<\/p>\n
to the office of the Samiti.                  Mr. Bisaria submitted<\/p>\n
that the order of suspension passed by the Samiti on<\/p>\n
21st September, 2005 and the subsequent order dated<\/p>\n
29th     September,            2005,       initiating     disciplinary<\/p>\n
proceedings against the Respondent No.1, were liable<\/p>\n
to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15. Mr.      B.    Dutta,        learned      Additional       Solicitor<\/p>\n
General      appearing         for   the    Director     of   Education,<\/p>\n
Government        of    NCT     of   Delhi,    supported      the   stand<\/p>\n
taken on behalf of the Respondent No.1 to the effect<\/p>\n
that the Samiti could not have proceeded against the<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 under its own rules while initiating
\n                                                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
disciplinary      proceedings,      but       should    have     taken<\/p>\n
recourse    to    the   provisions       of    the     Delhi    School<\/p>\n
Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder.                      In<\/p>\n
this    regard,     the       learned    Additional       Solicitor<\/p>\n
General referred to Rule 50 of the 1973 Rules and in<\/p>\n
particular, Clauses (i) and (vi) thereof which read<\/p>\n
as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  “50. Conditions for recognition.-
\n              No private school shall be recognized,
\n              or continue to be recognized, by the
\n              appropriate          authority    unless   the
\n              school     fulfils           the     following
\n              conditions, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (i) the school is run by a society
\n              registered           under    the    Societies
\n              Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860),
\n              or a public trust constituted under
\n              any law for the time being in force
\n              and is managed in accordance with a
\n              scheme of management made under these
\n              rules;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (ii)    .........\n(iii)   .........\n(iv)    .........\n                  (v)     .........\n                  (vi)               the managing committee\n<\/pre>\n
              observes the provisions of the Act and
\n              the rules made thereunder;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16. The     learned       Additional          Solicitor        General<\/p>\n
submitted    that       not     having    followed        the     said
\n                                                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
procedure,      the    Samiti       had     acted     illegally      in<\/p>\n
proceeding     against    the      Respondent       No.1   under    the<\/p>\n
rules and regulations of the Samiti on the ground<\/p>\n
that having appointed him the Samiti had control<\/p>\n
over his services.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17. The      learned      Additional         Solicitor        General<\/p>\n
submitted      that   having       regard    to     the    above,    no<\/p>\n
interference was called for with the decision of the<\/p>\n
High Court in L.P.A.No.52\/2007.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18. It    is     in    the      context      of     the     aforesaid<\/p>\n
submissions made on behalf of the respective parties<\/p>\n
that we will have to consider the questions set out<\/p>\n
hereinbefore in paragraph 8.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19. Regarding the first question, as to whether the<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 is an employee of the Samiti or of<\/p>\n
the   School,     there      can     be     no    doubt    that     the<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 is an employee of the Samiti whose<\/p>\n
services were placed at the disposal of the School,<\/p>\n
where he was functioning as a Lower Division Clerk
\n                                                                          13<\/span><\/p>\n
and thereafter as Upper Division Clerk. There is no<\/p>\n
dispute that his appointment was made by the Samiti<\/p>\n
and that his salary is also paid by the Samiti.<\/p>\n
There is also no dispute that he was promoted to the<\/p>\n
post of Upper Division Clerk by the Samiti and not<\/p>\n
by the School.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20. At this juncture, it may be fruitful to consider<\/p>\n
the   procedure          adopted     for     appointment            of    the<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 to the post of Lower Division Clerk<\/p>\n
in the School.           The Office Memorandum dated 9th May,<\/p>\n
1992 by which the Respondent No.1 was appointed,<\/p>\n
indicates at the outset that pursuant to a decision<\/p>\n
taken by the Selection Committee, the respondent was<\/p>\n
appointed as Lower Division Clerk on Government pay<\/p>\n
scale and admissible usual allowances payable to Bal<\/p>\n
Mandirs,       on    a    regular    basis       in    the    School       in<\/p>\n
question.       The said appointment was to take place<\/p>\n
with effect from 1st April, 1992, but he would remain<\/p>\n
posted    in    the      central    office    of      the    Samiti      till<\/p>\n
further    orders        of   the   Samiti.           In    other    words,<\/p>\n
though    the       Respondent      No.1   was     appointed        by    the
\n                                                                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
Samiti as a L.D.C. in the School in question with<\/p>\n
effect from 1st April, 1992, he was to remain posted<\/p>\n
in the central office of the Samiti till further<\/p>\n
orders were passed by the Samiti.                Since a reference<\/p>\n
has    been   made    to   the    Selection      Committee    in   the<\/p>\n
Office Memorandum, it will be necessary to consider<\/p>\n
the    effect    of   Rule   96     vis-`-vis        the   Respondent<\/p>\n
No.1’s appointment by the Samiti.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
21. Rule 96 of the 1973 Rules falls under Chapter<\/p>\n
VIII of the said Rules, which deals with recruitment<\/p>\n
and terms and conditions of service of employees of<\/p>\n
the    private    schools        other   that    unaided     minority<\/p>\n
schools.        Rule 96(2) provides that recruitment of<\/p>\n
employees in each recognized private school shall be<\/p>\n
made    on    the     recommendations           of   the   Selection<\/p>\n
Committee, which, in the case of appointment of any<\/p>\n
employee other than the Head of the School or a<\/p>\n
teacher other than the Head of the School, not being<\/p>\n
an employee belonging to Group `D’, was to consist<\/p>\n
of :\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
      (i)         the Chairman of the managing committee<\/p>\n
      or a member of the managing committee, to be<\/p>\n
      nominated by the Chairman;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (ii)              head of the school;\n\n      (iii)       a nominee of the Director;\n\n      (iv)              in the case an aided school, two\n\n<\/pre>\n
officers having experience of the administration of<\/p>\n
the school, to be nominated by the Director.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In the instant case, the procedure under Rule 96<\/p>\n
(2)   appears      to    have   been   duly    followed      and   the<\/p>\n
appointment of the Respondent No.1 was made by the<\/p>\n
Samiti      on   the    conditions     set    out   in    the   Office<\/p>\n
Memorandum which leave no room for doubt that the<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 was an employee of the Samiti and<\/p>\n
not of the School, though it has been held otherwise<\/p>\n
by the Division Bench of the High Court.                   Of course,<\/p>\n
the High Court has couched its observations by using<\/p>\n
the   expression         “for   all    practical         intents   and<\/p>\n
purposes”, but that, in our view, would not make him<\/p>\n
an employee of the school. Furthermore, Condition<\/p>\n
No.3 of the conditions of service provides in clear
\n                                                                                16<\/span><\/p>\n
and unambiguous terms that the Respondent No.1 could<\/p>\n
be    relieved       from        his        services      in      the     initial<\/p>\n
probation      period       or    extended          period       of     probation<\/p>\n
after one month’s notice or one month’s pay.                                    The<\/p>\n
said condition also provides that after his services<\/p>\n
were made permanent, if the Samiti wanted to relieve<\/p>\n
him   from     his    services,             he    would     be    given    three<\/p>\n
months’      prior     notice          or    be     given      three      months’<\/p>\n
salary    in    lieu    thereof.                  Condition       No.4,     which<\/p>\n
allows the Samiti to transfer the respondent from<\/p>\n
one Bal Mandir to another run by the Samiti or to<\/p>\n
the    Samiti        itself,       read           with    Condition         No.3,<\/p>\n
indicates that the service of the Respondent No.1<\/p>\n
was    under     the     Samiti             and     under        its     control.<\/p>\n
Conditions      11    and        15,    on       which    a    good      deal    of<\/p>\n
reliance has been placed on behalf of the Respondent<\/p>\n
No.1, read as follows :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “11. During the period of service he
\n          will have to obey all the rules as
\n          mentioned   in   Chapte-9  of   Delhi
\n          Education Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 xxx                    xxx                    xxxx
\n                                                                     17<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           15. In case he failed to comply with
\n           the aforesaid conditions and the rules
\n           as mentined 123 of Delhi Education
\n           Act, the Samiti will have full right
\n           to remove him from service according
\n           to law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                  (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
22. This     brings    us    to     the   next    question      as    to<\/p>\n
whether despite being an employee of the Samiti, the<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1’s services would be governed by the<\/p>\n
Delhi    School     Education      Act    and    the   Rules    framed<\/p>\n
thereunder or under the Rules of the Samiti.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
23.     Condition    No.11,       which    has    been   reproduced<\/p>\n
hereinabove, only indicates that during his period<\/p>\n
of service, the Respondent No.1 would have to obey<\/p>\n
all the rules as mentioned in Chapter 9 of the Delhi<\/p>\n
School Education Rules.            The said provision supports<\/p>\n
the stand taken on behalf of the Samiti that Chapter<\/p>\n
9 of the said Rules relating to the Code of conduct<\/p>\n
for teachers and other employees was adopted by the<\/p>\n
Samiti     to   govern      the    code    of     conduct      of    its<\/p>\n
employees as well.          Except for indicating that the
\n                                                                 18<\/span><\/p>\n
Respondent   No.1    would     have   to    obey   the   rules   in<\/p>\n
question, Condition No.11 does not provide that the<\/p>\n
Act and Rules would directly govern the services of<\/p>\n
the said respondent.           Furthermore, condition No.15<\/p>\n
gives the Samiti the right to remove the Respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 from service according to law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
24. In   answer     to   the    second      question,    it    must,<\/p>\n
therefore,   be     held       that   the     services    of     the<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 would continue to be governed by the<\/p>\n
rules of the Samiti and not by the Delhi School<\/p>\n
Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder,<\/p>\n
though the provisions of the rules may have been<\/p>\n
adopted by the Samiti for its employees.<\/p>\n
25. Consequently, in answer to the third question<\/p>\n
posed in paragraph 8 hereinbefore, it must be held<\/p>\n
that the Respondent No.1 continued to be governed by<\/p>\n
the rules of the Samiti whether his services were<\/p>\n
placed at the disposal of the school or retained by<\/p>\n
the Samiti in its central office.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         19<\/span><\/p>\n
26. In our view, the reasoning of the Division Bench<\/p>\n
of the High Court was erroneous as it proceeded on<\/p>\n
the   premise   that   for   all   practical   intents   and<\/p>\n
purposes the Respondent No.1 was an employee of the<\/p>\n
school and that the provisions of the Delhi School<\/p>\n
Education Act, 1973 would, therefore, apply to him.<\/p>\n
The judgment and order of the Division Bench cannot,<\/p>\n
therefore, be sustained and is set aside and the<\/p>\n
judgment of the learned Single Judge is restored.<\/p>\n
27. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the writ<\/p>\n
petition filed by the Respondent No.1 is dismissed.<\/p>\n
There will, however, be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                       ________________J.\n<\/p>\n
                                          (ALTAMAS KABIR)<\/p>\n
                                       ________________J.\n<\/p>\n
                                          (CYRIAC JOSEPH)
\nNew Delhi,
\nDated: 3.2.2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Samarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr vs Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour & Ors on 3 February, 2009 Author: ________________J. Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.598 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)NO.3027 of 2008) Samarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr. … Appellants […]<\/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-146339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSamarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr vs Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour & Ors on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Samarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr vs Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour & Ors on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-26T03:04:16+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\\\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Samarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr vs Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour & Ors on 3 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-26T03:04:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2879,\"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\\\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Samarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr vs Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour & Ors on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-26T03:04:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Samarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr vs Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour & Ors on 3 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Samarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr vs Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour & Ors on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Samarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr vs Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour & Ors on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-26T03:04:16+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\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Samarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr vs Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour & Ors on 3 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-26T03:04:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009"},"wordCount":2879,"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\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009","name":"Samarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr vs Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour & Ors on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-26T03:04:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samarth-shiksha-samiti-anr-vs-bir-bahadur-singh-rathour-ors-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Samarth Shiksha Samiti & Anr vs Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour & Ors on 3 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146339","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=146339"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146339\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}