{"id":205709,"date":"2007-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007"},"modified":"2017-06-18T11:12:33","modified_gmt":"2017-06-18T05:42:33","slug":"vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Vidya Vikas Mandal &amp; Anr vs The Education Officer &amp; Anr on 7 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vidya Vikas Mandal &amp; Anr vs The Education Officer &amp; Anr on 7 February, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Lakshmanan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  640 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nVIDYA VIKAS MANDAL &amp; ANR\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE EDUCATION OFFICER &amp; ANR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/02\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. AR. LAKSHMANAN &amp; ALTAMAS KABIR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<br \/>\n(@ S.L.P.(C) No.7613\/2004)<\/p>\n<p>Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHeard Mr. Manish Pitale, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.<br \/>\nS.S. Shinde, learned counsel for the Respondent no.1 and Mr.<br \/>\nNikhil Nayyar, learned counsel for the Respondent no.2.<br \/>\n\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated<br \/>\n14.7.2003 in L.P.A. No.66 of 2003 passed by the High Court of<br \/>\nBombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.  A charge-sheet was served on<br \/>\nthe delinquent employee.  Seven  charges were leveled against<br \/>\nhim.  Apart from the charge of harassment and misbehaviour with<br \/>\ngirl students, other charges of inefficiency, in-subordination and<br \/>\ncorruption were also specified against respondent no.2, namely,<br \/>\nSubhash Lingawar.  A Inquiry Committee consisting of three<br \/>\nmembers was constituted, which consisted of Mr. P.S. Donadkar<br \/>\n(Nominated by the Management), Mr. P.V. Madamshettiwar<br \/>\n(Deliquent&#8217;s representative) and Mrs. V.S. Ramteke (State<br \/>\nAwardee teacher).  Respondent no.2 submitted his reply to the<br \/>\naforesaid charge sheet.  The inquiry was initiated and the first<br \/>\nmeeting was held on 10.10.1998.  During the pendency of the<br \/>\ninquiry, respondent no.2 was not suspended and he continued to<br \/>\nattend to his duties.  In the inquiry proceedings, it was found that<br \/>\nthe respondent no.2 was being non-cooperative, two members of<br \/>\nthe Inquiry Committee, i.e. Nominee of respondent no.2 and the<br \/>\nState Awardee teacher were trying to stall the proceedings.  Upon<br \/>\nconclusion of the inquiry, as required under Rule 37 (4) of the<br \/>\nRules, the Inquiry Committee sent to respondent no.2 the<br \/>\nsummary proceedings and copies of statements of witnesses for<br \/>\nhim to submit his explanation within 7 days under Rule 37 (5).<br \/>\nThus, respondent no.2 had time of 7 days till 28.2.2000 to submit<br \/>\nhis explanation.  The respondent no.2 failed to submit his<br \/>\nexplanation to the Inquiry Committee.  Thus, under Rule 37 (6),<br \/>\nthe Inquiry Committee was required to communicate its findings to<br \/>\nthe Management within 10 days.  The  requirement was<br \/>\nmandatory and the period of 10 days expired on 9.3.2000.  Mr.<br \/>\nP.S. Donadkar, the management nominee and the Convenor of<br \/>\nthe Inquiry Committee sent his report and findings to the<br \/>\nManagement.  In this report, the aforesaid Member and Convenor<br \/>\nof the Inquiry Committee found all charges proved against<br \/>\nrespondent no.2 and having been found guilty, punishment of<br \/>\ntermination from service was recommended against respondent<br \/>\nno.2.  It was also recorded in the aforesaid report and findings<br \/>\nthat the other two members of the Inquiry Committee had not<br \/>\nsubmitted their findings and that during the course of inquiry they<br \/>\nhad sought to favour respondent no.2 and that their attitude was<br \/>\nnot appropriate.  As the appellant Management received the<br \/>\nfindings of only the Convenor of the Inquiry Committee within the<br \/>\nperiod of 10 days mandated by Rule 37 (6) of the Rules, it<br \/>\ndecided to terminate the services of respondent no.2 on the basis<br \/>\nof the recommendation and the findings received.  The appellant<br \/>\nManagement issued order terminating the service of respondent<br \/>\nno.2 w.e.f. 1.4.2000, thereby terminating the service of<br \/>\nrespondent no.2.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe findings of the other two members of the Inquiry Committee<br \/>\ndated 21.3.2000 and 29.3.2000 were received by the appellant<br \/>\nManagement.  According to the appellant, these findings were no<br \/>\nfindings in the eyes of law because the period of ten days<br \/>\nmandated by Rule 37 (6) of the Rules whereby findings were to be<br \/>\nsubmitted to the appellant Management, had expired on 9.3.2000<br \/>\nitself.  Therefore, Mr. Manish Pitale, learned counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the appellant-Management submitted that the aforesaid<br \/>\nfindings of the two members were meaningless.  The findings of<br \/>\nthe State Awardee teacher leveled wild allegations against the<br \/>\nConvenor and Management nominee Member of the Inquiry<br \/>\nCommittee.  The third member, the nominee of respondent no.2,<br \/>\nsimply adopted the findings of the aforesaid State Awardee<br \/>\nteacher.  In their findings both these members exonerated the<br \/>\nrespondent no.2.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe respondent no.2 filed an appeal bearing Appeal no.41 of<br \/>\n2000 before the Presiding Officer School Tribunal, Nagpur,<br \/>\nchallenging the aforesaid order of termination of service passed<br \/>\nby the appellant Management.  The said Tribunal allowed the<br \/>\nappeal of Respondent no.2 mainly on the ground that two of the<br \/>\nthree members of the Inquiry Committee had exonerated the<br \/>\nrespondent no.2.  The Tribunal directed to reinstate respondent<br \/>\nno.2 and to pay full back wages to him.   Aggrieved by the<br \/>\naforesaid order, the Management challenged the same before the<br \/>\nNagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by filing a writ petition.<br \/>\nThe Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ<br \/>\npetition only on the ground that two of the three members had<br \/>\nexonerated the respondent no.2.  Aggrieved by the said order, the<br \/>\nManagement filed Letters Patent Appeal no.66\/2003 before the<br \/>\nDivision Bench of the High Court.  In this appeal, the Management<br \/>\nspecifically raised the question of interpretation of Rule 37(6) of<br \/>\nthe aforesaid Rules to show that findings of the two members<br \/>\ngiven after the expiry of the mandatory period of ten days were no<br \/>\nfindings in the eyes of law and that the Management was not<br \/>\nbound to accept the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Division Bench, however, dismissed the appeal again only on<br \/>\nthe ground that two of the three members of the Inquiry<br \/>\nCommittee had exonerated the respondent no.2.  The present<br \/>\nappeal was filed against the said order.  The Management also<br \/>\nfiled review before the Division Bench of the High Court, which<br \/>\npassed the orders in the Letters Patent Appeal.  This review<br \/>\napplication was also withdrawn with liberty to approach this Court<br \/>\nby way of special leave petition to challenge the order dated<br \/>\n14.7.2003 passed in L.P.A. no.66\/2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective<br \/>\nparties.  Mr. Manish Pitale, learned counsel for the appellants,<br \/>\nsubmitted that the courts below were not justified in holding<br \/>\nagainst the appellants ignoring the provision of Rule 37 (6) of the<br \/>\nMaharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of<br \/>\nService) Rules, 1981.  According to the learned counsel, the said<br \/>\nRule is mandatory in nature.  It is further submitted that the<br \/>\nfindings given by two members of the Inquiry Committee<br \/>\nexonerating  the respondent no.2 were submitted after the<br \/>\nmandatory period of ten days specified in Rule 37 (6) of the<br \/>\naforesaid Rules had expired.  Therefore, he submitted that the<br \/>\nfindings given by the two members of the Inquiry Committee after<br \/>\nexpiry of the mandatory period cannot be binding on the<br \/>\nappellant-Management while deciding the question of taking<br \/>\naction against respondent no.2.  In support of the above<br \/>\nsubmission, our attention was drawn to sub-Rule (4) (5) &amp; (6) of<br \/>\nRule 37 of the aforesaid Rules, which read thus:<br \/>\n&#8220;37  (4) \tThe Convenor of the Inquiry<br \/>\nCommittee shall forward to the employee or the<br \/>\nHead, as the case may be a summary of the<br \/>\nproceedings and copies of statements of witnesses,<br \/>\nif any, by registered post acknowledgment due<br \/>\nwithin four days of completion of the above steps<br \/>\nand allow him a time of seven days to offer his<br \/>\nfurther explanation, if any.\n<\/p>\n<p>(5)\tThe employee or the Head, as the case may<br \/>\nbe shall submit his further explanation to the<br \/>\nConvener of the Inquiry Committee within a period<br \/>\nof seven days from the date of receipt of the<br \/>\nsummary of proceedings etc. either personally or by<br \/>\nregistered post acknowledgment due.\n<\/p>\n<p>(6)\tOn receipt of such further explanation or if<br \/>\nno explanation is offered within the aforesaid time<br \/>\nthe Inquiry Committee shall complete the inquiry<br \/>\nand communicate its findings on the charges<br \/>\nagainst the employee and its decision on the basis<br \/>\nof these findings to the Management for specific<br \/>\naction to be taken against the employee or the<br \/>\nHead, as the case may be, within ten days after the<br \/>\ndate fixed for receipt of further explanation.  It shall<br \/>\nalso forward a copy of the same by registered post<br \/>\nacknowledgment due to the employee or the Head,<br \/>\nas the case may be.  A copy of the findings and<br \/>\ndecision shall also be endorsed to the Education<br \/>\nOfficer or the Deputy Director, as the case may be,<br \/>\nby registered post acknowledgment due.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, the decision of the Inquiry Committee<br \/>\nshall be implemented by the Management which<br \/>\nshall issue necessary orders within seven days from<br \/>\nthe date of receipt of decision of the Inquiry<br \/>\nCommittee, by registered post acknowledgment<br \/>\ndue.  The Management shall also endorse a copy of<br \/>\nits order to the Education Officer or the Deputy<br \/>\nDirector as the case may be.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOur attention was also drawn to Rule 36 sub-clause 2(a), which<br \/>\napplies to the case of an employee and reads thus:<br \/>\n&#8220;36 (2)(a)\tIn the case of an employee-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tone member from amongst the members of<br \/>\nthe Management to be nominated by the Management,<br \/>\nor by the President of the Management if so authorized<br \/>\nby the Management, whose name shall be<br \/>\ncommunicated to the Chief Executive Officer within 15<br \/>\ndays from the date of the decision of the Management.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tone member to be nominated by the<br \/>\nemployee from amongst the employees of any private<br \/>\nschool;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)\tone member chosen by the Chief Executive<br \/>\nOfficer from the panel of teachers on whom<br \/>\nState\/National Award has been conferred.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants,<br \/>\nRule 37 (6), which is mandatory in nature, has not been strictly<br \/>\ncomplied with.  The Inquiry Committee comprising of three<br \/>\nmembers, as already noticed, only one member nominated by<br \/>\nthe Management has submitted his Inquiry report within the time<br \/>\nstipulated as per Rule 37 (6) and admittedly, the other two<br \/>\nmembers nominated by the employee and an independent<br \/>\nmember have not submitted their report within the time<br \/>\nprescribed under Rule 37 (6).  However, the learned Judges of<br \/>\nthe Division Bench, though noticed that the two members out of<br \/>\nthree found the employee not guilty, failed to appreciate that the<br \/>\nsaid findings by the two members of the committee were<br \/>\nsubmitted after the expiry of the period prescribed under Rule<br \/>\n37(6).  In our opinion, the report submitted by individual<br \/>\nmembers is also not in accordance with the Rules.  When the<br \/>\nCommittee of three members are appointed to inquire into a<br \/>\nparticular matter, all the three should submit their combined<br \/>\nreport whether consenting or otherwise.  Since the report is not<br \/>\nin accordance with the mandatory provisions, the Tribunal and<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench of the High<br \/>\nCourt have committed a serious error in accepting the said report<br \/>\nand acted on it and thereby ordering the reinstatement with back<br \/>\nwages.  Since the reinstatement and back wages now ordered<br \/>\nare quite contrary to the mandatory provisions of Rule 37 (6), we<br \/>\nhave no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the<br \/>\nTribunal,  and learned Single Judge and also of the Division<br \/>\nBench of the High Court.  In <\/p>\n<p>addition, we also set aside the order passed by the<br \/>\nManagement based on the report submitted by the single<br \/>\nmember of the Committee, which is also quite contrary to the<br \/>\nRules.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn view of the order now passed by this Court, the Rule 36(2)\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) is now to be invoked and as per the said Rule, one member<br \/>\nfrom amongst the members of the Management is to be<br \/>\nnominated by the Management or by the President of the<br \/>\nManagement if so authorised by the Management, and one<br \/>\nmember is to be nominated from amongst the employees of<br \/>\nany private school and the third member to be chosen by the<br \/>\nChief Executive Officer from the panel of teachers on whom<br \/>\nState\/National   Award  has  been  conferred.    We direct <\/p>\n<p>the Management of the School to constitute the Committee in<br \/>\naccordance with sub-Rules (i) (ii) &amp; (iii) of Rule 36(2)(a) to go<br \/>\ninto the matter afresh.  The respondent no.2, the employee,<br \/>\nwill be now treated under suspension and he will be entitled to<br \/>\nthe subsistence allowance as per rules with effect from the<br \/>\ndate of termination of his services.  The inquiry shall be<br \/>\ncompleted by the Committee within a period of six months<br \/>\nfrom the date of their nomination\/constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Civil Appeal is disposed of on the above terms.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Vidya Vikas Mandal &amp; Anr vs The Education Officer &amp; Anr on 7 February, 2007 Author: . A Lakshmanan Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 640 of 2007 PETITIONER: VIDYA VIKAS MANDAL &amp; ANR RESPONDENT: THE EDUCATION OFFICER &amp; ANR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/02\/2007 BENCH: Dr. AR. [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-205709","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vidya Vikas Mandal &amp; Anr vs The Education Officer &amp; Anr on 7 February, 2007 - 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\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vidya Vikas Mandal &amp; Anr vs The Education Officer &amp; Anr on 7 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-18T05:42:33+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vidya Vikas Mandal &amp; Anr vs The Education Officer &amp; Anr on 7 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T05:42:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1978,\"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\\\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Vidya Vikas Mandal &amp; Anr vs The Education Officer &amp; Anr on 7 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T05:42:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vidya Vikas Mandal &amp; Anr vs The Education Officer &amp; Anr on 7 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Vidya Vikas Mandal &amp; Anr vs The Education Officer &amp; Anr on 7 February, 2007 - 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\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vidya Vikas Mandal &amp; Anr vs The Education Officer &amp; Anr on 7 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-18T05:42:33+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vidya Vikas Mandal &amp; Anr vs The Education Officer &amp; Anr on 7 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T05:42:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007"},"wordCount":1978,"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\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007","name":"Vidya Vikas Mandal &amp; Anr vs The Education Officer &amp; Anr on 7 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T05:42:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidya-vikas-mandal-anr-vs-the-education-officer-anr-on-7-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vidya Vikas Mandal &amp; Anr vs The Education Officer &amp; Anr on 7 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/205709","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=205709"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205709\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205709"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205709"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205709"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}