{"id":177322,"date":"2011-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011"},"modified":"2017-03-30T06:16:02","modified_gmt":"2017-03-30T00:46:02","slug":"meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Meshram vs 4] Director on 9 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Meshram vs 4] Director on 9 November, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, A. B. Chaudhari<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR \n                       BENCH NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n             WRIT    PETITION     NO.    317    OF     1997   \n\n\n\n\n                                            \n    Hemantkumar Sadashivrao\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n    Meshram, aged 34 yrs., Occu.\n    Instructor, c\/o P. L. Suryawanshi \n                     \n    at & Post Jambhulghat, Tah \n    Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur.                            PETITIONER.\n                    \n                                   VERSUS\n      \n   \n\n\n\n    1] The State of Maharashtra,\n    thr. Its Secretary, Higher &\n    Technical Education & Employment\n    Department, Mantralaya, Extension\n\n\n\n\n\n    Building, Mumbai. \n\n    2] The Deputy Director, Vocational\n    Education & Training, Regional\n    Office, Civil Lines, Nagpur.\n\n\n\n\n\n    3] Principal, Nehru Junior College,\n    Chimur,m Distt. Chandrapur.\n\n    4] Director, Vocational Education\n    & Training, 3, Mahapalika Road,\n    Mumbai.                                               RESPONDENTS.<\/pre>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:54:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Shri. Anil Mardikar, Counsel for the  petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    Smt.  K. S. Joshi, AGP  for the respondents 1, 2 & 4.\n<\/p>\n
                     CORAM:   B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
\n                                     A.\n<\/p>\n
                                         B. CHAUDHARI   JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                           Date:      9th   NOVEMBER  2011.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI J.) <\/p>\n
                Heard Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner <\/p>\n
    and Smt. Joshi,  learned AGP for respondents 1, 2 and 4.  No body <\/p>\n
    has appeared for respondent no. 3 though served.\n<\/p>\n
    2]          Shri Mardikar learned counsel at the out set points out <\/p>\n
    that one of the prayer in the petition is to direct the respondent <\/p>\n
    no. 3 to pay to petitioner his salary from May 1995 till the date of <\/p>\n
    filing of petition and to continue to do so during its pendency.\n<\/p>\n
    However, he fairly pointed out that   respondent no. 3 School is <\/p>\n
    already closed down.  It is, therefore, obvious that no such relief <\/p>\n
    can   be   given   in   present   writ   petition   against   respondent   no.   3 <\/p>\n
    atleast at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:54:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
    3]          The other contention of Shri Mardikar, learned counsel <\/p>\n
    for   the   petitioner   is   though   school   is   closed   down,   benefit   of <\/p>\n
    provisions   of   Rule   25(A)   of   Maharashtra   Employees   of   Private <\/p>\n
    Schools   (Conditions   of   Service)   Rules   1981,   is  not   extended   to <\/p>\n
    petitioner on the ground that his petition was pending.  Petitioner <\/p>\n
    holds   qualification   of   Diploma   in   Plant   Engineering   &   on   the <\/p>\n
    strength   of   this   qualification,   he   was   given   employment   in <\/p>\n
    respondent no. 3-college  as Instructor in 1992 and after almost <\/p>\n
    three years the respondent no. 2 refused to grant approval on the <\/p>\n
    ground   that   he   does   not   possess   Diploma   in   Mechanical <\/p>\n
    Engineering.   He has invited our attention to the fact of filing of <\/p>\n
    Writ   Petition   No.   2992   of   1995   before   this   Court   and   its <\/p>\n
    withdrawal on 02.04.1996 as the State Government was then in <\/p>\n
    process   of   considering   the   equivalence   of   said   Diploma   with <\/p>\n
    Diploma in Mechanical Engineering.   He has invited attention to <\/p>\n
    impugned order dated 04.12.1996 passed by State Government to <\/p>\n
    urge   that   instead   of   considering   equivalence   between   two <\/p>\n
    diplomas,   the   suitableness   of   the   candidates   holding   those <\/p>\n
    diplomas for employment has been looked into and thus there is <\/p>\n
    failure to exercise the jurisdiction.   Our attention is invited to a <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:54:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
    Report submitted by three member Committee on 07.12.1993 in <\/p>\n
    this   respect,   holding   that   both   these   Diplomas   are   equivalent.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned   counsel   states   that   on   25.04.1990,   some   courses   were <\/p>\n
    recognized   as   equivalent   and   on   16.11.1993   petitioner   was <\/p>\n
    informed that issue of equivalence of his Diploma with Diploma in <\/p>\n
    Mechanical   Engineering   was   still   under   consideration.       In   this <\/p>\n
    background he contends whether two Diplomas were equivalent <\/p>\n
    or not, needed to be decided on the basis of the Report  of the <\/p>\n
    Committee dated 07.12.1993 and in the light of the syllabus or <\/p>\n
    course taught therein.  Suitability of the candidates passing out to <\/p>\n
    perform a particular work or type of job could not have been a <\/p>\n
    decisive test for said purpose.\n<\/p>\n
    4]          Learned   Assistant   Government   Pleader   on   the   other <\/p>\n
    hand has relied upon return as filed.   She states that the report <\/p>\n
    dated   07.12.1993   is   prepared   by   Committee   not   constituted <\/p>\n
    statutorily   or   by   State   Government   and   therefore   State <\/p>\n
    Government   on   26.12.1995,   constituted   a   Committee   of   10 <\/p>\n
    experts.     Those   experts   did   not   find   &   recommend   grant   of <\/p>\n
    equivalence   on   09.08.1996   and   after   evaluating   material   on <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:54:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
    record,   the   State   Government   has   issued   the   communication <\/p>\n
    dated     04.12.1996.     She   points   out   that   the   recommendation <\/p>\n
    dated   09.08.1996   by   this   Committee   of   10   experts   has   been <\/p>\n
    accepted by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
    5]          During   arguments   learned   AGP   also   sought   time   to <\/p>\n
    produce   before  this  Court   the letter  dated  09.08.1996  and  also <\/p>\n
    Minutes of discussion of said Expert Committee so as to show to <\/p>\n
    this Court that Committee has looked into all required facets and <\/p>\n
    relevant   material   and   thereafter   has   made   recommendation <\/p>\n
    against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    6]          Shri   Mardikar   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   has <\/p>\n
    opposed   any  adjournment   as according   to him  impugned   order <\/p>\n
    dated   04.12.1996   is   passed   by   State   Government   and   reasons <\/p>\n
    given therein are only germane at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
    7]          The perusal of impugned order dated 04.12.1996 shows <\/p>\n
    that it contains reference to the letter dated 09.08.1996 submitted <\/p>\n
    by   Committee   of   10   member   experts.   Said   letter   is   in   fact   the <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:54:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
    recommendation   of   that   Committee.   Equivalence   of   Diploma   in <\/p>\n
    Plant Engineering has been considered in Clause (C) of that order <\/p>\n
    by State Government.   State Government has found that there is <\/p>\n
    major   difference   between   these   two   courses   but   the   said <\/p>\n
    difference is noted to be “for the appointment on the posts in the <\/p>\n
    Government”.     The   equivalence   has   been   rejected   only   on   that <\/p>\n
    account.\n<\/p>\n
    8]          Vide   its   report   dated   07.12.1993   the     Committee   of <\/p>\n
    three   members   has   not   looked   into   the   purpose   for   which   the <\/p>\n
    expertise or education secured by student undergoing that course <\/p>\n
    was to be utilized.   It appears to have compared subjects taught <\/p>\n
    and   treatment   given   to   diploma   (plant   engineering)   for   future <\/p>\n
    The report dated 09.08.1996 by the Expert Committee appointed <\/p>\n
    by State Government is not before this Court.  However, contents <\/p>\n
    of   that   report   are   also   not   relevant   at   this   stage.     State <\/p>\n
    Government   has   looked   into   only   one   aspect   i.e.   the   fitness   of <\/p>\n
    candidate holding diploma in Plant Engineering for appointment <\/p>\n
    or employment in its other departments.   From return as filed & <\/p>\n
    from  impugned order,  it  seems that the Government  has found <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:54:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
    that    insofar   as    such  employment   is concerned,     courses   were <\/p>\n
    materially different and plant engineers were not possessing the <\/p>\n
    mechanical knowledge in detail so as to enable them to function <\/p>\n
    in  other departments like  B&C,  Irrigation,  MSEB,  Water  Supply <\/p>\n
    etc. as supervisors except power plants.\n<\/p>\n
    9]         We, therefore, find substance in the contention of Shri <\/p>\n
    Mardikar that purpose to which knowledge was to be put could <\/p>\n
    not have a decisive factor while ascertaining the equivalence.  The <\/p>\n
    question was of comparison between two courses and the same <\/p>\n
    could have been decided only by looking at  the curriculum taught <\/p>\n
    and the extent of knowledge imparted during studies in respective <\/p>\n
    course.  How  10 Members  Experts Committee has held that there <\/p>\n
    is no equivalence & what  made them to so opine, is not relevant <\/p>\n
    because the State Government has not accepted or mentioned that <\/p>\n
    point of difference. Its order dated 4.12.1996   records only one <\/p>\n
    reason  and it has not come to conclusion that two courses cannot <\/p>\n
    be viewed as equivalent because of any other  difference between <\/p>\n
    the two.  Because of this position we find that even if learned AGP <\/p>\n
    produces   Minutes   of   said   committee   or   Report   of   the   said <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:54:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
    Committee     before   us,   the   said   document   cannot   save   the <\/p>\n
    impugned order.   The reason given by State Government is very <\/p>\n
    specific and State Government has  viewed the controversy only <\/p>\n
    through employment point of view in other departments like B&C, <\/p>\n
    PWD   etc.     Its   order   can   not   be   attempted   to   be   justified   by <\/p>\n
    pointing   out   some   other   material   on   record   which   State <\/p>\n
    Government itself has found not necessary to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
    10]               According to Black’s Law Dictionary (9 th Ed.)    word <\/p>\n
    “equivalent”,   when  used as an  adjective,  means  equal  in  value, <\/p>\n
    force,   amount,   effect   or   significance.     Second   meaning  given   is <\/p>\n
    “corresponding   in   effect   or   function,nearly   equal,   virtually <\/p>\n
    identical”. When it is employed as a noun, it means that which <\/p>\n
    can perform the same function as an other element or substance.\n<\/p>\n
    In   2009   AIR   SCW   2027   -“Godrej   and   Boyce   Manufacturing   Co.\n<\/p>\n
    Ltd.   v.   State   of   Maharashtra”,   Hon.   Apex   Court   has   noted   its <\/p>\n
    explanation as  “equal in such properties as affect ourselves or the  <\/p>\n
    use which we make of things,such as value” given in Advanced Law <\/p>\n
    Lexicon-(3rd  Ed.-2005) by P. Ramanatha   Aiyar. It also finds that <\/p>\n
    Webster’s   Third   New   International   Dictionary   defines   it   as   an <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:54:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
    adjective   as”   1   :   equal   in   force   or   amount…..equal   in   area   or <\/p>\n
    volume   but   not   admitting   of   superposition   (a   square   –   to   a <\/p>\n
    triangle) 2 a : like in signification or import 3 a : equal in value, <\/p>\n
    compensative. After noticing these meanings, following conclusion <\/p>\n
    reached by Hon. Apex Court are important. It observes that,<\/p>\n
                   “The last of the above makes the meaning of the  <\/p>\n
                  word ‘equivalent’ very clear by explaining it in
\n                  contradistinction   to   the   word   ‘equal’.   It   says  <\/p>\n
                  equivalent is equal in such properties as affect  <\/p>\n
                  the use which we make of things. Seen thus any
\n                  of   the   relevant   properties,   e.g.,   value,   area,
\n                  volume,   quantity,   quality   etc.   may   form   the  <\/p>\n
                  basis for determining equivalence.”\n<\/p>\n
    One   can   not   forget   that   in   present   case,   the   equivalence   is <\/p>\n
    required to be found out as two courses   are not same. In  AIR  <\/p>\n
    2008  SC   (Supp)   1321  “Basic  Education   Board,   U.   P.  v.   Upendra  <\/p>\n
    Rai<\/a>“,   Hon.   Apex   Court   has   declared   that   grant   of   equivalence <\/p>\n
    and\/or   its   revocation   is   an   administrative   decision   in   the   sole <\/p>\n
    discretion of the concerned authority, and the Court has nothing <\/p>\n
    to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by <\/p>\n
    experts   appointed   by   the   government,   and   the   Court   does   not <\/p>\n
    have expertise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:54:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                           10<\/span><\/p>\n
    restraint and not interfere in it.\n<\/p>\n
    11]                  However, when relevant material is lost site of or <\/p>\n
    irrelevant   material   is   relied   upon,   the   decision   making   process <\/p>\n
    itself gets vitiated. Here, the competency of petitioner to function <\/p>\n
    as plant engineer in power plants is not in dispute. He is found <\/p>\n
    not   holding   qualification   equivalent   to   diploma   in   mechanical <\/p>\n
    engineering and hence, he is found unfit to  function in any other <\/p>\n
    department.  Job requirements for working as an instructor do not <\/p>\n
    appear to form basis of application of mind. From return as filed <\/p>\n
    on record,  it appears to be the stand of State Government  that <\/p>\n
    unless he obtains  more knowledge  in the branch of mechanical <\/p>\n
    engineering by prosecuting graduate course, he can not be posted <\/p>\n
    in such other departments. We find the tests applied erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
    State Government has not found out whether a diploma holder in <\/p>\n
    mechanical engineering can function as plant engineer or then a <\/p>\n
    person like petitioner needs to be given preference for that job or <\/p>\n
    whether he has any special advantage because of his diploma in <\/p>\n
    plant   engineering   and   a   diploma   holder   in   mechanical <\/p>\n
    engineering lacks it. State Government has on oath asserted that 3 <\/p>\n
    members of earlier Committee were from academic field & had <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:54:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
    nothing   to   do   with   employment   in   PWD,   Irrigation   etc.   State, <\/p>\n
    being employer, has claimed right to examine such equivalence.\n<\/p>\n
    The capacity to function in its employment , thus appears to be a <\/p>\n
    decisive factor used by it. But, here petitioner was appointed as <\/p>\n
    instructor to teach students & question of equivalence has arisen <\/p>\n
    in that backdrop. If in inquiry   into equivalence,   concentration <\/p>\n
    has to be only on one facet, whether it should be centered around <\/p>\n
    only  fitness for employment or it has to be his potential to teach.\n<\/p>\n
    Has such application of mind all pervasive. Whether opinion of 3 <\/p>\n
    academic   experts   was   totally   irrelevant?   Presuming   that   such <\/p>\n
    enquiry   can   be   only   in   respect   of   any   one   particular   angle, <\/p>\n
    question  is   whether    ability    to  teach  &  learning  or   knowledge <\/p>\n
    possessed by such diploma holders and bearing of their respective <\/p>\n
    diplomas thereon, ought to have been & needs to be also the part <\/p>\n
    of that investigation by an expert committee in order to find out <\/p>\n
    that equivalence. This aspect of teaching or its relevance, does not <\/p>\n
    figure   in   impugned   order   at   all.   Purpose   for   which   such <\/p>\n
    equivalence   is   required   to   be   ascertained   or   object   behind   that <\/p>\n
    exercise   will   definitely   determine   the   nature   of   norms   to   be <\/p>\n
    employed.     State   Government   nowhere   finds   petitioner <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:54:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                            12<\/span><\/p>\n
    incompetent or not eligible to teach. Filing of Writ Petition No. <\/p>\n
    2992   of   1995   before   this   Court   by   him   and   its   withdrawal   on <\/p>\n
    02.04.1996   as   the   State   Government   was   then   considering   the <\/p>\n
    issue of equivalence is admitted fact. That concentration has to be <\/p>\n
    based upon relevant material & test. We, therefore, find  enquiry <\/p>\n
    undertaken by the  Sate Government without reference to context <\/p>\n
    & not in right perspective.   This error in impugned exercise can <\/p>\n
    not be supplemented by producing any records not considered by <\/p>\n
    the   State.     The   said   order   or   communication   therefore,   suffers <\/p>\n
    from non-application of mind & is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
    12]         We,   therefore,   quash   and   set   aside   the   order   dated <\/p>\n
    04.12.1996.  We direct the respondent no.1 to consider the issue <\/p>\n
    of   equivalence   independently,   and   without   any   regard   to   the <\/p>\n
    purpose for which the knowledge imparted during that course is <\/p>\n
    to be put.  The appropriateness of grant of such equivalence with <\/p>\n
    employment or its use is entirely a different issue and can not be <\/p>\n
    the sole deciding  factor . State Government may ,in a given case, <\/p>\n
    say that a candidate   with particular qualification is not fit for a <\/p>\n
    particular job.   However, that cannot be a reason to hold in all <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:54:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                           13<\/span><\/p>\n
    cases,  the courses are not equivalent.\n<\/p>\n
    13]         Hence, we direct respondent no.1 to consider the issue <\/p>\n
    of equivalence again afresh as early as possible and in any case <\/p>\n
    within a period of four months from today.  Needless to mention <\/p>\n
    that   if   the   qualification   of   petitioner   is   found   equivalent   to <\/p>\n
    Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, he will then be free to raise <\/p>\n
    claim   for   absorption   under   Rule   25(A)   of   the   Maharashtra <\/p>\n
    Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 <\/p>\n
    along with claim for salary in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
    14]             Rule is made absolute accordingly.  Writ Petition is <\/p>\n
    thus   partly   allowed.   However,   in   the   circumstances   of  the   case <\/p>\n
    there shall be no order as to costs.   Certified copy be expedited.\n<\/p>\n
                             JUDGE                                 JUDGE\n\n\n\n    svk\n                                            \n\n\n\n\n                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:54:36 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Meshram vs 4] Director on 9 November, 2011 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, A. B. Chaudhari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 317 OF 1997 Hemantkumar Sadashivrao Meshram, aged 34 yrs., Occu. Instructor, c\/o P. L. Suryawanshi at & Post Jambhulghat, Tah Chimur, Distt. […]<\/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-177322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMeshram vs 4] Director on 9 November, 2011 - 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\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Meshram vs 4] Director on 9 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-30T00:46:02+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Meshram vs 4] Director on 9 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-30T00:46:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2186,\"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\\\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Meshram vs 4] Director on 9 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-30T00:46:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Meshram vs 4] Director on 9 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Meshram vs 4] Director on 9 November, 2011 - 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\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Meshram vs 4] Director on 9 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-30T00:46:02+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Meshram vs 4] Director on 9 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-30T00:46:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011"},"wordCount":2186,"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\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011","name":"Meshram vs 4] Director on 9 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-30T00:46:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meshram-vs-4-director-on-9-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Meshram vs 4] Director on 9 November, 2011"}]},{"@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\/177322","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=177322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177322\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}