{"id":168483,"date":"2010-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-04T06:32:43","modified_gmt":"2015-12-04T01:02:43","slug":"2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"2 The Head Master vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
2 The Head Master vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Deshmukh, Shrihari P. Davare<\/div>\n
                                         1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n                 AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                    WRIT PETITION NO.  5344 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    1          Anjuman Taraqqui-E-Taleem,\n               Kasolda, Taluka Erandol,\n               District Jalgaon,\n               through its Chairman,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n               Samad Ali Haji Nazar Ali,\n               age 65 years, occupation\n                      \n               Chairman, Resident of\n               Syed Mohalla,\n               Kasoda, Taluka Ernadol,\n                     \n               District Jalgao.\n\n    2          The Head Master,\n               Haji N.M. Sayyed Urdu High School,\n      \n\n\n               Kasoda, Taluka Erandol,\n               District Jalgaon.                                   ...Petitioner\n   \n\n\n\n                       \n               VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n\n    1          The State of Maharashtra,\n               through Secretary,\n               Education Department,\n               Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 008,\n\n\n\n\n\n    2          The Education Officer (Secondary),\n               Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon                              ...Respondents\n\n\n\n                                        .....\n    Smt. A.N.Ansari,  advocate for the petitioners\n    Shri S.K.Kadam, A.G.P.  for the respondents\n                                        .....\n\n\n\n\n                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:32:10 :::\n                                               2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n                                    CORAM  :     S.B.DESHMUKH\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n                                                          AND\n                                                         SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                               DATE OF RESERVING
\n                               THE JUDGMENT                  :  06.10.2010
\n                               DATE OF PRONOUNCING<\/p>\n
                               THE JUDGMENT                  :  13.10.2010<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT  : (Per Shrihari P. Davare, J.)<\/p>\n
    1            Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.  With the consent of <\/p>\n
    the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final <\/p>\n
    hearing at the admission stage.\n<\/p>\n
    2            By   the   present   petition,   filed   by   the   petitioners   under <\/p>\n
    Article   226   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   the   petitioner   by   prayer <\/p>\n
    clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’ prayed as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
           “(B)      To quash and set aside the impugned letter
\n           dated 24.4.2009 passed by Respondent no.2 by issuing
\n           any appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may
\n           be.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
           (C)        The Respondent no.2 be directed to grant the
\n           approval to the appointment of Shri Shaikh Chiragodiin <\/p>\n
           Kamruddin     from   the   date   of   appointment   dated
\n           21.6.2007   by   issuing   any   appropriate   writ,   order   or
\n           direction as the case may be.  ”\n<\/p>\n
    FACTUAL MATRIX :-\n<\/p>\n
    3            Petitioner   no.1   is   the   Educational   Institution   receiving <\/p>\n
    100% grants and petitioner no.2 is the School run by petitioner no.1;\n<\/p>\n
    whereas respondent no.1 is the State of Maharashtra, represented <\/p>\n
    through   its   Secretary,   Education   Department,   Mantralaya,   Mumbai <\/p>\n
    and   respondent   no.2   is   the   Education   Officer   (Secondary),     Zilla <\/p>\n
    Parishad, Jalgaon.\n<\/p>\n
    4            In   the   year   2007,   one   vacancy   of   S.S.C.,   D.Ed.   was <\/p>\n
    created   in petitioner no.2 School on account of promotion of one <\/p>\n
    Shaikh Nuroddin Gaffar, who was promoted to Secondary School in <\/p>\n
    the   Graduate   pay   scale.   Hence   petitioner   no.1   Management <\/p>\n
    approached   to   the   respondents   by   letter   dated   18.5.2007   seeking <\/p>\n
    permission to fill up the said post and copy of the said letter dated <\/p>\n
    18.5.2007   is   annexed     at   Exh.   ‘A’   collectively.   In   response,   the <\/p>\n
    respondent no.2 granted said permission by letter dated 25.5.2007 <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
    and copy thereof is annexed at Exh. ‘A’ collectively.\n<\/p>\n
    5            Pursuant to the said permission, the petitioners gave an <\/p>\n
    advertisement in local daily news paper, ‘Gaokari” for filling the said <\/p>\n
    post   and   copy   of   the   said   advertisement   is   annexed   at   Exh.   ‘B’.\n<\/p>\n
    Accordingly,   interviews   of   nine   candidates   were   conducted     on <\/p>\n
    20.6.2007 and depending upon the   performance, one of the said <\/p>\n
    candidates,   namely   Shaikh   Chiragoddin   Kamroddin   was   selected.\n<\/p>\n
    Copy   of   the   said   performance   sheet   is   annexed   at   Exh.   ‘C’ <\/p>\n
    collectively. Hence, petitioner no.1 Management decided to appoint <\/p>\n
    the   said   selected   candidate   as   Shikshan   Sevak   (Primary)   and <\/p>\n
    resolution to that effect came to be passed on 20.6.2007 and  copy <\/p>\n
    thereof is annexed at Exh. ‘C’ collectively (page no.17).\n<\/p>\n
    6            In pursuance of the said selection and resolution, Shaikh <\/p>\n
    Chiragoddin Kamroddin came to be appointed by the petitioners by <\/p>\n
    appointment letter dated 21.6.2007 as Shikshan Sevak (Primary) for <\/p>\n
    the   period   of   three   years   from   21.6.2007   and   copy   of   the   said <\/p>\n
    appointment letter is annexed at Exh. ‘D’.\n<\/p>\n
    7            Thereafter,   the   petitioners   submitted   the   proposal   for <\/p>\n
    approval of the appointment of   Shaikh Chiragoddin Kamroddin   as <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
    afore   said,   by   letter   dated   26.7.2007,   which   was   tendered   to <\/p>\n
    respondent no.2 on 19.9.2007 and the same was pending approval <\/p>\n
    with respondent no.2 since September, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
    8            The other relevant facts, which are necessary to mention,
\n                                                                                          th
\n    are that petitioner no.1 Management  is running the classes from 5<\/p>\n
          th                                                                              th
\n    to 10  standards and at the time of granting additional division of 8<\/p>\n
    standard in the year 1997, the Education Officer put the condition <\/p>\n
    that the surplus teacher, namely Mohammad Haroon be absorbed <\/p>\n
    and   the   petitioner\/Management   complied   with   the   said   condition.\n<\/p>\n
    Prior to absorption, said Mohammad Haroon was serving with Anglo <\/p>\n
    Urdu High School, Chalisgaon and he was declared surplus in the <\/p>\n
    school   and   was   absorbed   in   the   school   of   present   Management.\n<\/p>\n
    However,   in   the   year   2007,   a   vacancy   arose   in   Anglo   Urdu   High <\/p>\n
    School   i.e.   parent   school   of   Mohammad   Haroon,   and   hence,   he <\/p>\n
    expressed   his   desire   to   be   repatriated   to   his   parent   school   by <\/p>\n
    application dated 15.2.2007.\n<\/p>\n
    9            Accordingly,   after   ascertaining   the   factual   position,   the <\/p>\n
    Education   Officer   granted   the   same   vide   letter   dated   23.4.2007 <\/p>\n
    asking   the   petitioner   to   relieve   him   forthwith.   Accordingly,   said <\/p>\n
    surplus teacher was relieved from the   present school on 5.5.2007 <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
    and   copy   of   the   order   sending   the   surplus   teacher   to   his   parent <\/p>\n
    school, passed by  the Education Officer on 23.4.2007 is annexed at <\/p>\n
    Exh. ‘F’. However, since said Mohammad Haroon was not absorbed <\/p>\n
    in his parent school,  respondent no.2 asked the petitioner to release <\/p>\n
    his   salary   till   his   absorption   in   his   parent   school   by   letter   dated <\/p>\n
    20.9.2007 and copy thereof is annexed at Exh. ‘G’.\n<\/p>\n
    10<\/span><\/p>\n
                  Besides, although said Mohammad Haroon was relieved <\/p>\n
    from   the   petitioner   school   and     was   not   absorbed   in   the   parent <\/p>\n
    school,   he filed Writ Petition No. 5812 of 2007 before this court and <\/p>\n
    this court directed his absorption in the parent school.  Said direction <\/p>\n
    was not complied with, and therefore, Contempt Petition No. 237 of <\/p>\n
    2008 was filed, and ultimately, the Education Officer came with the <\/p>\n
    order dated 17.3.2009 about absorption of said Mohammad Haroon.\n<\/p>\n
    11            After absorption of   Mohammad Haroon, as afore stated, <\/p>\n
    the petitioner wrote a letter to respondent no.2 on 26.3.2009 about <\/p>\n
    approval   of     Shaikh   Chiragoddin   Kamroddin     and   copy   thereof   is <\/p>\n
    annexed   at   Exh.   ‘H’.     However,   in   response   to   the   said   letter   of <\/p>\n
    petitioner, respondent no.2 sent the communication dated 24.4.2009 <\/p>\n
    canceling the permission granted to fill up the post after publishing <\/p>\n
    the advertisement on 25.5.2007 and asked the petitioner to submit <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
    fresh recommendation for permission.\n<\/p>\n
    12          Being   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   by   the   afore   said <\/p>\n
    impugned   communication,   dated   24.4.2009,   the   petitioners   have <\/p>\n
    challenged the same in the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
    SUBMISSIONS  :-\n<\/p>\n
    13          Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that on the <\/p>\n
    promotion of Shaikh Nuroddin Gaffar on 10.1.2007, a post of S.S.C.\n<\/p>\n
    D.Ed.  of Shikshan Sevak was created in  petitioner no.2 School, and <\/p>\n
    therefore, although the petitioner sought permission from respondent <\/p>\n
    no.2 to fill up the said post after publishing the advertisement therefor <\/p>\n
    by letter dated 18.5.2007, and although permission was granted by <\/p>\n
    respondent no.2 to the petitioner therefor by letter dated 25.5.2007, <\/p>\n
    and although accordingly the petitioners published the advertisement <\/p>\n
    for the said post in local daily news paper ‘Gaokari’ on 14.6.2007, to <\/p>\n
    which   nine   candidates   responded,   who   were   interviewed     on <\/p>\n
    20.6.2007,   out   of   them,   a   candidate   namely   Shaikh   Chiragoddin <\/p>\n
    Kamroddin was selected considering his performance and although <\/p>\n
    appointment letter was issued to the said appointee by petitioners on <\/p>\n
    21.6.2007, appointing him as Shikshan Sevak for the period of three <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
    years in petitioner no.2 school, and thereafter although  proposal for <\/p>\n
    his approval was sent by petitioner no.2 on 26.6.2007, respondent <\/p>\n
    no.2 kept the said proposal  pending for  the substantial    period of <\/p>\n
    about two years and abruptly issued the impugned communication <\/p>\n
    dated   24.4.2009,   thereby   canceling   the   permission   granted   to   the <\/p>\n
    petitioners   by   letter   dated   25.5.2007   and   also   directing   to   submit <\/p>\n
    fresh recommendation for permission, which is arbitrary and illegal.\n<\/p>\n
    14           Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said <\/p>\n
    action   of   issuance   of     communication   dated   24.4.2009     by <\/p>\n
    respondent no.2  is unfair and unreasonable.  It is also submitted that <\/p>\n
    pursuant   to   the   permission   granted   by   respondent   no.2,   selection <\/p>\n
    process   was   initiated   by   the   petitioners,   and   accordingly,   Shaikh <\/p>\n
    Chiragoddin Kamroddin was selected and he came to be appointed <\/p>\n
    on 21.6.2007 for the period of three years in petitioner no.2 school <\/p>\n
    and thereafter abruptly respondent no.2 issued the communication <\/p>\n
    dated 24.4.2009 and canceled the same in response to the proposal <\/p>\n
    of approval sent  by the petitioners, having no rationale therefor, and <\/p>\n
    therefore,   submitted   that   the   said   impugned   communication   dated <\/p>\n
    24.4.2009 deserves to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    15           Respondent no.2 filed affidavit in reply, which is sworn in <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
    by Ramesh Gulab Jaiswal, presently working as Superintendent in <\/p>\n
    the office of Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon <\/p>\n
    and thereby narrated the afore said facts and opposed the present <\/p>\n
    petition.\n<\/p>\n
    16           Learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents canvassed <\/p>\n
    that   Mohammad   Haroon,   who   was   originally   serving   as   Assistant <\/p>\n
    Teacher and who was rendered surplus, was absorbed in petitioner <\/p>\n
    no.2 school run by petitioner no.1 Management on 1.12.1997 and <\/p>\n
    since then he was serving with the petitioners.  However, in the year <\/p>\n
    2007, one vacancy arose in Anglo Urdu High School, Chalisgaon, <\/p>\n
    and therefore, said Mohammad Haroon applied for repatriation to his <\/p>\n
    parent   school,   and   hence,     respondent   no.2   by   order   dated <\/p>\n
    23.4.2007   directed  that  Mohammad   Haroon  be   repatriated     to  his <\/p>\n
    parent   school,   and   accordingly,   he   was   relieved   by   the   petitioner <\/p>\n
    Institution on 5.5.2007. However, it is submitted that Anglo Urdu High <\/p>\n
    School, Chalisgaon had not re-absorbed  him, and hence,  petitioner <\/p>\n
    Institution   was   directed     to   continue   to   draw   his   salary   from   their <\/p>\n
    estiblishment until said Mohammad Haroon was absorbed by Anglo <\/p>\n
    Urdu High School, Chalisgaon.\n<\/p>\n
    17           It   is   further   submitted   that   in   the   mean   while,   due   to <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
    repatriation   of   Mohammad   Haroon,   the   petitioner   applied   to <\/p>\n
    respondent no.2 seeking permission to fill up the vacancy arose due <\/p>\n
    to   repatriation   of   Mohammad   Haroon,   and   accordingly,   said <\/p>\n
    permission   was   granted   assuming   Mohammad   Haroon   would   be <\/p>\n
    reabsorbed by his parent school.   However, it is further submitted <\/p>\n
    that   since   Mohammad   Haroon   was   not   accommodated   by   Anglo <\/p>\n
    Urdu High School, Chalisgaon, petitioner Institution was directed to <\/p>\n
    draw his salary from their establishment until such re-absorption.  It <\/p>\n
    is   further   submitted   that   mean   while   the   petitioner   proceeded   to <\/p>\n
    appoint   Shaikh Chiragoddin Kamroddin as Assistant Teacher in the <\/p>\n
    vacancy  which arose, if Mohammad Haroon was  absorbed  by his <\/p>\n
    parent school.  Hence, learned A.G.P. for the respondents submitted <\/p>\n
    that since the salary of Mohammad Haroon was being drawn from <\/p>\n
    the   establishment   of   petitioner   Institution,   the   approval   to   the <\/p>\n
    appointment   of       Shaikh   Chiragoddin   Kamroddin     as   Assistant <\/p>\n
    Teacher could not be granted by respondent no.2 for want of vacant <\/p>\n
    post.   It is further submitted by learned A.G.P. for the respondents <\/p>\n
    that ultimately Mohammad Haroon was absorbed in Anglo Urdu High <\/p>\n
    School, Chalisgaon on 17.3.2009.   Accordingly, learned A.G.P. for <\/p>\n
    the   respondents   submitted   that   pursuant   to   the   proposal   by   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner Management, respondent no.2 is ready to grant approval <\/p>\n
    to   the   appointment   of   Shaikh   Chiragoddin   Kamroddin   from <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
    18.3.2009.\n<\/p>\n
    CONSIDERATION  :-\n<\/p>\n
    18           We have perused the contents of the present petition, its <\/p>\n
    annexures, contents of the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents <\/p>\n
    and   the   impugned   communication   dated   24.4.2009   issued   by <\/p>\n
    respondent  no.2  and heard  the  submissions  advanced  by  learned <\/p>\n
    counsel   for   the   petitioners   and   the   learned   A.G.P.   for   the <\/p>\n
    respondents anxiously, and at the out set, it is important to note that <\/p>\n
    the petitioners sought permission by letter dated 18.5.2007 sent to <\/p>\n
    respondent no.2 to fill up the vacant post, which arose on account of <\/p>\n
    promotion of Shaikh Nuroddin Gaffar, and in pursuance of the said <\/p>\n
    letter, respondent no.2 granted permission to the petitioners to fill up <\/p>\n
    the   said   post   after   publication   of   advertisement   by   letter   dated <\/p>\n
    25.5.2007  which  came to  be filled in  after  completion  of selection <\/p>\n
    process as afore said by appointing Shaikh Chiragoddin Kamroddin <\/p>\n
    by appointment letter dated 21.6.2007 and  it is material to note that <\/p>\n
    respondent   no.2   did   not   grant   said   permission   on   account   of <\/p>\n
    repatriation of Mohammad Haroon to his parent school.   Moreover, <\/p>\n
    the  respondent no.2 did not grant the said permission to petitioners <\/p>\n
    by letter dated 25.5.2007 on the assumption that Mohammad Haroon <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
    would be re-absorbed by his parent school, as canvassed by learned <\/p>\n
    A.G.P. for  the  respondents  and  there  is  no  substance  in the  said <\/p>\n
    arguments advanced by the  learned A.G.P. for the respondents.  In <\/p>\n
    substance, the appointment of   Shaikh Chiragoddin Kamroddin   as <\/p>\n
    Assistant Teacher was on the vacant post which was   created on <\/p>\n
    account of promotion of  Shaikh Nuroddin Gaffar and not on account <\/p>\n
    of repatriation of Mohammad Haroon and his alleged re-absorption to <\/p>\n
    his parent school, and the argument advanced by learned A.G.P. for <\/p>\n
    the respondents is misconceived in that respect, and therefore, there <\/p>\n
    is no connection between the appointment of   Shaikh Chiragoddin <\/p>\n
    Kamroddin   on 21.6.2007 and alleged re-absorption of Mohammad <\/p>\n
    Haroon to his parent school on 18.3.2009 on his repatriation.\n<\/p>\n
    19           Besides that although it is stated by respondent no.2 in <\/p>\n
    his affidavit in reply that Mohammad Haroon was directed to be re-\n<\/p>\n
    absorbed   in   his   parent   school   by   the   repatriation   order   dated <\/p>\n
    23.9.2007,  his  parent  school  Anglo Urdu High School, Chalisgaon <\/p>\n
    did   not   re-absorb   him   as   per   the   said   order   till     18.3.2009,   but <\/p>\n
    pertinently,   affidavit   in   reply   filed   by   respondent   no.2   is   silent <\/p>\n
    regarding   any   action   taken   by   respondent   no.2   against   the   said <\/p>\n
    parent school of Mohammad Haroon and respondent no.2 has not <\/p>\n
    given   any   justification   for   the   said   inaction,   nor   the   action   of <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                           13<\/span><\/p>\n
    respondent   no.2   of   issuance   of     impugned   communication   dated <\/p>\n
    24.4.2009,   canceling   already   granted   permission   by   letter   dated <\/p>\n
    25.5.2007, can be justified.     Moreover, it is significant to note that <\/p>\n
    there   is   no   whisper   in   the   letter   dated   25.5.2007   issued   by <\/p>\n
    respondent no.2 to the petitioners that  permission to fill up the post <\/p>\n
    of  Shikshan Sevak was granted by letter dated 18.5.2007  because <\/p>\n
    of   repatriation   of   Mohammad   Haroon,   and   such   reason   given   by <\/p>\n
    respondent no.2 in the impugned communication dated 24.4.2009, <\/p>\n
    i.e. after almost two years, is without any basis and foundation, and <\/p>\n
    hence, the said impugned communication deserves to be quashed <\/p>\n
    and  set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    20          In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that <\/p>\n
    there is no substance in the arguments canvassed by the learned <\/p>\n
    A.G.P. for  the  respondents     and  the action  of respondent  no.2  of <\/p>\n
    issuance of impugned communication dated 24.4.2009 is apparently <\/p>\n
    arbitrary, and therefore, same deserves to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    Moreover, since Shaikh Chiragoddin Kamroddin   has been working <\/p>\n
    with petitioner no.2 school since 21.6.2007 as per appointment letter <\/p>\n
    dated 21.6.2007, the respondent no.2 is required to be directed to <\/p>\n
    grant   approval   to   the   said   appointment   of   Shaikh   Chiragoddin <\/p>\n
    Kamroddin   from the date of his appointment i.e. 21.6.2007, which <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                            14<\/span><\/p>\n
    shall subserve the interest of justice.\n<\/p>\n
    21           In   the   result,   present   petition   succeeds   and   same   is <\/p>\n
    allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’ thereof. Rule is made <\/p>\n
    absolute in the afore said terms.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
    (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)                              (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.)\n                   \n                        \n                                                            \n    dbm\/wp5344.09\n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:32:10 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court 2 The Head Master vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 2010 Bench: S.B. Deshmukh, Shrihari P. Davare 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5344 OF 2009 1 Anjuman Taraqqui-E-Taleem, Kasolda, Taluka Erandol, District Jalgaon, through its Chairman, Samad Ali Haji Nazar […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168483","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n2 The Head Master vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 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\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2 The Head Master vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-04T01:02:43+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"2 The Head Master vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-04T01:02:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2257,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010\",\"name\":\"2 The Head Master vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-04T01:02:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2 The Head Master vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 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":"2 The Head Master vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 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\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2 The Head Master vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-04T01:02:43+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"2 The Head Master vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-04T01:02:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010"},"wordCount":2257,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010","name":"2 The Head Master vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-04T01:02:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-the-head-master-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2 The Head Master vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 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\/168483","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=168483"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168483\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168483"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168483"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}