{"id":21227,"date":"2010-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-10-29T05:32:27","modified_gmt":"2015-10-29T00:02:27","slug":"yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Yogendra Singh Sengar And Ors. vs Barkatullah University And Ors on 21 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Yogendra Singh Sengar And Ors. vs Barkatullah University And Ors on 21 September, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR\n\n\n                      Writ Petition No : 4268 of 2003\n\n                        Yogendra Singh Sengar &amp; Anr\n                                     - V\/s      -\n                       Barkatullah University and others\n\n\nPresent :             Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.\n\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n              Shri Ashish Pathak, Advocate for the petitioners.\n\n              Shri Brajesh Choubey, Advocate for the respondents.\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n        Whether approved for reporting:                                Yes \/ No.\n\n                                    ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                    21\/09\/2010<\/p>\n<p>              Claiming salary and modification of the order of<br \/>\nreinstatement, petitioners have filed this writ petition and the relief<br \/>\nclaimed for in paragraph 7.1, of the writ petition, reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              &#8220;7.     Relief sought:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                      (i)     It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon&#8217;ble Court<br \/>\n                      be kindly pleased to issue a writ of mandamus<br \/>\n                      commanding the respondents to suitably modify the<br \/>\n                      order dated 8.4.2003           so    far    as     it relates to<br \/>\n                      description       of    the     petitioners       as   contract<br \/>\n                      appointee. The Hon&#8217;ble Court be also pleased to<br \/>\n                      command the respondents to pay salary to the<br \/>\n                      petitioners intervening the date of order of removal<br \/>\n                      till reinstatement and other consequential benefits as<br \/>\n                      accrued from time to time.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>2-           It is the case of the petitioners that respondent University<br \/>\nissued an advertisement vide Annexure P\/1, for appointment of<br \/>\nLecturers\/Tutors in Physical Education on contract basis. Petitioners<br \/>\napplied, and a Selection Committee consisting of four persons as<br \/>\nindicated in paragraph 5(iii) of the writ petition, was constituted.<br \/>\nPetitioners were found eligible and orders &#8211; Annexure P\/2 was issued<br \/>\nappointing the petitioners on a consolidated salary of Rs.1800\/- per<br \/>\nmonth, for a period of 89 days initially. The appointment continued and<br \/>\nit is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1999, the Head of the<br \/>\nDepartment processed a note-sheet &#8211; Annexure P\/3, recommended for<br \/>\nregular appointment of the petitioners on the ground that as per the<br \/>\nNational Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as<br \/>\n&#8216;NCTE&#8217;) norms, there is requirement of five Lecturers\/Tutors in the<br \/>\nInstitute. Recommendation was made to initially appoint the petitioners<br \/>\non contract basis for one year on payment of consolidated salary of<br \/>\nRs.5000\/- and thereafter grant them regular appointment. It is the case of<br \/>\nthe petitioners that the Vice Chancellor of the University approved the<br \/>\nproposal on 2.6.1999 and thereafter petitioners were appointed again<br \/>\nvide Annexure P\/4 on 10.6.1999, even though for a period of one year<br \/>\non contract basis, but the appointment was to be made regular after one<br \/>\nyear as per note-sheet &#8211; Annexure P\/3. Thereafter, again in the year 2000<br \/>\nanother note-sheet &#8211; Annexure P\/5 was initiated wherein also the Vice<br \/>\nChancellor gave approval for appointment of the petitioners. It is stated<br \/>\nthat in this also the proposal was to grant regular appointment to the<br \/>\npetitioners. However, nothing was done and the petitioners were kept as<br \/>\nContract Teachers. In the meanwhile, due to involvement of the<br \/>\npetitioners in certain criminal case pertaining to offence under the Arms<br \/>\nAct, petitioners&#8217; services were terminated vide Annexure P\/9, on<br \/>\n24.8.2001.   Petitioners   challenged    the    termination   by    filing<br \/>\nW.P.No.4821\/2002 and a Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition<br \/>\non 12.12.2002 vide Annexure P\/11 and found the termination to be<br \/>\nillegal. Petitioners reported for joining on 18.12.2002, but they were not<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>taken back on duty. It was only vide Annexure P\/14 on 8.4.2003 that<br \/>\nthey were again granted contract appointment.\n<\/p>\n<p>3-           Interalia contending that petitioners are entitled to salary<br \/>\nfrom the date their appointment was quashed by this Court in<br \/>\nW.P.No.4821\/2001, and further contending that in pursuance to the note-<br \/>\nsheets and the approval of the Vice Chancellor, as is evident from<br \/>\nAnnexures P\/3 and P\/5, petitioners have been regularly appointed to the<br \/>\npost and, therefore, they should be granted regular pay scale and<br \/>\nappointment on regular basis, petitioners have filed this writ petition.<br \/>\n4-           Respondents represented by Shri Brajesh Choubey refuted<br \/>\nthe aforesaid and pointed out that as petitioners were only appointed on<br \/>\ncontract basis and as their appointment were not preceded by any regular<br \/>\nprocess of recruitment as contemplated under the Statute and Ordinance<br \/>\nissued by the University, it is stated that petitioners cannot claim any<br \/>\nregular appointment or regular salary. It is the case of the University that<br \/>\npetitioners are contract appointees and they continue on contract basis<br \/>\ntill they are regularized or appointed to the post in accordance to the<br \/>\nrequirement of the Statute and Ordinances governing regular<br \/>\nappointment to any post or service in the University.<br \/>\n5-           By filing a rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners has<br \/>\nbrought on record various other note-sheets and documents received by<br \/>\nthe petitioners under the Right to Information Act and point out that the<br \/>\npetitioners having been regularized with effect from 1.6.99, respondents<br \/>\ncannot deny the claim made by the petitioners. Accordingly, Shri Ashish<br \/>\nPathak submits that the petitioners having been treated as regular<br \/>\nemployees with effect from 1.6.99, they are entitled to the benefit and<br \/>\nrelief claimed in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>6-           I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the<br \/>\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n<p>7-           From the records it is clear that petitioners entered the<br \/>\nUniversity by virtue of the so called selection conducted for appointment<br \/>\nin pursuance to the advertisement &#8211; Annexure P\/1. The advertisement &#8211;<br \/>\nAnnexure P\/1 clearly stipulates that the appointment is on contract basis<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>and the appointment orders issued in pursuance to the same &#8211; Annexure<br \/>\nP\/2 dated 2.12.1997 is also a contract appointment on a consolidated<br \/>\nsalary of Rs.1800\/- per month. Thereafter, when the Head of the<br \/>\nDepartment processed the note-sheet &#8211; Annexure P\/3 and proposed for<br \/>\ninitially appointing the petitioners on contract basis for one year and<br \/>\nthereafter granting approval for their regularization, the Vice Chancellor<br \/>\nin his note-sheet dated 2.6.1999 granted the approval &#8220;We may appoint<br \/>\nthe teachers on contract as proposed&#8221;. On the basis of this note of the<br \/>\nVice Chancellor and approval granted on 2.6.99, the order-dated 10.6.99\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; Annexure P\/4 was issued again appointing the petitioners on contract<br \/>\nbasis for a period of one year on a consolidated salary of Rs.5000\/- per<br \/>\nmonth. If the note-sheet of the Vice Chancellor dated 2.6.99 and the<br \/>\nappointment of the petitioners ordered therein vide Annexure P\/4 are<br \/>\ntaken note of, it would be seen that the approval and proposal sanctioned<br \/>\nby the Vice Chancellor for appointment was only as a contract teacher<br \/>\nand there is nothing in the note-sheet or the order &#8211; Annexure P\/4 to<br \/>\nindicate that the petitioners appointment was on regular post, on the<br \/>\nregular pay scale as a regular teacher\/tutor.\n<\/p>\n<p>8-           Even though the Head of the Department had made<br \/>\nproposals, there is no document available on record to indicate that<br \/>\npetitioners were appointed on regular basis in accordance to the<br \/>\nrequirement of law with effect from 1.6.99. The documents filed by the<br \/>\npetitioners&#8217; alongwith the rejoinder, allegedly received by the petitioners<br \/>\nunder the Right to Information Act, do indicate that petitioners were<br \/>\nregularized, but there is no order of regularization of the petitioners.<br \/>\nAnnexures P\/3 and P\/5 are orders of appointment of the petitioners on<br \/>\ncontract basis, on a consolidated salary for a particular period of time.<br \/>\n9-           The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case<br \/>\nof Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and<br \/>\nothers, (2006) 4 SCC 1, has considered various aspects with regard to<br \/>\npublic employment and it is clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in<br \/>\nthe aforesaid case that employment to public service has to be done<br \/>\nstrictly in accordance to the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Constitution. Opportunity to seek employment should be made available<br \/>\nto each and every unemployed citizen in the country and if an<br \/>\nappointment is made on contract basis or adhoc basis is regularized it<br \/>\nhas the effect of depriving the rights guaranteed to many other persons<br \/>\nseeking appointment and is, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution. It is, therefore, a settled principle of law that public<br \/>\nemployment has to be in accordance to the statutory rules and<br \/>\nregulations and if an appointment is made dehors the statutory rules or<br \/>\nregulations, regularization of such an appointment cannot be ordered by<br \/>\na writ court. If the case of the petitioners are scrutinized in the backdrop<br \/>\nof the requirement of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case<br \/>\nof Umadevi (supra), it would be seen that appointment to the<br \/>\nUniversities in the State of Madhya Pradesh are governed by the<br \/>\nstatutory provisions contained in MP Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam,<br \/>\n1973 (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;Adhiniyam&#8217;) and a specific procedure<br \/>\nfor appointment is contemplated under section 49 of the Adhiniyam.<br \/>\nUnder the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 49, appointments have<br \/>\nto be made by a duly constituted selection committed nominated by the<br \/>\nKuladhipati of the University and it is the Executive Council of the<br \/>\nUniversity, which is the supreme authority, entitled to make<br \/>\nappointments to the University. That apart, in exercise of powers<br \/>\nconferred under the Adhiniyam of 1973, statutory rules in the form of<br \/>\nStatutes and Ordinances have been framed for appointment to service in<br \/>\nthe University.\n<\/p>\n<p>10-          This Court can direct for regularization of the petitioners<br \/>\nonly if it is established from the material available on record that the<br \/>\nappointment of the petitioners initially even on contract basis, is made<br \/>\nafter following the procedure contemplated under the various statutory<br \/>\nprovisions formulated under the Adhiniyam i.e&#8230; the Statute and<br \/>\nOrdinances, applicable to the University. There is nothing on record to<br \/>\nindicate that the appointments of the petitioners are made by following<br \/>\nthe procedure prescribed under law. It is a case where an advertisement<br \/>\nfor appointment on contract basis was issued and petitioners were<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>appointed on contract basis. There is nothing on record to indicate that<br \/>\nappointment of the petitioners were made after following the procedure<br \/>\ncontemplated and under the Statute and Ordinances. The petitioners have<br \/>\nnot even brought on record the relevant Statute and the Ordinances,<br \/>\ncontemplating procedure for appointment and have not demonstrated<br \/>\nbefore this Court that their appointment is after following the procedure<br \/>\ncontemplated under these statutes and ordinances.<br \/>\n11-           In that view of the matter, keeping in view the principles<br \/>\nlaid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), it has<br \/>\nto be held that appointment of the petitioners being dehors the rules, this<br \/>\nCourt cannot issue any mandamus for treating the petitioners to be<br \/>\nregularly appointed to the post and grant them the benefit of regular<br \/>\nsalary. To this effect, no relief can be granted to the petitioners, as the<br \/>\nrecords indicate that petitioners were only appointed on contract basis<br \/>\nand continued to work on contract basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>12-           Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioners for treating<br \/>\nthem to be regularly appointed to the post in question and to grant them<br \/>\nregular salary is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>13-           As far as the salary for the period they remained out of<br \/>\nemployment inspite of the order passed by this Court, in the earlier writ<br \/>\npetition filed by the petitioners&#8217; i.e&#8230;.. W.P.No.4821\/2002, is concerned,<br \/>\nit is clear that after the petitioners termination was quashed by this Court<br \/>\non 12.12.2002 in the writ petition referred above, petitioners reported for<br \/>\njoining duties on 18.12.2002 and respondents instead of permitting the<br \/>\npetitioners to join duties on 18.12.2002 kept the matter pending and<br \/>\npermitted them to join duties only on 8.4.2003, after orders &#8211; Annexure<br \/>\nP\/14 was issued.\n<\/p>\n<p>14-           That being so, petitioners would be entitled to salary for the<br \/>\nperiod from 18.12.2002 upto 7.4.2003, due to their reporting for joining<br \/>\nduties on contract basis with effect from 18.12.2002. To that effect,<br \/>\npetitioners are entitled to the relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>15-            Accordingly, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for<br \/>\nregularization and regular salary on the post of Lecturers\/Tutors,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioners with effect from<br \/>\n18.12.2002 upto 7.4.2003, treating them to be appointed on contract<br \/>\nbasis and joined duties on 18.12.2002, at the rate prescribed for contract<br \/>\nappointment, which was granted to the petitioners, the said amount be<br \/>\npaid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified<br \/>\ncopy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>16-          Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove<br \/>\nand disposed of without any order so as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                           ( RAJENDRA MENON )<br \/>\n                                                  JUDGE<br \/>\nAks\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Yogendra Singh Sengar And Ors. vs Barkatullah University And Ors on 21 September, 2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No : 4268 of 2003 Yogendra Singh Sengar &amp; Anr &#8211; V\/s &#8211; Barkatullah University and others Present : Hon&#8217;ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; Shri Ashish [&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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21227","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Yogendra Singh Sengar And Ors. vs Barkatullah University And Ors on 21 September, 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\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yogendra Singh Sengar And Ors. vs Barkatullah University And Ors on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-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=\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-29T00:02:27+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\\\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yogendra Singh Sengar And Ors. vs Barkatullah University And Ors on 21 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-29T00:02:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1953,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Yogendra Singh Sengar And Ors. vs Barkatullah University And Ors on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-29T00:02:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yogendra Singh Sengar And Ors. vs Barkatullah University And Ors on 21 September, 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":"Yogendra Singh Sengar And Ors. vs Barkatullah University And Ors on 21 September, 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\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yogendra Singh Sengar And Ors. vs Barkatullah University And Ors on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-29T00:02:27+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\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yogendra Singh Sengar And Ors. vs Barkatullah University And Ors on 21 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-29T00:02:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010"},"wordCount":1953,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010","name":"Yogendra Singh Sengar And Ors. vs Barkatullah University And Ors on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-29T00:02:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-sengar-and-ors-vs-barkatullah-university-and-ors-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yogendra Singh Sengar And Ors. vs Barkatullah University And Ors on 21 September, 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\/21227","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=21227"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21227\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}