{"id":223897,"date":"2008-10-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008"},"modified":"2016-02-12T07:55:03","modified_gmt":"2016-02-12T02:25:03","slug":"shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shri Ajay Jhuria vs Council For The Indian School &#8230; on 24 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Ajay Jhuria vs Council For The Indian School &#8230; on 24 October, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>                      Central Information Commission\n                                         *****\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                                          No.CIC\/OK\/A\/2006\/00303<\/p>\n<p>                                                           Dated: 24 October 2008<\/p>\n<p>Name of the Appellant              :        Shri Ajay Jhuria,<br \/>\n                                            6, Worli Sea Face,<br \/>\n                                            Kanhaiya Kunj,<br \/>\n                                            1st Floor, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan Road,<br \/>\n                                            Mumbai &#8211; 400 025.\n<\/p>\n<p>Name of the Public Authority       :        Council for the Indian School<br \/>\n                                            Certificate Examinations, New Delhi<\/p>\n<p>Background:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Shri Ajay Jhuria of Mumbai filed an RTI application with the Public<br \/>\nInformation Officer, Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations,<br \/>\nNew Delhi, on 7 February 2006 seeking certified copies of the record of the<br \/>\naction taken against Mr. Francis Fanthome by ICSE authorities. The Appellant<br \/>\nalso sought a copy of the report of Justice Michael Saldhana Commission and<br \/>\ndetails regarding norms for granting affiliation to schools by the CISCE. As the<br \/>\nAppellant did not get any reply from the CISCE authorities, he filed an appeal<br \/>\nwith the Central Information Commission on 27th June 2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    The Commission called for the comments of the Secretary and Deputy<br \/>\nSecretary, Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi on<br \/>\nthe appeal of Shri Ajay Jhuria.        In the reply to the comments, the Deputy<br \/>\nSecretary stated that the Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi,<br \/>\nwas an unaided autonomous educational body registered under the Societies<br \/>\nRegistration Act, conducting examinations for Class X and XII students of the<br \/>\naffiliated schools.     As per their understanding, they were not a &#8216;public<br \/>\nauthority&#8217; as far as the RTI Act-2005 was concerned. The PIO also mentioned a<br \/>\ndecision taken earlier by the Commission on 21 July 2006 in the case of Shri<br \/>\nJehangir B. Gai Vs. the Bureau of Secondary Education in which it was stated<br \/>\nthat &#8220;prima facie, the CISCE was not covered by the definition of a &#8216;public<br \/>\nbody&#8217; as stated in the Act. He, however, seemed to have overlooked the fact<br \/>\nthat in the same Order, the Commission cited the provision of Section 2(f) of<br \/>\nthe RTI Act and ordered that &#8220;the Respondents were directed to obtain the<br \/>\ninformation from the CISCE and supply the same to the Appellant within 15<br \/>\n days&#8221;.      The case was heard by the Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejaraiwal on 27<br \/>\nDecember 2006. During the hearing, the Commission asked the representative<br \/>\nof the Respondents who was a Legal Advisor of the CISCE as to why he should be<br \/>\nheard since there was no provision for legal Representatives to be heard by the<br \/>\nCommission under Section 5(iv) of the Rules governing the Act. To this, he<br \/>\nresponded that since the position of CISCE regarding their status as a Public<br \/>\nAuthority was not clear, they did not have any PIO or any competent official<br \/>\nand therefore he was representing the Respondents. The Commission admitted<br \/>\nthe point of view and heard the arguments put forth.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.       The matter revolved around the question of whether the CISCE was a<br \/>\nPublic Authority.      The Respondent pointed out that they were neither<br \/>\ncontrolled nor substantially financed by the Government and hence could not<br \/>\nbe classed as a Public Authority. The Appellant, on the other hand, pointed out<br \/>\nthat in their Council, the CISCE had a strong representation of the Government<br \/>\nthrough its nominees. He also presented before the Commission a copy of the<br \/>\nConstitution of the Council.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.       The Commission recalled that in the earlier case dealing with the CISCE<br \/>\nit had ordered: &#8220;After hearing the submissions of the Respondents, the<br \/>\nCommission came to the conclusion that prima facie CISCE was not covered by<br \/>\nthe definition of a public authority since it was neither funded nor controlled<br \/>\nby the Government or any other public body. However, going by the definition<br \/>\nof the term &#8216;information&#8217; under 2(f) of the RTI Act, which includes<br \/>\n&#8216;information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public<br \/>\nauthority under any other law for the time being in force to be disclosed, the<br \/>\nCommission reiterated its stand.&#8221; The Respondent emphasized the fact that<br \/>\nthere was no law for the time being in force under which the information could<br \/>\nbe passed on to the Appellant. However, the Commission felt that since the<br \/>\ninformation could be accessed by the Government, the Respondents were<br \/>\nobligated to disclose the information sought for by the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.       The Respondents, while agreeing to abide by the Commission&#8217;s decision,<br \/>\npointed out to the Commission that in his original application, the Appellant<br \/>\nhad not asked for the disclosure of the findings\/reports of the Hon&#8217;ble Justice<br \/>\nMichael Saldhana Commission appointed to investigate the irregularities<br \/>\ncommitted by Mr. Francis Fanthome. As this was not a part of the original<br \/>\n application, they felt that they may not be asked to disclose this particular<br \/>\ninformation, to which the Commission agreed.          The case was fixed for the<br \/>\nsecond hearing on 30 April 2007 by the Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information<br \/>\nCommissioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.     The Commission heard both the parties wherein the Appellant stated<br \/>\nthat the Respondents had not supplied him the full information. In fact, the<br \/>\ninformation supplied was not only incomplete but was also inaccurate and even<br \/>\nmisleading. The Respondents, on the other hand, maintained that they had<br \/>\nsupplied whatever information that was available with them on the issues<br \/>\nraised by the Appellant. On going through some of the points on which the<br \/>\ninformation was asked for, the Commission felt that there was indeed room for<br \/>\ngreater clarification. The Commission, therefore, gave the Respondents one<br \/>\nmore opportunity to comply with the RTI-request of the Appellant. This they<br \/>\nwere told to do by 15 May 2007. The Commission advised the Respondents to<br \/>\ncall the Appellant to the office and, wherever possible, to open up all the files<br \/>\ncontaining the information the Appellant has asked for.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.     Since the Orders of the Commission had not been complied fully in the<br \/>\nfirst case, it only hoped that there was no further hearing on the issue of non-<br \/>\ncompliance of its Orders.      In case this happened, it would be considered<br \/>\nseriously and penalty proceedings would begin not only for the delay but also<br \/>\nfor the wilful suppression of information.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.     The Commission also directed the Respondents that in case the Appellant<br \/>\nhad to come again for another hearing in this case, he should be compensated<br \/>\nto the extent of to and fro travel from Mumbai to Delhi in the second class AC<br \/>\nand be given DA of Rs.500\/- for his stay in Delhi. The Commission authorised<br \/>\nthe Appellant to take photocopies of the pages of the records related to the<br \/>\nissues of his enquiry raised in the original RTI-application free of cost.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.    The Appellant approached the Central Information Commission against<br \/>\nthe non-compliance of the Commission&#8217;s orders and requested for another<br \/>\nhearing in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.    The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the<br \/>\nmatter again on 20 October 2008.\n<\/p>\n<p> Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>12.   The Commission heard both the sides and noted that this was the third<br \/>\nhearing in the case and when the Appellant&#8217;s request for information was direct<br \/>\nand simple: he wanted information and inspection of the records whereby a<br \/>\ncertain school and its Branch had been affiliated to the CISCE. In the very first<br \/>\ninstance, the Commission would like to bring to the notice of the Respondents<br \/>\nthat there are a number of Orders of this Commission to the CBSE whereby they<br \/>\nhave been asked to disclose information relating to affiliation of Schools<br \/>\nalthough they were privately run and unaided by the Government. By denying<br \/>\nthe information to the Appellant, the Respondents have merely shown an<br \/>\nignorance of the decisions of the Commission.          In today&#8217;s hearing, the<br \/>\nCommission noted with some regret that neither the CPIO\/PIO nor the<br \/>\nAppellate Authority was present. A deemed PIO who obviously was not familiar<br \/>\nwith the facts of the case had come for the hearing. The Respondents kept on<br \/>\nsaying that they had complied with the Commission&#8217;s earlier Orders and<br \/>\nprovided whatever information there was on the subject to the Appellant &#8211;<br \/>\nwhich the Appellant vehemently denied. In fact, the Respondents went on for<br \/>\nabout 10 minutes trying to convince the Commission, as well as the Appellant,<br \/>\nthat all the information that was available on the subject had been provided<br \/>\nand went to the extent of saying that as many as 102 documents had been<br \/>\nprovided by the Respondents to the Appellant. According to the Appellant, on<br \/>\nthe other hand, there was not a single document relating to the information<br \/>\nthat he was seeking. It is only stands to reason that when the Appellant is<br \/>\nmaking a request with the CISCE for information about the affiliation of a<br \/>\ncertain school, the basic requirement would be a letter from the concerned<br \/>\nSchool asking or requesting for such affiliation. This the Respondents failed to<br \/>\nproduce and what is more disturbing, did not have an answer as to why this<br \/>\nshould not have been there on their records.       The Commission itself went<br \/>\nthrough the index of records which they produced before the Commission,<br \/>\nwhich was surprised at the fact that then could not explain as to why these<br \/>\nrecords were being produced before the Commission when they had no bearing<br \/>\non the case at all. The Commission, therefore, regards this as a clear malafide<br \/>\nsuppression of information demanded by the Appellant and an attempt to<br \/>\nmislead him and also the Commission It, therefore, orders as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       (i)     the concerned Organization should ensure that a PIO and an<br \/>\n              Appellate Authority are in place by 28 November 2008. The<br \/>\n              Commission was indeed surprised when it heard the Respondents<br \/>\n              saying that for the appointment of a PIO and an Appellate<br \/>\n              Authority they had to seek the concurrence of their Governing<br \/>\n              Body whereas it should have been automatic and immediate after<br \/>\n              the implementation of the RTI-Act;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      (ii)    In view of the fact that the Respondents kept on saying that they<br \/>\n              would bring all the documents before the Commission for the<br \/>\n              Commission itself to see whether the records on the subject were<br \/>\n              available, the Commission takes grave objection to this stand and<br \/>\n              directs them to provide specific information that the Appellant<br \/>\n              has asked by 14 November 2008;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      (iii)   In case the information asked for by the Appellant is not available,<br \/>\n              valid reasons must be provided to the Appellant for non-<br \/>\n              availability of records on the subject;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      (iv)    In its earlier Order of 3 May 2007, the Commission had clearly<br \/>\n              ordered that (in case the Appellant has to come again for another<br \/>\n              hearing in the case, he should be compensated to the extent of to<br \/>\n              and fro travel Mumbai-Delhi II A.C. fare and Rs.500\/- for his stay<br \/>\n              in Delhi. Since the Appellant has come for the hearing, the<br \/>\n              Commission directs the Respondents to make this entire payment<br \/>\n              to the Appellant by 14 November 2008;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      (v)     In view of the dilatory tactics of the Respondents in denying the<br \/>\n              information to the Appellant, the Commission awards a<br \/>\n              compensation of Rs.10,000\/- to the Appellant for the unnecessary<br \/>\n              mental harassment that he has undergone. This payment must be<br \/>\n              made to the Appellant by 28 November 2008.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      (vi)     Finally, in case the Appellant has to come to the Commission<br \/>\n              again for a hearing complaining of non-compliance of the<br \/>\n              Commissions Orders, the Appellant may be once again paid the to<br \/>\n              and fro 2 AC train Mumbai-Delhi train fare and Rs.1,000\/- for his<br \/>\n              stay in Delhi. In case the Appellant has to come again, he may<br \/>\n              purchase the ticket and ask the Respondents for a compensation<br \/>\n              of this amount.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>13.   On hearing from the Appellant about the compliance\/non-compliance of<br \/>\nthis case, the Commission may\/may not decide to hold another hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                             Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                 (O.P. Kejariwal)<br \/>\n                                                       Information Commissioner<br \/>\nAuthenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n<p>Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>(G. Subramanian)<br \/>\nAssistant Registrar<br \/>\n Cc:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      1.   Shri Ajay S. Jhuria, 6, Worli Sea Face, Kanhaiya Kunj, 1st Floor, Khan Abdul<br \/>\n           Gaffar Khan Road, Mumbai-400025<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      2.   Shri G. Arathoon, Deputy Secretary &amp; Off., Chief Executive &amp; Secretary,<br \/>\n           Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations, Pragati House, 3rd<br \/>\n           Floor, 47-48 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      3.   Shri J. Bedi, Legal Advisor, Council for the Indian School Certificate<br \/>\n           Examinations, Pragati House, 3rd Floor, 47-48 Nehru Place, New Delhi-<br \/>\n           110019<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      4.   Officer Incharge, NIC<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      5.   Press E Group, CIC\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Shri Ajay Jhuria vs Council For The Indian School &#8230; on 24 October, 2008 Central Information Commission ***** No.CIC\/OK\/A\/2006\/00303 Dated: 24 October 2008 Name of the Appellant : Shri Ajay Jhuria, 6, Worli Sea Face, Kanhaiya Kunj, 1st Floor, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan Road, Mumbai &#8211; 400 025. Name of the Public [&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":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-223897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri Ajay Jhuria vs Council For The Indian School ... on 24 October, 2008 - 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\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Ajay Jhuria vs Council For The Indian School ... on 24 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-12T02:25:03+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\\\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Ajay Jhuria vs Council For The Indian School &#8230; on 24 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-12T02:25:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1992,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Shri Ajay Jhuria vs Council For The Indian School ... on 24 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-12T02:25:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Ajay Jhuria vs Council For The Indian School &#8230; on 24 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Ajay Jhuria vs Council For The Indian School ... on 24 October, 2008 - 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\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Ajay Jhuria vs Council For The Indian School ... on 24 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-12T02:25:03+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\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Ajay Jhuria vs Council For The Indian School &#8230; on 24 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-12T02:25:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008"},"wordCount":1992,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008","name":"Shri Ajay Jhuria vs Council For The Indian School ... on 24 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-12T02:25:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ajay-jhuria-vs-council-for-the-indian-school-on-24-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Ajay Jhuria vs Council For The Indian School &#8230; on 24 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/223897","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=223897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223897\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}