{"id":160395,"date":"2010-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2"},"modified":"2016-02-17T01:47:01","modified_gmt":"2016-02-16T20:17:01","slug":"chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Chief Executive Officer, Zilla … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: J Panchal<\/div>\n
Bench: J.M. Panchal, Mukundakam Sharma<\/div>\n
                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n          CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2048 OF 2007\n\n\nChief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad          ...\nAppellant\n\n                         Versus\n\nState of Maharashtra & others             ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
J.M. PANCHAL, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.   The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment<\/p>\n
dated August 31, 2004, passed by the Division Bench of<\/p>\n
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench,<\/p>\n
in Writ Petition No. 1764 of 2003 whereby writ petition<\/p>\n
filed by respondent No. 2, i.e., Gajanan Sadashiv Ghule,
\n                                                            2<\/span>
\nwas allowed by setting aside the order of termination of<\/p>\n
his services dated May 4, 1998.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.   Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:<\/p>\n
           Claiming that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe,<\/p>\n
the respondent No. 2 applied to the appellant to appoint<\/p>\n
him as an Assistant Teacher. The respondent No. 2 was<\/p>\n
selected by the Subordinate Selection Board from the<\/p>\n
Scheduled Tribes category and was appointed as<\/p>\n
Assistant Teacher temporarily on January 16, 1993.<\/p>\n
The appointment of the respondent No. 2 was subject to<\/p>\n
verification of his tribe claim.     The tribe Certificate<\/p>\n
produced by the respondent No. 2 was forwarded for<\/p>\n
verification   to   Scheduled     Tribe   Caste   Scrutiny<\/p>\n
Committee (the `Scrutiny Committee’ for short). Some of<\/p>\n
the documents submitted by respondent No. 2 indicated<\/p>\n
that he was a “Hindu Koli”. The Scrutiny Committee,<\/p>\n
after giving the respondent No. 2 an opportunity of<\/p>\n
hearing, invalidated the tribe Certificate by decision<\/p>\n
dated November 6, 1997.       The respondent No. 2 was<\/p>\n
holding the post of Assistant Teacher temporarily, which<\/p>\n
was specifically reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Therefore,
\n                                                        3<\/span>
\nthe appellant terminated services of the respondent No.<\/p>\n
2 by order dated May 4, 1998.           Thereupon, the<\/p>\n
respondent No. 2 filed writ petition No. 1660 of 1998<\/p>\n
before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.          He<\/p>\n
challenged the order terminating his services as well as<\/p>\n
order dated November 6, 1997, passed by the Scrutiny<\/p>\n
Committee. It was pointed out to the Division Bench of<\/p>\n
the High Court, hearing the said matter, that interview<\/p>\n
was fixed by the Scrutiny Committee on November 6,<\/p>\n
1997, but the respondent No. 2 received notice in that<\/p>\n
behalf on November 12, 1997.      The said submission<\/p>\n
made on behalf of respondent No. 2 was accepted by the<\/p>\n
High Court. The High Court set aside the order dated<\/p>\n
November 6, 1997 invalidating caste claim of the<\/p>\n
respondent No. 2 and directed the Scrutiny Committee<\/p>\n
to decide the matter afresh after affording necessary<\/p>\n
opportunity of hearing to him.      The Court further<\/p>\n
directed respondent No. 2 to appear before the Scrutiny<\/p>\n
Committee   on   January   29,   1999   along   with   all<\/p>\n
necessary documents. The respondent No. 2 appeared<\/p>\n
before the Scrutiny Committee on January 29, 1999,
\n                                                                 4<\/span>
\nbut requested for grant of time and, therefore, he was<\/p>\n
called upon to appear on December 30, 1999.                  Again,<\/p>\n
the   respondent    No.     2    appeared      before   the    said<\/p>\n
Committee on December 30, 1999 and prayed to grant<\/p>\n
time. The record shows that thereafter the respondent<\/p>\n
No. 2 was not interested in prosecuting the inquiry<\/p>\n
before the Scrutiny Committee. The respondent No. 2<\/p>\n
filed Writ Petition No. 879 of 1999 challenging the order<\/p>\n
dated May 4, 1998 by which his services were<\/p>\n
terminated by the appellant. The Bombay High Court,<\/p>\n
Nagpur Bench, by judgment dated April 17, 2000,<\/p>\n
dismissed the said writ petition with the observation<\/p>\n
that the respondent No. 2 was not interested in<\/p>\n
proceeding further with the inquiry before the Scrutiny<\/p>\n
Committee and was delaying the entire proceedings on<\/p>\n
some or the other pretext.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    After dismissal of the writ petition, the respondent<\/p>\n
      No. 2 appeared before the Scrutiny Committee on<\/p>\n
      April   24,   2000,       but   prayed    to   grant    time.<\/p>\n
      Therefore, the Scrutiny Committee adjourned the<\/p>\n
      hearing to June 26, 2000. On the said date also
\n                                                        5<\/span>
\nthe respondent No. 2 requested for more time,<\/p>\n
which was granted by the Scrutiny Committee.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 did not appear<\/p>\n
before the said Committee at all and, therefore, the<\/p>\n
Scrutiny Committee decided to close the matter of<\/p>\n
verification of tribe claim of the respondent No.2,<\/p>\n
by order dated November 13, 2000. After a lapse<\/p>\n
of about three years from the date of dismissal of<\/p>\n
Writ Petition No. 879 of 1999, the respondent No.2<\/p>\n
applied to the Government to reinstate him in<\/p>\n
service claiming that he belongs to S.B.C. category<\/p>\n
and should be granted protection of Government<\/p>\n
Resolution dated June 15, 1995.              The said<\/p>\n
Resolution     dated   June   15,   1995,   inter    alia,<\/p>\n
specifies as to which Caste should be considered<\/p>\n
as   Special     Backward     Class.        The     Rural<\/p>\n
Development and Water Conservation Department<\/p>\n
of the Government of Maharashtra, therefore,<\/p>\n
addressed a letter dated February 6, 2002 to the<\/p>\n
appellant stating that the respondent No. 2 was<\/p>\n
appointed as Assistant Teacher by order dated
\n                                                           6<\/span>
\nOctober 6, 1992 (correct date of the appointment is<\/p>\n
January 16, 1993) by the appellant on the post<\/p>\n
reserved for Scheduled Tribe and even if the<\/p>\n
certificate indicating that he belongs to Scheduled<\/p>\n
Tribes was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee,<\/p>\n
he would be entitled to get protection in service in<\/p>\n
view of Government Resolution dated June 15,<\/p>\n
1995      because   he    has   submitted       a    validity<\/p>\n
certificate indicating that he belongs to Special<\/p>\n
Backward Class. By the said letter the appellant<\/p>\n
was directed to take necessary action in the<\/p>\n
matter.     In spite of the protection given by the<\/p>\n
Government,     the      respondent   No.   2       was   not<\/p>\n
reinstated in service.       Therefore, he filed Writ<\/p>\n
Petition No. 1764 of 2003 challenging the order<\/p>\n
dated May 4, 1998 terminating his services. The<\/p>\n
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at<\/p>\n
Bombay, Nagpur Bench, has allowed the same by<\/p>\n
judgment dated August 31, 2004, giving rise to the<\/p>\n
instant appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
4.   This Court has heard the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
     parties and considered the documents forming<\/p>\n
     part of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.   From the record, it is evident that the stand of the<\/p>\n
     respondent No. 1, i.e., the State of Maharashtra, is<\/p>\n
     that the respondent No. 2 is entitled to the<\/p>\n
     protection of Government Resolution dated June<\/p>\n
     15, 1995. The well settled principle of law is that<\/p>\n
     once the certificate indicating that a person<\/p>\n
     belongs to Scheduled Tribe is invalidated by the<\/p>\n
     Caste   Scrutiny      Committee,   his   appointment<\/p>\n
     becomes void from the beginning.           The void<\/p>\n
     appointment could not have been validated by the<\/p>\n
     Government by addressing a communication to the<\/p>\n
     appellant.   The case of the appellant before the<\/p>\n
     High Court was that from the quota made available<\/p>\n
     to Special Backward Class candidates, the post<\/p>\n
     was filled up and no vacant post was available.<\/p>\n
     However, the High Court, by order dated December<\/p>\n
     16, 2003, directed the appellant to place a staffing<\/p>\n
     pattern including the sanctioned posts available
\n                                                              8<\/span>
\n     and the occupation thereof by different candidates<\/p>\n
     and clarified that the writ petition filed by the<\/p>\n
     respondent No. 2 would be heard thereafter finally<\/p>\n
     at the stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.   In view of the above mentioned direction given by<\/p>\n
     the High Court the appellant furnished necessary<\/p>\n
     particulars by filing reply.    In the reply it was<\/p>\n
     pointed out that the Education Officer, Primary,<\/p>\n
     Z.P., Buldhana vide letter dated January 2, 2004<\/p>\n
     had informed the appellant that in the category of<\/p>\n
     Secondary School Teachers, there were four posts<\/p>\n
     reserved for S.B.C. and all of them were filled up as<\/p>\n
     under: –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            LOWER GRADE ASSISTANT TEACHER<\/p>\n
S.No.        Caste    Sanctioned         Posts       Vacant
\nPosts
\n                           Posts         filled in<\/p>\n
1.   Open            155           146               09<\/span><\/p>\n
2.   S.B.C.           04            04               —\n<\/p>\n
S.B.C.: –\n<\/p>\n
1.   Sunil Meharkar\n<\/p>\n
2.   Ku. Jyoti Dnyaneshwar Thakre-Palshi Bu.
\n                                                             9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
3.   Ku.      Jyoti  Prabhakar             Bawatkar-Mangrul
\n     Nawaghare\n<\/p>\n
4.   Vilas Sitaram Wawre<\/p>\n
Though    these   particulars   were   placed     before    the<\/p>\n
Division Bench of the High Court by way of reply filed<\/p>\n
on behalf of the appellant, the Division Bench did not<\/p>\n
record any finding as to whether the posts reserved for<\/p>\n
Special Backward Class were available or not and has,<\/p>\n
by the impugned judgment, directed the appellant to<\/p>\n
reinstate the respondent No. 2 in service forthwith<\/p>\n
pursuant to order dated February 6, 2002, passed by<\/p>\n
the Government with back wages from the date of<\/p>\n
passing of the order by the State Government and to<\/p>\n
grant    the   benefit   of   continuity     in   service   on<\/p>\n
reinstatement.    What is relevant to notice is that the<\/p>\n
data, which was produced by the appellant before the<\/p>\n
Division Bench of the High Court by filing reply, which<\/p>\n
indicated that no S.B.C. post was available, was not<\/p>\n
controverted by the State of Maharashtra at all.            The<\/p>\n
record shows that pursuant to the judgment of the High<\/p>\n
Court, impugned in this appeal, the respondent No. 2<\/p>\n
has already been reinstated in service.           The record
\n                                                        10<\/span>
\nwould also show that the respondent No. 2 was in<\/p>\n
service from January 16, 1993 till May 4, 1998 when<\/p>\n
his services were terminated as his Caste Certificate was<\/p>\n
invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Again, he<\/p>\n
is in service after impugned judgment was rendered on<\/p>\n
August 31, 2004 till date and, therefore, it would be<\/p>\n
harsh to direct termination of services of the respondent<\/p>\n
No. 2.    This Court further finds that Government had<\/p>\n
passed the order on February 6, 2002 on the basis of<\/p>\n
certificate produced by the respondent No. 2, which<\/p>\n
indicated that he belongs to Special Backward Class.<\/p>\n
The record also shows that he had produced this<\/p>\n
Certificate dated June 12, 2002 indicating that he<\/p>\n
belongs    to   Special   Backward    Class   before   the<\/p>\n
appointment, but the appellant had not taken any steps<\/p>\n
to get it verified through the Caste Scrutiny Committee.<\/p>\n
In view of the fact that no post belonging to the Special<\/p>\n
Backward Class category is available with the appellant,<\/p>\n
this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would<\/p>\n
be served if the Government is directed to create<\/p>\n
supernumerary post in the appellant No. 1 institution to
\n                                                                     11<\/span>
\naccommodate the respondent No. 2 with liberty to get<\/p>\n
the said Caste Certificate verified through the Caste<\/p>\n
Scrutiny Committee.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n7.   For   the   foregoing   reasons           the    appeal   partly\n\n     succeeds.     The respondent No. 1, i.e., State of\n\n     Maharashtra,      is     directed           to      create       a\n\n     supernumerary     post    in        the    appellant      No.    1<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n
     institution to accommodate the respondent No. 2<\/p>\n
     as early as possible and preferably within two<\/p>\n
     months from the date of receipt of the writ from<\/p>\n
     this Court.    It would be open to the State of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra and the appellant to get the Caste<\/p>\n
     Certificate dated June 12, 2002, submitted by the<\/p>\n
     respondent No. 2, indicating that he belongs to<\/p>\n
     Special Backward Class, verified from the Caste<\/p>\n
     Scrutiny    Committee.         If    the        Caste   Scrutiny<\/p>\n
     Committee comes to the conclusion that the Caste<\/p>\n
     Certificate submitted by the respondent No. 2 is<\/p>\n
     valid, he would be continued in service and<\/p>\n
     granted all benefits except back wages from<\/p>\n
     February 6, 2002 to the date of his reinstatement
\n                                                                  12<\/span>
\n     in service pursuant to the impugned judgment. If<\/p>\n
     the claim made by the respondent No. 2 that he<\/p>\n
     belongs to Special Backward Class is not upheld<\/p>\n
     by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the appellant<\/p>\n
     would be entitled to take appropriate action<\/p>\n
     against him in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.     Subject to above mentioned observations and<\/p>\n
     clarifications the appeal stands disposed of. There<\/p>\n
     shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                      …………………………J.
\n                                         [J.M. Panchal]<\/p>\n
                                 …………………………..J.
\n                                 [Mukundakam Sharma]<\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
April 22, 2010<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chief Executive Officer, Zilla … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 April, 2010 Author: J Panchal Bench: J.M. Panchal, Mukundakam Sharma IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2048 OF 2007 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad … Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra & others […]<\/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-160395","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChief Executive Officer, Zilla ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 April, 2010 - 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\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-16T20:17:01+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chief Executive Officer, Zilla … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-16T20:17:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1692,\"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\\\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-16T20:17:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chief Executive Officer, Zilla … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 April, 2010 - 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\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-16T20:17:01+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chief Executive Officer, Zilla … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-16T20:17:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2"},"wordCount":1692,"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\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2","name":"Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-16T20:17:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-executive-officer-zilla-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-april-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chief Executive Officer, Zilla … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/160395","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=160395"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160395\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}