{"id":149144,"date":"2000-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000"},"modified":"2017-01-29T12:40:12","modified_gmt":"2017-01-29T07:10:12","slug":"aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000","title":{"rendered":"Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M J Rao<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M. Jagannadha J., Y. K. Sabharwal, J.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMANSOOR ALI KHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t28\/08\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nM. JAGANNADHA RAO  J.  &amp; Y.  K.\t SABHARWAL , J.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>M.  JAGANNADHA RAO , J.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;.I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<br \/>\n     These  two\t appeals have been preferred by the  Aligarh<br \/>\nMuslim University, Aligarh.  In the Civil appeal arising out<br \/>\nof  SLP(C) No.\t12700\/99, the respondent is Mr.\t Mansoor Ali<br \/>\nKhan,  whose  Special  appeal  483\/95  was  allowed  by\t the<br \/>\nDivision  Bench\t of the High Court of Allahabad\t on  8.4.99,<br \/>\nreversing  the judgment of the learned Single Judge in\tW.P.<br \/>\n15674\/87  dated 14.7.1995.  In the Civil appeal arising\t out<br \/>\nof  SLP(C)  No.\t  12981\/99, the respondent is  Mr.   Murshad<br \/>\nHussain\t Khan, whose Special appeal No.\t 484\/95 was  allowed<br \/>\non  8.4.99 by the Division Bench, following the judgment  in<br \/>\nSpecial\t appeal No.  483\/95 in the case of Mr.\tMansoor\t Ali<br \/>\nKhan.\tThe Service Rules relied upon in these two cases are<br \/>\ncommon\tbut  there is some distinction on facts between\t the<br \/>\ntwo cases and we shall refer to those facts separately.\t The<br \/>\nresult\tof  the judgment of the Division Bench was that\t the<br \/>\nimpugned  orders  of  termination of  services\tfor  alleged<br \/>\nunauthorised  absence were quashed.  They were set aside and<br \/>\nthe  Vice  Chancellor  of  the University  was\tdirected  to<br \/>\nconsider  the matter afresh keeping in view the provision of<br \/>\nRule  10(C)(ii)\t of  the   Aligarh  University\tNon-Teaching<br \/>\nEmployees  ( Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972  (<br \/>\nhereinafter  called the 1972 Rules) and Rule 5(8)(i) of\t the<br \/>\nAligarh\t University Revised Leave Rules, 1969 relied upon by<br \/>\nthe University (hereinafter called the 1969 Rules).\n<\/p>\n<p>     We\t shall\tfirst  state the facts in Mr.\tMansoor\t Ali<br \/>\nKhan&#8217;s\tcase.  He was working as a Laboratory Assistant\t and<br \/>\nhe  applied  for two years extra-ordinary leave for  joining<br \/>\nAl-Fatah  University, Tripoli, Libya.  The Vice-  Chancellor<br \/>\nsanctioned  leave  for two years from 18.4.79.\t Before\t the<br \/>\nexpiry\tof  the\t period, Mr.  Khan applied  on\t18.4.81\t for<br \/>\nextension  of  leave  by  3  years.   On  12\/23-9-  81,\t the<br \/>\nUniversity granted extension only for one year from 18.4.81.<br \/>\nThe  leave  stood  thus\t extended  upto\t 18.4.82.   It\twas,<br \/>\nhowever,  clearly stated by the University, in its letter as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;..You   are\t required  to\tresume\t duties\t  by<br \/>\n18.4.1982.   Please  note that no further extension  in\t the<br \/>\nperiod of your leave will be possible and you are advised to<br \/>\nmake preparation for resuming duty positively by 18.4.82&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     But, without waiting for the receipt of the above order<br \/>\ndated 12\/23-9-81, Mr.  Khan entered into a fresh contract in<br \/>\nLibya  which,  according  to him, was to be  for  a  minimum<br \/>\nperiod\tof  2 years.  The fresh contract was  upto  17.4.83.<br \/>\nThereafter,  he wrote a further letter to the University  on<br \/>\n18.1.82 for grant of extension of leave for 1 more year upto<br \/>\n17.4.83\t and  stated that he would definitely join  duty  on<br \/>\n18.4.83.   The University sent a telegram on 21.4.82 stating<br \/>\nthat  his request for further extension was refused and that<br \/>\nhe should resume duties by 15th May, 1982, failing which &#8220;he<br \/>\nwould be deemed to have vacated&#8221; the post and &#8220;ceased&#8221; to be<br \/>\nin  University\tservice.  On 1.6.82, the University  sent  a<br \/>\ncable  extending  the joining time upto 30.6.82\t and  stated<br \/>\nthat he must join on 1.7.82 failing which he would be deemed<br \/>\nto  have  &#8220;vacated&#8221; the post and cease to be  in  University<br \/>\nservice\t from  18.4.82.\t Subsequently, by letter dated\t7\/9-<br \/>\n6-1982,\t the  substance of the telegram was confirmed.\t Mr.<br \/>\nKhan  failed  to  join\tby  1.7.82.   Result  was  that\t the<br \/>\nUniversity   deemed  that  he\thad  vacated  office  w.e.f.<br \/>\n18.4.82.   The appeal to the Visitor was rejected on 5.9.85.<br \/>\nThen  Mr.   Khan  filed\t the Writ petition  on\t24.8.87\t for<br \/>\nquashing the two telegrams and the order dated 5.9.85 of the<br \/>\nVisitor.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of<br \/>\nMr.   Mansoor Ali Khan holding that he had not expressed any<br \/>\nintention  to join till his assignment in Libya was over and<br \/>\nthat  without  waiting for extension, he had entered into  a<br \/>\nfresh  contract\t in  Libya,  that he did not  avail  of\t the<br \/>\njoining time as extended period and that his conduct did not<br \/>\njustify\t any  relief.\tThe writ petition was  dismissed  on<br \/>\n17.2.95.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t the  Appeal  filed by Mr.  Mansoor  Ali  Khan,\t the<br \/>\nDivision  Bench\t held that on a harmonious reading  of\tRule<br \/>\n5(8)(ii)  of  the  Leave Rules, 1969 and Rule 10(C)  of\t the<br \/>\nService\t Rules,\t 1972,\tMr.  Khan ought to have\t been  given<br \/>\nnotice\tbecause\t before\t the extension was refused,  he\t had<br \/>\nentered into a fresh contract in Libya.\t The Bench also held<br \/>\nthat  according\t to  Leave Regulations ( as amended  by\t the<br \/>\nExecutive  Council on 12.2.70), the non-teaching staff\twere<br \/>\ngoverned  by  the  same regulations applicable\tto  teaching<br \/>\nstaff  and  the said regulations  visualised  extra-ordinary<br \/>\nleave  being  granted &#8216;ordinarily&#8217; for 3 years if leave\t was<br \/>\nnecessary  for\taccepting  employment outside and  that\t the<br \/>\ntotal  period  of extension of leave permitted was 5  years.<br \/>\nIn  the case of an officer who had availed leave for foreign<br \/>\nemployment,  he\t could avail leave again for 5\tyears  after<br \/>\nre-joining.   Mr.   Khan had not resumed duty by  1.7.82  in<br \/>\nterms  of Rule 5(8) of the Leave Rules, 1969 and therefore a<br \/>\nshow  cause  under Rule 5(8)(i) should have been  issued  to<br \/>\nhim.   Nor was there anything on record to indicate that the<br \/>\nabsence of the appellant from duty after expiry of leave was<br \/>\ntaken  to be &#8216;misconduct&#8217; within clause (ii) of Rule 5(8) of<br \/>\nthe  Leave  Rules, 1969.  In any case,\tautomatic  cessation<br \/>\nfrom  service would not take place before expiry of 5  years<br \/>\nas would be seen from Rule 10(C) of the Service Rules, 1972.<br \/>\nHere,  the  total  period did not exceed 5  years  including<br \/>\nperiod\tof sanctioned leave and hence there was no automatic<br \/>\ncessation  of service.\tMr.  Mansoor Ali Khan&#8217;s service\t did<br \/>\nnot,  therefore, cease automatically on 18.4.82.  The appeal<br \/>\nwas  allowed  and  the impugned orders\twere  quashed.\t The<br \/>\ndivision  Bench directed the Vice-Chancellor to consider the<br \/>\nmatter\tafresh\tkeeping\t in view Rule 10(C)(ii)\t of  Service<br \/>\nRules, 1972.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The facts in the case of Mr.  Murshad Hussain Khan were<br \/>\nsimilar\t but  for the fact that before deeming that  he\t had<br \/>\nvacated\t office\t he  was  given notice\tand  his  reply\t was<br \/>\nconsidered  and\t rejected  under Rule 5(8)(i)  of  the\t1969<br \/>\nRules.\t In  the writ appeal filed by Mr.   Murshad  Hussain<br \/>\nKhan,  the judgment in the case of Mr.\tMansoor Ali Khan was<br \/>\nfollowed  by  the  Division Bench and a\t similar  order\t was<br \/>\npassed.\t  It was not noticed that in this case a show  cause<br \/>\nnotice\twas  issued  under Rule 5(8)(i) of  the\t 1969  Rules<br \/>\nbefore the order of termination was passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In these appeals, we have heard learned Senior<br \/>\n     counsel Sri B.D.  Aggarwal for the appellant and Sri<br \/>\n     Rajeev Dhawan for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The following points arise for consideration:\n<\/p>\n<p>     1.\t What are the situations in which Rule 5(8)(i) or<br \/>\n     Rule 5(8)(ii) of the Aligarh Muslim University Revised<br \/>\n     Leave Rules 1969 apply?\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.\t What are the situations in which Rule 10(C)(i) and<br \/>\n     Rule 10(C)(ii) of the Aligarh Muslim University Non-<br \/>\n     Teaching Employees ( Terms and Conditions of Service)<br \/>\n     Rules, 1972 apply?\n<\/p>\n<p>     3.\t Under which Rule do the cases of Mr.  Mansoor Ali<br \/>\n     Khan and Murshad Hussain Khan fall?\n<\/p>\n<p>     4.\t  If  Rule  5(8)(i) of the Leave Rules,\t 1969  alone<br \/>\napplied,  is  there any violation of principles\t of  natural<br \/>\njustice in each of these cases?\n<\/p>\n<p>     5.\t Whether oin the facts of the case, Mr.\t Mansoor Ali<br \/>\nKhan can invoke the principle of natural justice and whether<br \/>\nit  is\ta  case where, even if notice had  been\t given,\t the<br \/>\nresult would not have been different and whether it could be<br \/>\nsaid  that no prejudice was caused to him if on the admitted<br \/>\nor proved facts, grant of an opportunity would not have made<br \/>\nany difference?\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     Point 1:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\n     For the purpose of this point, we shall refer to<br \/>\n     Rule 5(8) of the 1969 Rules.<\/p>\n<p>     It reads as follows:<\/p>\n<p>     Overstayal of leave:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Rule  5(8)(i)- If an employee absents himself from duty<br \/>\nwithout\t having previously obtained leave or fails to return<br \/>\nto  his\t duties\t on  the  expiry  of  leave  without  having<br \/>\npreviously   obtained  further\tleave,\t the  Head  of\t the<br \/>\nDepartment\/Office concerned in cases where is the Appointing<br \/>\nAuthority,  after waiting for three days, shall\t communicate<br \/>\nwith  the  person  concerned asking for an  explanation\t and<br \/>\nshall  consider\t the same.  In cases where the Head  of\t the<br \/>\nDepartment\/Office is not the Appointing Authority, he shall,<br \/>\nafter  waiting for three days from the date of\tunauthorised<br \/>\nabsence\t without  leave\t or extension of leave,\t inform\t the<br \/>\nRegistrar\/Finance  Officer,  and  the  Registrar  (  Finance<br \/>\nOfficer\t in  the case of staff borne on the Accounts  Cadre)<br \/>\nshall  communicate  with the person concerned asking for  an<br \/>\nexplanation    which\tshall\tbe    submitted\t   to\t the<br \/>\nVice-Chancellor\/Executive Council.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Unless the Appointing Authority regards the explanation<br \/>\nsatisfactory,  the  employee concerned shall be\t deemed\t too<br \/>\nhave  vacated  the  post, without notice, from the  date  of<br \/>\nabsence without leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rule 5(8)(ii)- An Officer or other employee who absents<br \/>\nhimself\t without leave or remains absent without leave after<br \/>\nthe  expiry  of\t the leave granted to him, shall  if  he  is<br \/>\npermitted  to rejoin duty, be entitled to no leave allowance<br \/>\nor  salary  for the period of such absence and\tsuch  period<br \/>\nwill  be debited against his leave account as leave  without<br \/>\npay  unless his leave is extended by the authority empowered<br \/>\nto  grant  the\tleave.\tWilful absence from duty  after\t the<br \/>\nexpiry of leave may be treated as misconduct for the purpose<br \/>\nof  clause  12 of Chapter IV of the Executive Ordinances  of<br \/>\nthe  A.M.U.  and para 10 of Chapter IX of Regulations of the<br \/>\nExecutive Council.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It\t will  be  seen\t that Rule  5(8)(i)  applies  to  an<br \/>\nemployee  who  absents\thimself\t from  duty  without  having<br \/>\npreviously  obtained leave or where he has failed to  return<br \/>\nto  his\t duties\t on  the  expiry  of  leave  without  having<br \/>\npreviously obtained further leave.  Then Rule 5(8)(i) refers<br \/>\nto  the\t manner\t in  which the employee is to  be  given  an<br \/>\nopportunity.   If  the\tAppointing   Authority\tregards\t the<br \/>\nexplanation  as\t not  satisfactory, the\t employee  concerned<br \/>\nshall  be  deemed to have vacated his post, without  notice,<br \/>\nfrom  the date of absence without leave.  In the context  of<br \/>\nRule  10 of the 1972 Rules, which deems vacation of Post  if<br \/>\nthe  absence was 5 years, it must follow that the above Rule<br \/>\n5(8)(i) applies to absence for a period less than 5 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rule  5(8)(ii)  deals with a different  situation.\t  It<br \/>\nrelates\t to  a\tcase where such an officer is  permitted  to<br \/>\nrejoin duty.  It says that if he is so permitted, he will be<br \/>\nentitled  to no leave allowance or salary for the period  of<br \/>\nsuch  absence  and such period shall be debited against\t his<br \/>\nleave  account\tas  leave without pay.\tThe rule  says\tthat<br \/>\nthese consequences will not, however, follow if his leave is<br \/>\nextended by the authority empowered to grant leave.  Then in<br \/>\nits  latter part, Rule 5(8)(ii) refers to another  situation<br \/>\nenabling   disciplinary\t  action  to   be   taken   treating<br \/>\nunauthorised absence as misconduct.\n<\/p>\n<p>     If a person has been absent without leave being<br \/>\n     sanctioned, he could be proceeded against for<br \/>\n     misconduct.\n<\/p>\n<p>     These  are\t the  different\t situations  in\t which\tRule<br \/>\n5(8)(i) and (ii) apply.\t Point 1 is decided accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Point 2:\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rule 10(c)(i)(ii) of the 1972 Rules reads as<br \/>\n     follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;Rule 10:\tEmployee absent from duty:\n<\/p>\n<p>     (a) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (b) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (c)(i)  No permanent employee shall be granted leave of<br \/>\nany kind for a continuous period exceeding five years;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (ii)  When\t an  employee  does not\t resume\t duty  after<br \/>\nremaining on leave for a continuous period of five years, or<br \/>\nwhether\t an  employee after the expiry of his leave  remains<br \/>\nabsent\tfrom  duty, otherwise than on foreign service or  on<br \/>\naccount of suspension for any period which together with the<br \/>\nperiod\tof  the leave granted to him exceeds five years,  he<br \/>\nshall,\tunless\tthe  Executive\tCouncil\t  in  view  of\t the<br \/>\nexceptional  circumstances of the case otherwise  determine,<br \/>\nbe deemed to have resigned and shall accordingly cease to be<br \/>\nin the University service.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     It\t will  be seen that Rule 10 deals with\ta  different<br \/>\naspect.\t Now Rule 10(c)(i) states that no permanent employee<br \/>\nshall  be granted leave of any kind for a continuous  period<br \/>\nof  more than 5 years.\tHowever, Rule 10(c)(ii) states\tthat<br \/>\nwhen  an  employee does not resume duty after  remaining  on<br \/>\nleave  for  a  continuous  period of 5 years,  or  where  an<br \/>\nemployee  &#8211;  after the expiry of his leave &#8211; remains  absent<br \/>\nfrom  duty ( otherwise than on foreign service or on account<br \/>\nof suspension) for any period which together with the period<br \/>\nof  the leave granted to him exceeds 5 years, &#8211; he shall,  (<br \/>\nunless\tthe  Executive\tCouncil in view of  the\t exceptional<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case otherwise determine), be deemed to<br \/>\nhave  resigned\tand  shall accordingly cease to\t be  in\t the<br \/>\nUniversity  service.   This  is the purport of\tRule  10(c).<br \/>\nPoint 2 is decided accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Point 3:\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t the case of both these employees i.e.\tMr.  Mansoor<br \/>\nAli  Khan  as well as Mr.  Murshad Hussain Khan,  the  total<br \/>\nperiod\t of  absence  before  the   date  of  the  order  of<br \/>\ntermination  did not exceed 5 years.  Hence, obviously\tRule<br \/>\n10(c)(ii) of the 1972 Rules cannot apply for that deals with<br \/>\ncases where the absence is beyond 5 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t the facts of these appeals, in our view, only\tRule<br \/>\n5(8)(i)\t of the 1969 Rules can apply because that deals with<br \/>\na  situation where the absence is less than 5 years.  So far<br \/>\nas  Rule 5(8)(ii) is concerned, it does not apply because we<br \/>\nare  not  concerned here with the case of a person  who\t has<br \/>\nbeen ultimately allowed to join &#8211; inspite of absence without<br \/>\nleave  &#8211;  and  of his joining.\tIn the present\tcases,\tboth<br \/>\nofficers  never rejoined.  So far as the latter part of Rule<br \/>\n5(8)(ii)  is  concerned,  that\ttoo does  not  apply  as  no<br \/>\ndisciplinary action has been taken.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Thus,  in the case of both these officers Rule  5(8)(i)<br \/>\nof  the\t 1969 Rules alone can apply the absence\t being\tless<br \/>\nthan  5 years.\tIn that event, a show cause notice and reply<br \/>\nare  necessary\tas  explained  below.  Point  3\t is  decided<br \/>\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Point 4:\n<\/p>\n<p>     Now,  in  the second case of Sri Murshad Hussain  Khan,<br \/>\nadmittedly,  notice had been issued and reply furnished\t and<br \/>\nthe impugned order of deeming vacation of office was passed.<br \/>\nAs  Rule  5(8)(i) had been complied with in his case,  there<br \/>\nwas  no\t infirmity  in deeming his vacation from  the  post.<br \/>\nUnfortunately,\t the  Division\tBench  of  the\tHigh   Court<br \/>\nmechanically  allowed  the appeal following the judgment  in<br \/>\nMansoor\t Ali  Khan&#8217;s case which was decided earlier  and  in<br \/>\nwhich  no  show cause was issued under Rule 5(8)(i)  of\t the<br \/>\n1969  Rules.   The judgment in his case is liable to be\t set<br \/>\naside on this ground alone.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Coming back to the first case of Mr.  Mansoor Ali Khan,<br \/>\nadmittedly,  no notice under Rule 5(8)(i) of the 1969  Rules<br \/>\nhas   been  given.   There   is,  therefore,  violation\t  of<br \/>\nprinciples of natural justice as notice contemplated in Rule<br \/>\n5(8)(i)\t has  not  been given.\tQuestion as to\twhether\t the<br \/>\norder deeming that he vacated office is correct or not, will<br \/>\nhave  to be then decided.  We shall decide that point  under<br \/>\npoint 5.  We decide accordingly against Mr.  Murshad Hussain<br \/>\nKhan  and  partly in favour of Mr.  Mansoor Ali\t Khan  under<br \/>\npoint 4.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Point 5:\n<\/p>\n<p>     This  is  the crucial point in this case.\t As  already<br \/>\nstated\tunder point 4, in the case of Mr.  Mansoor Ali Khan,<br \/>\nnotice\tcalling for an explanation had not been issued under<br \/>\nRule  5(8)(i)  of  the\t1969  Rules.   Question\t is  whether<br \/>\ninterference  is not called for in the special circumstances<br \/>\nof the case?\n<\/p>\n<p>     As\t pointed recently in M.C.  Mehta Vs.  Union of India<br \/>\n(1999 (6) SCC 237), there can be certain situations in which<br \/>\nan  order passed in violation of natural justice need not be<br \/>\nset  aside  under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India.<br \/>\nFor  example  where  no prejudice is caused  to\t the  person<br \/>\nconcerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Similarly,\t if  the quashing of the order which  is  in<br \/>\nbreach\tof natural justice is likely to result in revival of<br \/>\nanother\t order\twhich  is  in itself  illegal  as  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1125589\/\">Gadde<br \/>\nVenkateswara Rao vs.  Government of Andhra Pradesh<\/a> [1966 (2)<br \/>\nSCR 172 = AIR 1966 SC 828], it is not necessary to quash the<br \/>\norder  merely because of violation of principles of  natural<br \/>\njustice.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t M.C.Mehta  it was pointed out that at one time,  it<br \/>\nwas  held in Ridge vs.\tBaldwin ( 1964 AC 40) that breach of<br \/>\nprinciples  of\tnatural\t justice was in\t itself\t treated  as<br \/>\nprejudice and that no other &#8216;defacto&#8217; prejudice needed to be<br \/>\nproved.\t  But,\tsince then the rigour of the rule  has\tbeen<br \/>\nrelaxed\t not  only in England but also in our  country.\t  In<br \/>\nS.L.   Kapoor  Vs.  Jagmohan ( 1980 (4) SCC 379),  Chinnappa<br \/>\nReddy,\tJ.   followed Ridge vs.\t Baldwin and set  aside\t the<br \/>\norder\tof  supercession  of   the  New\t Delhi\tMetropolitan<br \/>\nCommittee rejecting the argument that there was no prejudice<br \/>\nthough\tnotice was not given.  The proceedings were  quashed<br \/>\non the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.<br \/>\nBut  even in that case certain exceptions were laid down  to<br \/>\nwhich we shall presently refer.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Chinnappa\tReddy,\tJ.  in S.L.Kapoor&#8217;s case,  laid\t two<br \/>\nexceptions   (at  p.395)  namely,  &#8221;  if  upon\tadmitted  or<br \/>\nindisputable  facts only one conclusion was possible&#8221;,\tthen<br \/>\nin such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice<br \/>\nwas in itself prejudice, would not apply.  In other words if<br \/>\nno other conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable<br \/>\nfacts,\tit  is\tnot necessary to quash the order  which\t was<br \/>\npassed\tin  violation of natural justice.  Of  course,\tthis<br \/>\nbeing  an  exception, great care must be taken\tin  applying<br \/>\nthis exception.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  principle  that in addition to breach\t of  natural<br \/>\njustice, prejudice must also be proved has been developed in<br \/>\nseveral cases.\tIn K.L.\t Tripathi Vs.  State Bank of India (<br \/>\n1984(1)\t SCC 43), Sabyasachi Mukherji, J.  ( as he then was)<br \/>\nalso  laid  down  the principle that not mere  violation  of<br \/>\nnatural justice but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue<br \/>\nof notice) had to be proved.  It was observed:\tquoting Wade<br \/>\nAdministrative\tLaw, (5th Ed.PP.472-475) as follows:  ( para\n<\/p>\n<p>31)<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;&#8230;.it  is not possible to lay down rigid rules as  to<br \/>\nwhen  principles  of  natural justice are to apply,  nor  as<br \/>\ntheir  scope  and extent &#8230;.There must have been some\treal<br \/>\nprejudice  to the complainant;\tthere is no such thing as  a<br \/>\nmerely\ttechnical  infringement\t of  natural  justice.\t The<br \/>\nrequirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances  of  the case, the nature of the inquiry,\t the<br \/>\nrules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter<br \/>\nto be dealt with and so forth&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Since  then,  this Court has consistently\tapplied\t the<br \/>\nprinciple  of prejudice in several cases.  The above  ruling<br \/>\nand  various  other rulings taking the same view  have\tbeen<br \/>\nexhaustively  referred to in State Bank of Patiala Vs.\tS.K.<br \/>\nSharma\t( 1996(3) SCC 364).  In that case, the principle  of<br \/>\n&#8216;prejudice&#8217; has been further elaborated.  The same principle<br \/>\nhas  been  reiterated again in Rajendra Singh Vs.  State  of<br \/>\nM.P.  ( 1996(5) SCC 460).\n<\/p>\n<p>     The &#8216;useless formality&#8217; theory, it must be noted, is an<br \/>\nexception.   Apart  from the class of cases of &#8220;admitted  or<br \/>\nindisputable  facts leading only to one conclusion&#8221; referred<br \/>\nto  above,-  there  has\t been  considerable  debate  of\t the<br \/>\napplication  of\t that theory in other cases.  The  divergent<br \/>\nviews  expressed  in  regard  to   this\t theory\t have\tbeen<br \/>\nelaborately considered by this Court in M.C.  Mehta referred<br \/>\nto  above.   This  Court  surveyed the\tviews  expressed  in<br \/>\nvarious judgments in England by Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce,<br \/>\nLord  Woolf, Lord Bingham, Megarry, J.\tand Straughton\tL.J.<br \/>\netc.   in various cases and also views expressed by  leading<br \/>\nwriters\t like Profs.  Garner, Craig, De.  Smith, Wade,\tD.H.<br \/>\nClark etc.<\/p>\n<p>     Some  of them have said that orders passed in violation<br \/>\nmust  always  be  quashed for otherwise the  Court  will  be<br \/>\nprejudging  the issue.\tSome others have said, that there is<br \/>\nno  such  absolute rule and prejudice must be  shown.\tYet,<br \/>\nsome  others have applied via-media rules.  We do not  think<br \/>\nit  necessary, in this case to go deeper into these  issues.<br \/>\nIn  the\t ultimate analysis, it may depend on the facts of  a<br \/>\nparticular case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It\t will be sufficient, for the purpose of the case  of<br \/>\nMr.  Mansoor Ali Khan to show that his case will fall within<br \/>\nthe  exceptions\t stated\t by  Chinnappa Reddy,  J.   in\tS.C.<br \/>\nKapoor\tVs.   Jagmohan,\t namely,  that on  the\tadmitted  or<br \/>\nindisputable  facts  &#8211; only one view is possible.   In\tthat<br \/>\nevent  no  prejudice can be said to have been caused to\t Mr.<br \/>\nMansoor Ali Khan though notice has not been issued.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Our  reasons  for saying that the case of Mr.   Mansoor<br \/>\nAli Khan fall within the exception can be stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>     Admittedly,  leave was sanctioned only for 2 years from<br \/>\n18.4.79.  When before the expiry of the period, Mr.  Mansoor<br \/>\nAli Khan applied on 18.4.81 for extension of leave by 3 more<br \/>\nyears,\tthe  University wrote to him on 17\/23-9-91  granting<br \/>\nextension  only\t for one year from 18.4.81 and\talso  stated<br \/>\nthat  he  was required to resume duties by 18.4.82.  It\t did<br \/>\nnot stop there.\t It further forewarned Mr.  Khan as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;Please note that no further extension in the period of<br \/>\nyour  leave  will  be possible and you are advised  to\tmake<br \/>\npreparation for resuming duty positively by 18.4.82.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t other\twords, he was put on advance notice that  it<br \/>\nwould  not  be possible to give any further  extension\ti.e.<br \/>\nbeyond\tone year on the ground of continuance in the job  at<br \/>\nLibya  and  he\twas  to resume duty by\t18.4.82.   In  fact,<br \/>\nthereafter some special consideration was still shown in his<br \/>\nfavour\tby way of granting him joining time upto 1.7.82.  It<br \/>\nwas  clearly said that otherwise he would be deemed to\thave<br \/>\nvacated the post.  If he had, in spite of this warning, gone<br \/>\nahead  by accepting a further contract in Libya, it was,  in<br \/>\nour view, his own unilateral act in the teeth of the advance<br \/>\nwarning\t given.\t  That\tconduct, the  learned  Single  Judge<br \/>\nthought\t and  in our view rightly to be sufficient  to\tdeny<br \/>\nrelief under Article 226.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We\t may  state  that  the\t University  has  not  acted<br \/>\nunreasonably  in  informing him in advance &#8211; while  granting<br \/>\none  year extension, in addition to the initial absence of 2<br \/>\nyears  &#8211;  that no further extension will be given.  We\thave<br \/>\nnoticed\t that when the extension is sought for three  years,<br \/>\nthe  department has given him extension only for one year as<br \/>\nhe  had already availed 2 years extraordinary leave by\tthat<br \/>\ntime.\tIt  has\t to  be noticed that when  employees  go  on<br \/>\nforeign\t assignments which are secured by them at their\t own<br \/>\ninstance,  in case they do not come back within the original<br \/>\nperiod\tstipulated or before the expiration of the  extended<br \/>\nperiod,\t the employer in the parent country would be put  to<br \/>\nserious\t inconvenience\tand will find it difficult  to\tmake<br \/>\ntemporary  alternative\tappointments  to fill  up  the\tpost<br \/>\nduring\tthe period of absence of those who have gone abroad.<br \/>\nHowever, when rules permit and provide for an employee to go<br \/>\nabroad\tdiscretion  must  be   exercised  reasonably   while<br \/>\nrefusing  extension.   In  this\t  case,\t giving\t of  further<br \/>\nextension  only\t for one year out of the further  period  of<br \/>\nthree  years  sought  for is not unreasonable.\t In  such  a<br \/>\nsituation,  if\tthe  employee  has  entangled  himself\tinto<br \/>\nfurther commitments abroad, he has to blame himself.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On\t the  above facts, the absence of a notice  to\tshow<br \/>\ncause  does  not  make any difference for the  employee\t has<br \/>\nalready\t been  told  that  if his further  overstay  is\t for<br \/>\ncontinuing in the job in Libya, it is bound to be refused.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Should  notice  have been given before he is deemed  to<br \/>\nhave  vacated office under Rule 5(8) (i)?  Was no  prejudice<br \/>\ncaused?\n<\/p>\n<p>     Now the question of deeming the vacation of the post is<br \/>\nmentioned  both in Rule 10 which deals with 5 years  absence<br \/>\nand also by rule 5(8)(ii) where absence is for a period less<br \/>\nthan  5\t years.\t In the latter case, it is true,  notice  is<br \/>\nnormally  contemplated.\t We have said that that rule 10\t has<br \/>\nno  application\t to the case before us since the absence  of<br \/>\nMr.   Mansoor Ali Khan&#8217;s absence is less than 5 years.\t Now<br \/>\neven  under  rule 5(8)(i), there is a deeming  provision  of<br \/>\nvacation  of  the post where the explanation offered by\t the<br \/>\nemployee,   consequent\t upon  a   notice,  is\t found\t not<br \/>\nsatisfactory.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Let  us  then take two situations.\t An employee who  is<br \/>\npermitted  to  be  abroad  for\ttwo years  on  a  job  seeks<br \/>\nextension  for\t3 years but is granted extension only for  1<br \/>\nyear  and is also told in advance that no further  extension<br \/>\nwill be given and if does not join after the 1 year extended<br \/>\nperiod,\t he  will be deemed to have vacated office.  Let  us<br \/>\nassume\tthat  he  does not join as advised and, in  a  given<br \/>\ncase,  notice  is  given calling for  his  explanation.\t  He<br \/>\nreplies\t stating  that\the  had\t  entered  into\t a   further<br \/>\ncommitment for 2 years and wants one more year of extension.<br \/>\nThe  University\t refuses extension treating the\t explanation<br \/>\nunsatisfactory\tand  under Rule 5 (8)(i) deems that  he\t has<br \/>\nvacated\t his  job.  No fault can be found in the  procedure.<br \/>\nLet  us\t take another situation where the officer  does\t not<br \/>\njoin  in  identical  circumstances but is not  given  notice<br \/>\nunder  Rule  5 (8)(i).\tHe has no other explanation  &#8211;\tfrom<br \/>\nwhat  is  revealed in his writ petition filed later &#8211;  other<br \/>\nthan his further commitment abroad for 2 more years.  In the<br \/>\nlatter\tcase,  it is, in our opinion clear that even  if  no<br \/>\nnotice\tis given, the position would not have been different<br \/>\nbecause\t what particular explanation would not be treated as<br \/>\nsatisfactory  had already been intimated to him in  advance.<br \/>\nTherefore,  the absence of a notice in the latter  situation<br \/>\nmust  be  treated  as having made no  difference.   That  is<br \/>\nprecisely the position in the case of Sri Mansoor Ali Khan.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Another  important aspect of the matter is that no\t new<br \/>\nreason\thas been projected in the Writ petition of Mr.\tKhan<br \/>\nfor  his  seeking further extension earlier while in  Libya.<br \/>\nThe  only  reason  stated is that he  had  obtained  further<br \/>\nextension in job.  It is not a case where there is a plea in<br \/>\nthe Court that there were different grounds or reasons which<br \/>\nhe could have put in his explanation, if called for, such as<br \/>\nill  health  etc.   Indeed, if the reasons could  have\tbeen<br \/>\nsomewhat  different, &#8211; as may perhaps be disclosed or proved<br \/>\nin  subsequent\twrit  petition\t&#8211; such as  his\town  failing<br \/>\nhealth,\t one  can  understand.\t But so\t far  as  leave\t for<br \/>\npurposes  of job continuance in Libya, is concerned, he\t has<br \/>\nbeen  fully put on advance notice that no further  extension<br \/>\nwill  be given.\t It must be held that no prejudice has\tbeen<br \/>\ncaused even though no notice is given under Rule 5(8)(i).\n<\/p>\n<p>     We\t may  add  a word of caution.  Care must  be  taken,<br \/>\nwherever  the  Court  is  justifying  a\t denial\t of  natural<br \/>\njustice,  that\tits  decision is not described\tas  a  &#8216;pre-<br \/>\nconceived  view&#8217;  or one in substitution of the view of\t the<br \/>\nauthority who would have considered the explanation.\n<\/p>\n<p>     That  is  why we have taken pains to examine  in  depth<br \/>\nwhether the case fits into the exception.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Thus, in our view, in the above peculiar circumstances,<br \/>\nthe  only  conclusion that can be drawn is that even if\t Mr.<br \/>\nMansoor\t Ali Khan had been given notice and he had mentioned<br \/>\nthis  fact  of\tjob continuance in Libya as a  reason,\tthat<br \/>\nwould  not have made any difference and would not have\tbeen<br \/>\ntreated\t as  a satisfactory explanation under Rule  5(8)(i).<br \/>\nThus, on the admitted or undisputed facts, only one view was<br \/>\npossible.  The case would fall within the exception noted in<br \/>\nS.L.Kapoor&#8217;s  case.   We, therefore, hold that no  prejudice<br \/>\nhas been caused to the officer for want of notice under Rule<br \/>\n5(8)(i).   We hold against Mr.\tMansoor Ali Khan under Point\n<\/p>\n<p>5.<\/p>\n<p>     For  the  aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeals,\t set<br \/>\naside  the judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court<br \/>\nin  the\t case  of  both\t  employees  and  dismiss  the\twrit<br \/>\npetitions.  There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000 Author: M J Rao Bench: M. Jagannadha J., Y. K. Sabharwal, J. PETITIONER: ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: MANSOOR ALI KHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/08\/2000 BENCH: M. JAGANNADHA RAO J. &amp; Y. K. SABHARWAL , J. [&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-149144","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>Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000 - 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\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-29T07:10:12+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-29T07:10:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000\"},\"wordCount\":4619,\"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\\\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000\",\"name\":\"Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-29T07:10:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000 - 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\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-29T07:10:12+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000","datePublished":"2000-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-29T07:10:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000"},"wordCount":4619,"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\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000","name":"Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-29T07:10:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aligarh-muslim-university-and-ors-vs-mansoor-ali-khan-on-28-august-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000"}]},{"@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\/149144","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=149144"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149144\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149144"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149144"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}