{"id":186161,"date":"2010-06-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010"},"modified":"2016-10-22T22:27:02","modified_gmt":"2016-10-22T16:57:02","slug":"vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Vivekananda Vidyapeeth &amp; Another vs Saugat Banerjee &amp; Another on 15 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vivekananda Vidyapeeth &amp; Another vs Saugat Banerjee &amp; Another on 15 June, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n              HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n\n                    W. A. No. 55 of 2008\n\n\n\n         Vivekananda   Vidyapeeth &amp; another\n                                        ...Petitioners\n\n                      Versus\n\n\n         Saugat Banerjee &amp; another\n                                ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n     WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTON 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH            \n     HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006        \n\n\n\n\n\n\n!       Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the appellants\n\n\n^     Ms Deepali Pandey, Advocate for the respondent No.1.\n      Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2\n\n\nHonble Mr. I. M. Quddusi,Honble Mr. N. K. Agarwal, JJ.\n\n\n       Dated:15\/06\/2010\n\n\n:       Judgment\n\n\n\n                      O R D E R (oral)\n<\/pre>\n<p>          ( Passed on this 15th day of June, 2010 )<br \/>\n         Per I.M.Quddusi, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>  1.   Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants as<\/p>\n<p>       well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1<\/p>\n<p>       and 2.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned<br \/>\njudgment and order dated 30th July, 2007, passed by the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 153\/2007 (Saugat<br \/>\nBanarjee Vs. Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth &amp; others), allowing the<br \/>\nwrit petition in part and directing the respondents<br \/>\n(appellants in the instant writ appeal) to complete the<br \/>\nenquiry against the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) as per<br \/>\nthe directions given in paragraph 13 of the impugned<br \/>\njudgment in which it was held that the enquiry was not<br \/>\ninitiated against the instant respondent No.1 in accordance<br \/>\nwith the provisions of law and the writ appellants were<br \/>\ndirected to initiate the departmental enquiry from the stage<br \/>\nof submission of written explanation in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1<br \/>\nwas appointed against the post of Tabla Teacher on<br \/>\n29.9.1997. It is not disputed that at the time of his<br \/>\nappointment the respondent No.1 was not qualified to hold<br \/>\nthe post of Tabla Teacher but he was not appointed against a<br \/>\nregular post carrying regular pay scale rather was given the<br \/>\nconsolidated salary as his appointment was not a regular<br \/>\nappointment and recommendation for regularization of his<br \/>\nappointment was made subsequently. However, in the meantime<br \/>\na charge sheet was served upon the respondent No.1 and he<br \/>\nhas given the reply.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   Learned Single Judge has indicated that the procedure<br \/>\nadopted by the writ appellant in directing the enquiry was<br \/>\nnot in accordance with the rules namely Madhya Pradesh<br \/>\nAshaskiya Sikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya<br \/>\nKarmachariyon Ke Padachyut Karne\/Sewa Se Hatane Sambandhi<br \/>\nPrakriya ) Niyam, 1983             (hereinafter referred to<br \/>\nas &#8220;the Rules, 1983).\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   The plea taken before the learned Single Judge by the<br \/>\nwrit appellant was that subsequently the Rules, 1985 namely<br \/>\nAshaskiya Sanstha Anudan Niyam, 1985 (hereinafter referred<br \/>\nto as &#8220;Rules, 1985&#8221;) were applicable and therefore they did<br \/>\nnot follow the Rules, 1983.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   We have perused the Rules 1985 as well as the Rules<br \/>\n1983.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   In fact the Rules, 1985 are silent in respect of<br \/>\nconduct of the enquiry and removal of Teachers. Therefore,<br \/>\nit cannot be said that the Rules, 1983 were superseded in<br \/>\ntoto by the Rules, 1985. Thus, we are of the opinion that<br \/>\nthe Rules, 1983 would be applicable to the extent the Rules,<br \/>\n1985 are silent.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   Learned counsel for the writ appellants raised the<br \/>\ncontention that the respondent No.1 was not a regular<br \/>\nemployee but he could not dispute that he was getting the<br \/>\nremuneration of the fixed salary from the funds provided by<br \/>\nthe State Government under the  grants-in-aid. It is also<br \/>\nnot disputed that the respondent No.1 was appointed against<br \/>\nthe post of Tabla Teacher. The writ appellants have filed a<br \/>\ndocument (at page 79 of the writ appeal), which shows that<br \/>\nthe selection committee met on 26.10.2004 for consideration<br \/>\nof the regularization of the employees working in the<br \/>\nVivekananda Vidyapeeth, Kota, Raipur. The name of the<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 namely Saugat Banerjee finds place at serial<br \/>\nNo.3 against the post of Tabla Teacher. This recommendation<br \/>\nis dated 26.10.2004. A remark has also been mentioned that<br \/>\nacceptance for regularization has already been granted by<br \/>\nthe Government of Madhya Pradesh by the memorandum No. F-<br \/>\n10-7\/97\/4\/25 dated 21.7.1999, addressed to the Collector,<br \/>\nRaipur, as those employees including the respondent No.1<br \/>\nwere appointed earlier. Further, the Rules, 1983 which has<br \/>\nbeen framed under the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Sikshan<br \/>\nSanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ke Vetano Ka<br \/>\nSandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as `the<br \/>\nAct, 1978&#8242;) provide the procedure to take disciplinary<br \/>\naction against the Teachers. Further, the Teacher has been<br \/>\ndefined in the Act, 1978, according to which `Teacher&#8217;<br \/>\nmeans, a teacher of an institution in respect of whose<br \/>\nemployment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government<br \/>\nor the Ayog, as the case may be, to the institutions and<br \/>\nincludes any other teacher employed, with the prior approval<br \/>\nof the authority specified by the State Government in this<br \/>\nbehalf, in fulfillment of the conditions of<br \/>\nrecognition\/affiliation of an institution or of a new<br \/>\nsubject or a higher class or a new section in the existing<br \/>\nclass by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education or<br \/>\nany University or the Ayog, as the case may be, and shown on<br \/>\nthe pay roll of the institution against a post as being in<br \/>\nthe employment as such but does not include a teacher whose<br \/>\nappointment is disapproved under clause (c) of section 6.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   The respondent No.1 is being paid from the pay roll of<br \/>\nthe institution against the post of Tabla Teacher from the<br \/>\nmaintenance grant fund paid by the State Government and his<br \/>\nappointment has not been disapproved rather is pending<br \/>\nconsideration for regularization.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh<br \/>\nKumar Shukla and others 1986(1) SLR 699 held as under :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;17. In this case the deficiencies in the drafting<br \/>\n          of  the rules and the inadvertence on the part  of<br \/>\n          the  High  Court in complying with them pose  some<br \/>\n          difficulty  in arriving at a just solution.  There<br \/>\n          is no dispute that the 1947 Rules made appropriate<br \/>\n          provisions regarding the recruitment of candidates<br \/>\n          to  the posts in the ministerial establishment  in<br \/>\n          the   Subordinate  Courts  in  the  former  United<br \/>\n          Provinces  and they continued to be in force  till<br \/>\n          July 11, 1950. On July 11 1950 the 1950 Rules were<br \/>\n          promulgated.  They were applicable not  merely  to<br \/>\n          the ministerial establishments in Civil Courts but<br \/>\n          to the ministerial establishments in several other<br \/>\n          offices. They were promulgated in supersession  of<br \/>\n          all existing rules and orders on the subject. They<br \/>\n          prescribed  that  recruitment to  the  ministerial<br \/>\n          staff  in  a subordinate office to which the  said<br \/>\n          rules  were applicable should be made on the basis<br \/>\n          of  a  competitive test and also provided for  the<br \/>\n          mode  of  calculation  of  vacancies,  the  period<br \/>\n          during  which competitive examinations  should  be<br \/>\n          held,  the  subjects for the test  and  the  marks<br \/>\n          assigned  to  each  of  them  and  the  method  of<br \/>\n          selection  of  successful  candidate.  They   also<br \/>\n          provided that appointments to higher posts in  the<br \/>\n          ministerial staff of those offices should be  made<br \/>\n          by  promotion. Rules 9 to 12 of the 1947 Rules and<br \/>\n          Appendix  II  to it which dealt with above  topics<br \/>\n          thus stood superseded. The other parts of the 1947<br \/>\n          Rules  which dealt with the nationality,  domicile<br \/>\n          and  residence  of the candidates, their  academic<br \/>\n          qualifications,  character and  physical  fitness,<br \/>\n          the    appointing   authority,    probation    and<br \/>\n          confirmation, seniority, punishment, rate of  pay,<br \/>\n          transfers and regulations of conditions of service<br \/>\n          remained intact since the 1950 Rules did not  make<br \/>\n          any provision as regards these topics. Hence we do<br \/>\n          not agree with the argument urged on behalf of the<br \/>\n          appellant that the 1947 Rules stood superseded  in<br \/>\n          their  entirety by the 1950 Rules.  Rules  relying<br \/>\n          upon  the  opening words of the 1950  Rules  which<br \/>\n          read thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8220;In  exercise  of  the powers  conferred  by<br \/>\n          Article  309 of the Constitution of India  and  in<br \/>\n          supersession of all existing rules and  orders  on<br \/>\n          the subject..&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          18.   &#8220;In  supersession of all existing rules  and<br \/>\n          orders  on  the subject&#8221; can only refer  to  those<br \/>\n          matters in the existing rules which correspond  to<br \/>\n          the  matters dealt with by the 1950 Rules. We have<br \/>\n          explained earlier the other subjects in  the  1947<br \/>\n          Rules  which  were not covered by the 1950  Rules.<br \/>\n          Hence  the  argument based on the assumption  that<br \/>\n          the  entire  1947  Rules  had  been  repealed   by<br \/>\n          implication and no amendment could be made to  the<br \/>\n          1947 Rules has to be rejected. The High Court was,<br \/>\n          therefore,  right in observing that the  whole  of<br \/>\n          the  1947  Rules did not come to  an  end  on  the<br \/>\n          promulgation  of  the  1950  Rules.  The  problem,<br \/>\n          however,  does not get solved thereby as we  shall<br \/>\n          presently show.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  11.  In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances,<\/p>\n<p>       without interfering in the impugned order passed by the<\/p>\n<p>       learned Single Judge, we disposed of the instant writ appeal<\/p>\n<p>       with the observation that the respondents may follow the<\/p>\n<p>       Rules, 1985 as amended      upto date but if those Rules are<\/p>\n<p>       silent on the conduct of the enquiry or conduct of the<\/p>\n<p>       disciplinary proceedings etc., they shall follow  the<\/p>\n<p>       provisions of the Rules, 1983.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.  With the above observations this writ appeal is<br \/>\ndisposed of. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>               J U D G E                     J U D G E\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Vivekananda Vidyapeeth &amp; Another vs Saugat Banerjee &amp; Another on 15 June, 2010 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. A. No. 55 of 2008 Vivekananda Vidyapeeth &amp; another &#8230;Petitioners Versus Saugat Banerjee &amp; another &#8230;Respondents WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTON 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-186161","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vivekananda Vidyapeeth &amp; Another vs Saugat Banerjee &amp; Another on 15 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vivekananda Vidyapeeth &amp; Another vs Saugat Banerjee &amp; Another on 15 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-22T16:57:02+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vivekananda Vidyapeeth &amp; Another vs Saugat Banerjee &amp; Another on 15 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-22T16:57:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1364,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Vivekananda Vidyapeeth &amp; Another vs Saugat Banerjee &amp; Another on 15 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-22T16:57:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vivekananda Vidyapeeth &amp; Another vs Saugat Banerjee &amp; Another on 15 June, 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":"Vivekananda Vidyapeeth &amp; Another vs Saugat Banerjee &amp; Another on 15 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vivekananda Vidyapeeth &amp; Another vs Saugat Banerjee &amp; Another on 15 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-22T16:57:02+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vivekananda Vidyapeeth &amp; Another vs Saugat Banerjee &amp; Another on 15 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-22T16:57:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010"},"wordCount":1364,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010","name":"Vivekananda Vidyapeeth &amp; Another vs Saugat Banerjee &amp; Another on 15 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-22T16:57:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vivekananda-vidyapeeth-another-vs-saugat-banerjee-another-on-15-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vivekananda Vidyapeeth &amp; Another vs Saugat Banerjee &amp; Another on 15 June, 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\/186161","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=186161"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186161\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186161"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186161"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186161"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}