{"id":194997,"date":"1997-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997"},"modified":"2016-05-12T01:16:19","modified_gmt":"2016-05-11T19:46:19","slug":"arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997","title":{"rendered":"Arun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. … on 1 December, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Arun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. … on 1 December, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: M S V.Manohar<\/div>\n
Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, M. Jagannadha Ray<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nARUN TEWARI & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nZILA MANSAVI SHIKSHAK SANGH & ORS. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t01\/12\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nSUJATA V. MANOHAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAY\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t       THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t    Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Sujata V.Manohar
\n\t    Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.Jagannadha Rao
\nP.P.Singh, Prakash  Srivastava, B.S.Banthia,  S.K.Agnihotri,
\nA.K.Singh, Anoop G.Choudhary, K.V.Sreekumar, R.C.Gubrele end
\nMs.Nanita Sharma, Advs. for the appearing parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
\n[With  CA   Nos.  813\/95,  4168\/95,  C.A.  Nos\t8443-8446\/97
\n(Arising out  of SLP  (C) Nos.\t10462\/95, 14389\/95, 26032\/95
\nand 4579\/97)]
\nMrs. Sujata V.Manohar, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Delay in  S.L.P(C) Nos. 10462, 14389 & 26032 of 1995 is
\ncondoned.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10462, 14389 26032 of 1995 and
\n4579 of 1997 is granted.\n<\/p>\n
     Intervention applications are allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     Civil Appeal No.77 of 1995 and appeals arising from the
\nfour special  leave petitions  are from a judgment and order
\nof the\tMadhya Pradesh\tAdministrative Tribunal at Jabalpur,
\ndated 18.3.1994\t in a  group of applications challenging the
\namendments made in the Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III
\nEducation Service  (Non-Collegiate Service)  Recruitment and
\nPromotion Rules,  1973 by a notification published in Madhya
\nPradesh Government  Gazette (Extra Ordinary) dated 10.5.1993
\nand  another   notification  published\t in  Madhya  Pradesh
\nGovernment Gazette (Extra Ordinary) dated 17.6.1993; as also
\nthe circulars  of  the\tSchool\tEducation  Department  dated
\n5.8.1993 and  9.8.1993. By  the impugned judgment and order,
\nthe Madhya  Pradesh Administrative  Tribunal struck down the
\ntwo amendments\tand the circulars. These related to criteria
\nand procedure  for selection  of Assistant  Teachers in\t the
\nMadhya Pradesh\tEducation Service  under the Operation Black
\nBoard  Scheme.\t As  a\tresult,\t selection  of\taround\t7000
\nAssistant Teachers  and the  ongoing process of selection of
\nsuch teachers  in  some\t districts  was\t set  aside  at\t the
\ninstance of  the applications  who were persons not eligible
\nfor selection  under the impugned amendments.\n<\/p>\n
     C.A.No.813\/95 challenges  a  subsequent  order  of\t the
\nMadhya Pradesh\tAdministrative Tribunal dated 31.10.1994. In
\nthe group  of applications finally decided on 18.3.1994, the
\nTribunal had  granted on  14.9.1993 an\tinterim stay  of the
\nimpugned amendments  and circulars. On 15.9.1993, the Deputy
\nDirector  of   Education,  Hoshangabad\t issued\t appointment
\nletters to  86 selected\t persons. These\t appointment letters
\nhave been  set aside  by the  Tribunal in  the light  of its
\njudgment and  order of\t18.3.1994, by  the impugned order of
\n31.10.1994.\n<\/p>\n
     C.A.No. 4168\/95  is against  the order  of\t the  Madhya
\nPradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 26.11.19194. After the
\nabove interim  order of\t 14.9.1993, the\t Deputy Director  of
\nEducation, Dhar had issued on  16.9.1993 appointment letters
\nto 48  selected candidates. He cancelled the appointments by
\nhis order  of 26.7.1994\t in view  of the Tribunal’s judgment
\nand order  of 18.3.1994.  The selected candidates applied to
\nthe Tribunal for their continuation. Their applications have
\nbeen dismissed\tby the\tTribunal in view of its judgment and
\norder of 18.3.1994, by the impugned order of 26.11.1994.\n<\/p>\n
     The recruitment,  inter alia,  of Assistant Teachers of
\nMadhya Pradesh\tis  governed  by  the  Madhya  Pradesh\tNon-
\nGazetted  Class\t  III  Education   Service   (Non-Collegiate
\nService) Recruitment  and Promotion Rules, 1973 (hereinafter
\ncalled the  ‘Recruitment Rules’).  The method of recruitment
\nis direct recruitment by competitive examination followed by
\nan interview. During the eight Plan period i.e. from 1992 to
\n1997 the  Central Government  sponsored a  scheme  known  as
\nOperation  Black   Board  Scheme.   Under  this\t scheme\t the
\nGovernment of India gave financial clearance to the State of
\nMadhya Pradesh\tto implement  this scheme  by appointing  an
\nAdditional Teacher  in all  primary\/middle schools which had
\nonly one  teacher in  order  to\t improve  the  standards  of
\neducation. In  order to\t implement the\tscheme the  State of
\nMadhya Pradesh\tdecided to  fill in  about 7,000  to  11,000
\nposts of Assistant Teachers in such schools.\n<\/p>\n
     As the  scheme was\t to be implemented within the Eighth
\nPlan  period,  in  order  to  expedite\timplementation,\t the
\nrespondent-State, on  10.5.1993, amended  Rule 10(3)  of the
\nRecruitment Rules  by  adding  a  proviso.  Rule  10  is  as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “10.    Direct    Recruitment    by
\n     Selection:\n<\/p>\n
     (1) There\tshall be a committee for
\n     selection\tby  direct  recruitment,
\n     the membership  of which  shall  be
\n     like   the\t   membership\tof   the
\n     Committee constituted for selection
\n     by promotion.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) Selection  for\t recruitment  to
\n     the service  shall be  held at such
\n     intervals\t as    the    appointing
\n     authority\tmay  fix  time\tto  time
\n     determine.\n<\/p>\n
     (3) The Selection of candidates for
\n     service  shall   be  made\t by  the
\n     committee\t  by\t conducting    a
\n     competitive examination  and  after
\n     interviewing them.”\n<\/p>\n
     The proviso which has been inserted by the amendment of
\n10.5.1993 is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Provided\tthat   in  any\tspecific
\n     circumstance the  State  Government
\n     may,  in\tconsultation  with   the
\n     general  Administration  Department
\n     prescribe\t  the\t criteria    and
\n     procedure\tfor   the  selection  of
\n     candidates.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     By publication  in Madhya\tPradesh\t Government  Gazette
\nExtra Ordinary\tdated 7th  of June, 1993 a further amendment
\nwas made  in Schedule III Item at serial No.7 in column 5 of
\nthe   Recruitment   Rules   by\t inserting   the   following
\nqualification  for   recruitment   of\tL.D.Ts.\t  (Assistant
\nTeachers): “Basic Training Certificate or B.Ed. Degree”.\n<\/p>\n
     On 21.5.1993 the School Education Department proposed a
\nscheme for  selection of  Assistant Teachers  under the said
\nproviso for  the  purposes  of\tthe  Operation\tBlack  Board
\nScheme. It  was\t proposed  that\t selections  would  be\tmade
\ndistrict-wise  by   inviting  applications  from  employment
\nexchanges.  The\t  selection  would   be\t made  by  selection
\ncommittees constituted\tin each district to be presided over
\nby a  nominated officer in each district. The administrative
\ndepartment of the Government put up this scheme for approval
\nof the\tGovernor and  the Governor  approved the proposal on
\n16.6.1993. On  30.7.1993  the  Secretary,  School  Education
\nDepartment sent\t the file  to the  Secretary of\t the General
\nAdministration Department for the purposes of approval under
\nthe  proviso   to  Rule\t  10(3).  The\tSecretary,   General
\nAdministration Department returned the file with there marks
\n“since the  Administration Department  approval\t of  Hon’ble
\nGovernor had  already  been  obtained  the  consent  of\t the
\nGeneral Administration\tDepartment was\tnot essential”. With
\nthe   approval\t of   the   Principal\tSecretary,   General
\nAdministration Department,  the file  was returned to School
\nEducation Department on 4.8.1993.\n<\/p>\n
     As a result, instruction were issued in the exercise of
\npowers under  the proviso  the Rule  10(3), prescribing\t the
\ncriteria as  per amended Recruitment Rules and procedure for
\nselection   of\t  eligible   candidates.    The\t  prescribed
\nqualifications under  Schedule IV  as  amended\twere:  Basic
\nTraining  Certificate\tor  B.Ed.   qualification.  District
\nEmployment  Exchanges\twere  asked   to  sponsor   eligible
\ncandidates from\t their list.  The selection  was to  be made
\ndistrict-wise. The Secretary, Education Department sent D.O.
\nletters in  August 1993\t to Deputy Directors of Education in
\nthe State  informing them  about the  decision of  the State
\nGovernment  for\t implementation\t of  Operation\tBlack  Board
\nScheme. Keeping in view the need for a time-bound programme,
\nthe recruitment\t process  was  initiated  and  a  time-bound
\nprogramer  to\timplement  the\t scheme\t was  launched.\t The
\ninstruction provided  that the\tpower  to  select  Assistant
\nTeachers during\t 1993 was  withdrawn  from  the\t purview  of
\nJunior\tService\t  Selection  Board  by\tG.A.D.\torder  dated
\n19.5.1993. The\tselection of Assistant Teachers in 1993 will
\nbe made\t by a  Committee which\tshall be  presided over by a
\nnominated officer.  The Revenue\t District shall\t be the unit
\nfor selection  of  the\tteachers.  The\tinstruction  further
\nstated that  the criteria for selection and the weight to be
\ngiven on each head were a detailed in Schedule III.\n<\/p>\n
     As a result, lists of eligible candidates were obtained
\nfrom District  Employment Officers, who were matriculates or
\nabove and  had B.T.I.  or  B.Ed.  qualification.  They\twere
\ninterviewed by\ta Selection Committee in accordance with the
\ncriteria in  Schedule  III.  Select  lists  were  thereafter
\nprepared in  the order\tof merit.  Appointment letters\twere
\nissued to selected candidates in most districts before these
\nwere  challenged   before  the\t Tribunal.  These  assistant
\nteachers have  been appointed  initially on  probation for a
\nperiod\tof   two  years\t and  on  successful  completion  of
\nprobationary period  their pay\twould be  in accordance with
\nthe minimum of the regular scale and admissible allowances.\n<\/p>\n
     All the  original applications  before the Tribunal who
\nhave challenged\t the provisions for recruitment of Assistant
\nTeachers under\tthe Operation  Black Board  Scheme  did\t not
\npossess the  requisite\tqualifications\tfor  being  selected
\nunder the  said scheme as Assistant Teachers. Their names do
\nnot figure  among  the\tlists  forwarded  by  the  concerned
\nDistrict    Employment\t  Exchanges.\tSurprisingly,\t the
\napplications filed by all these persons and\/or groups before
\nthe Tribunal  did not make the selected\/appointed candidates
\nwho  were   directly  affected\t by  the  outcome  of  their
\napplications, as  party respondents. The Tribunal has passed
\nthe impugned  order without  making them  parties or issuing
\nnotice to  any of  them. The  entire exercise  is  seriously
\ndistorted because  of this omission. They have now filed the
\npresent appeals\t after they  have been granted leave to file
\nthe appeals.  In the  case of Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State
\nof Uttar  Pradesh &  Ors. (1984\t [4] SCC   251 at page 273),
\nthis court observed that in the case before them there was a
\nserious defect\tof non-joinder\tof necessary parties and the
\nonly respondents  to the  Sangh’s petition were the State of
\nUttar Pradesh  and its concerned officers. The employees who
\nwere directly concerned were not made parties — not even by
\njoining\t some\tof  them   in  a   representative  capacity,
\nconsidering that  their number was too large for all of them
\nto  be\t joined\t individually  as  respondents.\t This  Court
\nobserved that  High Court  ought not  have  decided  a\twrit
\npetition under\tArticle 226  of the Constitution without the
\npersons who  would be vitally affected by its judgment being
\nbefore it  as respondents or at least some of them before it
\nas  respondents\t  in  a\t  representative   capacity.   These
\nobservations apply  with equal force here. The same view has
\nbeen reiterated\t by this Court in Ishwar Singh & Ors. Kuldip
\nSingh &\t Ors. (1995  Supp [1] SCC 179), where the Court said
\nthat a\twrit petition challenging selection and appointments
\nwithout\t impleading   the  selected   candidates   was\t not
\nmaintainable. (Vide  also J.  Jose Dhanapaul Vs. S. Thomas &
\nOrs. (1996  [3] SCC  581, paragraph 4). On this ground alone
\nthe decision  of the  Tribunal is vitiated. However, even on
\nmerit we  do not  find that the judgment of the Tribunal can
\nbe sustained.\n<\/p>\n
     The first\tcontention is to the effect that the proviso
\nto Rule\t 10(3) is bad in law because it confers unguided and
\nexcessive delegation  of powers\t to that State Government in
\nthe matter  of criteria\t and procedure for recruitment. Now,
\nthe Recruitment\t Rules have been framed under the proviso to
\nArticle 309 of the Constitution of India. These Rules, inter
\nalia, prescribe the procedure for selection and the criteria
\nfor selection.\tThe proviso  which has been inserted in Rule
\n10(3) gives  to the  State Governments\tin consultation with
\nthe General  Administration Department,\t power to  prescribe
\nseparate criteria  and procedure for selection of candidates
\nin specific circumstances. The power to frame these criteria
\nand procedure is not delegated to any subordinate authority.
\nThe very  authority  which  framed  the\t original  Rules  is
\ndelegated the  power  to  frame\t special  Rules\t prescribing
\ncriteria  and\tprocedure  in\tspecific  circumstances\t  in
\nconsultation with the General Administration Department. The
\nquestion of  excessive delegation does not, therefore, arise
\nbecause the  rule-making authority  has given  to itself the
\npower to  prescribe criteria  and procedure for selection in
\nspecific circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  case of  Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Ors.
\nVs. Meenakshi  Mills Ltd.  Anr. (1993  [3] SCC\t336, at page\n<\/p>\n
372), a\t Constitution  Bench  of  this\tCourt  considered  a
\nsimilar question  which arose  before it  and held that when
\nthe discretion\tis given to the Government itself and not to
\na subordinate  officer, it  cannot be  said  that  there  is
\nexcessive and  uncontrolled delegation.\t The  provision\t for
\nconsideration before  the Court\t in that case was “the State
\nGovernment or  any authority  so specified  in this behalf”.
\nThe validity  of this  provision was  assailed on the ground
\nthat it\t gave unfettered  and uncontrolled discretion tot he
\nState  Government  or  to  the\toffices\t authorised  by\t it.
\nRejecting  this\t  contention,  this   Court  said  that\t the
\ndiscretion  is\tgiven  in  the\tfirst  place  to  the  State
\nGovernment itself and not to a very subordinate officer like
\nthe licensing officer. The fact that the power of delegation
\nis to  be exercised  by the  State Government  itself  is  a
\nsafeguard against the abuse of this power of delegation.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  present case the criteria and procedure have to
\nbe prescribed  by the State Government itself in exercise of
\npower conferred\t on its\t by statutory  Rules. This cannot be
\nconsidered as  excessive delegation.  Also.  prescribing  of
\nseparate  criteria   and  procedure  is\t permitted  only  in
\nspecific circumstances.\t In the\t present case, the departure
\nfrom normal  recruitment  process  has\tbeen  occasioned  on
\naccount of  the time-bound  programme of the Operation Black
\nBoard Scheme.  This necessitated a large number of Assistant
\nTeachers  being\t  recruited  to\t  strengthen  the  education
\nprogramme of  the State within a time-bound schedule. If the
\nState Government  felt that  the existing procedure would be
\nunduly time-consuming,\tand  provided  a  special  procedure
\nwhich is  not unfair,  no objection  can be  raised to\tsuch
\nprocedure when\tan express  power has  been conferred on the
\nState in this connection.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t was  next  contended  that  the  criteria  and\t the
\nprocedure prescribed  under the proviso require consultation
\nwith the  General Administration  Department. This  was\t not
\ndone. From the facts which have been set out above, however,
\nit is  clear that the scheme which was framed by the Central
\nGovernment  was\t  placed  by   the  General   Administration
\nDepartment before  the Governor\t for approval  and was\tsent
\nback to\t the School  Education\tDepartment  by\tthe  General
\nAdministration Department.  When a  formal approval  of\t the
\nGeneral\t  Administration    Department\t was\tasked\t for
\nsubsequently,  it   was\t  pointed   out\t  by   the   General
\nAdministration Department  that this  was not  required when
\ntheir department  had itself  obtained the  approval of\t the
\nGovernor to  the scheme.  This contention has, therefore, no
\nsubstance.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  contention challenge the qualifications which
\nare prescribed\tby the\tamendment to  Scheduled III as being
\nunfair. The  prescribed qualifications\tare  Basic  Training
\nCertificate or\ta B.Ed.\t Degree. It  was contented  that the
\nprescription of\t these qualifications  is  unreasonable\t and
\ndiscriminatory because there are other qualifications which,
\naccording to  the original  applicants, are  equivalent\t and
\nwhich should have been included. It is urged that Montessory
\nand Mahilla Bal Sevika Prasikshan Pramanpatras and Diploma T
\nare equivalent\tqualifications. It  has been  pointed out by
\nthe  State   that  the\tB.T.  Certificate  qualification  is
\nsuperior to  the qualifications of Diploma T, Montessory and
\nMahilla Sevika\tPrasikshan Pramanpatras.  The  criteria\t for
\nselection of  students. syllabus  and period of training are
\nall different  for pre-primary\tprasikshan (Montessory)\t and
\nBal Sevika  Prasikshan. Minimum\t qualification for admission
\nis middle  school and High School and the period of training
\nin both\t the courses  is one  year only.  For Diploma  T the
\nminim qualification  for admission  is\ta  Higher  Secondary
\nSchool Education.  For B.T.I.  the minimum  qualification is
\npassing of  the Higher\tSecondary School  Examination in the
\nSecond Division\t and the  courses are  also  different.\t The
\nState  Council\t of  Educational   Research   and   Training
\nconsidered the question of equivalence of B.T.I. and Diploma
\nThis recommendation  was accepted  by the  State Government.
\nThe State  Government has,  therefore, submitted  that\tB.T.
\nqualification\tis    superior\t to   the   other   training
\nqualification and, therefore, they have prescribed only B.T.
\nqualification apart from a B.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
     Looking to\t the above  reasons set\t out  by  the  State
\nGovernment for\trecognising a B.T. qualification as superior
\nto Diploma T and other qualifications the exclusion of other
\nqualifications\tcannot\tbe  held  to  be  discriminatory  or
\nunreasonable. A higher qualification which is prescribed for
\na particular  scheme cannot  be considered  as violative  of
\nArticle 14.  When candidates  with higher qualifications are
\navailable, choosing them instead of candidates with inferior
\nqualifications is not violation of Article 14 or 16.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  contention relates  to inviting\tapplications
\nfrom Employment\t Exchanges instead of by advertisement. This
\nprocedure has been resorted to looking to the requirement of
\na time-bound  scheme. The original applicants contended that
\nif the\tposts had  been advertised,  many others  like\tthem
\ncould have applied. The original applicants who so complain,
\nhowever, do not possess the requisite qualifications for the
\npost. As  far as  we can see from the record, nobody who had
\nthe requisite  qualifications, has  complained that  he\t was
\nprevented  from\t  applying  because  advertisement  was\t not
\nissued. What is more important, in the special circumstances
\nrequiring a  speedier process  of selection and appointment,
\napplications were  invited through  employment exchanges for
\n1993 only. In this context, the special procedure adopted is
\nnot unfair.  The State\thas relied upon the case of Union of
\nIndia &\t Ors. Vs.  N. Hargopal\t& Ors.\t(1987 [3]  SCC 308),
\nwhere Government  instruction enjoining\t that the  filed  of
\nchoice should,\tin the\tfirst  instance,  be  restricted  to
\ncandidates sponsored  the first\t instance, be  restricted to
\ncandidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, was upheld
\nas not\toffending Article  14 and 16 of the Constitution. In
\nthe case of  Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union
\nVs. Delhi  Administration, Delhi & Ors. (1992 [4] SCC 99, at
\npage  111).  this  Court  approved  of\trecruitment  through
\nemployment Exchanges as a method of preventing malpractices.
\nBut in\tthe  subsequent\t and  more  recent  case  of  Excise
\nSuperintended Malkapatnam,  Krishna District  A.P. V. K.B.N.
\nVisweshwara Rao\t & Ors.<\/a>\t [(1996) 6  SCC 216], this Court has
\ndistinguished Union  of India  V. Hargopal<\/a>  (supra)  on\t the
\nbasis of  special facts\t of that  case. It has observed that
\nthe  better   course  for  the\tState  would  be  to  invite
\napplications  from   employment\t exchanges  as\twell  as  to
\nadvertise and  also give  wide publicity  through TV,  Radio
\netc. The  Court had  to consider  whether  persons  who\t had
\napplied directly  and not through employment exchange should
\nbe  considered.\t  The\tCourt\tupheld\t their\t claim\t for
\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
     There are\tdifferent methods  of inviting applications.
\nThe method adopted in the exigencies of the situation in the
\npresent case  not be  labelled as unfair, particularly when,
\nat the\trelevant time,\tthe two\t earlier decisions  of\tthis
\nCourt were in vogue.\n<\/p>\n
     We do  not see any reason to fault procedure prescribed
\nor the\tqualifications prescribed  or  to  set\taside  these
\nselections and\tconsequent appointments\t since none  of\t the
\ngrounds on  which the  amendments, circulars  and  selection
\nhave been  challenged, is  sustainable in  law. We have been
\ninformed that after the stay of the judgment of the Tribunal
\nby this\t Court, those  who were selected\/appointed under the
\nprescribed procedure  have been\t given appointments and they
\nhave been  functioning as Assistant Teachers. In the case of
\nselected candidates  not joining,  the persons\tkept on\t the
\nrelevant waiting  list in  order of  merit have\t been  given
\nappointments.  There   is  no  reason  to  set\taside  these
\nappointments.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the   premises,  the  impugned\t amendments  to\t the
\nRecruitment Rules  as also  the circulars  relating  to\t the
\nprocedure for  selection and  the criteria for selection are
\nupheld. All these are allowed and the impugned judgments and
\norders of  the Tribunal\t are set aside. There will, however,
\nbe no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Arun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. … on 1 December, 1997 Author: M S V.Manohar Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, M. Jagannadha Ray PETITIONER: ARUN TEWARI & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: ZILA MANSAVI SHIKSHAK SANGH & ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/12\/1997 BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, M. JAGANNADHA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-194997","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nArun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. ... on 1 December, 1997 - 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\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. ... on 1 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-11T19:46:19+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. … on 1 December, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-11T19:46:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997\"},\"wordCount\":3115,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997\",\"name\":\"Arun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. ... on 1 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-11T19:46:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. … on 1 December, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Arun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. ... on 1 December, 1997 - 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\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. ... on 1 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-11T19:46:19+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. … on 1 December, 1997","datePublished":"1997-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-11T19:46:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997"},"wordCount":3115,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997","name":"Arun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. ... on 1 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-11T19:46:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-tewari-ors-vs-zila-mansavi-shikshak-sangh-ors-on-1-december-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. … on 1 December, 1997"}]},{"@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\/194997","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=194997"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194997\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}