{"id":224087,"date":"2010-07-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010"},"modified":"2015-11-01T18:05:53","modified_gmt":"2015-11-01T12:35:53","slug":"smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Veena Jauhari vs Cantonment Board Bareilly And &#8230; on 12 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Veena Jauhari vs Cantonment Board Bareilly And &#8230; on 12 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>Court No. - 3\n\nCase :- WRIT - A No. - 37024 of 2010\nPetitioner :- Smt. Veena Jauhari\nRespondent :- Cantonment Board Bareilly And Others\nPetitioner Counsel :- Pulak Ganguly\nRespondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Prasant Mathur\n\nHon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>Heard Sri Pulak Ganguly learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prashant Mathur for<br \/>\nrespondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 6.\n<\/p>\n<p>By an earlier order dated 28.6.2010 this court required the District Magistrate,<br \/>\nBareilly as well as the Additional District Magistrate, Bareilly to be present today<br \/>\nalong with their personal affidavit categorically stating as to under which provision<br \/>\nof the Intermediate Education Act they have a right to interfere in the internal<br \/>\nmanagement of a recognized intermediate college run by the Cantonment Board<br \/>\nand as to how the Sub Divisional Magistrate can direct the Chairman of the<br \/>\nCantonment Board to appear before him in a matter pertaining to Principal\/Teacher<br \/>\nof the institution.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a complaint was made by the<br \/>\npetitioner against some members of the Cantonment Board to the District<br \/>\nMagistrate, Bareilly. The Cantonment Board through its Chief Executive Officer<br \/>\nwrote a letter dated 26.5.2010 requiring the District Magistrate to send the<br \/>\ncomplaint to the Cantonment Board whereupon by the letter dated 2.6.2010 the<br \/>\noffice of the District Magistrate sent a copy of the complaint to the Cantonment<br \/>\nBoard and requested that an enquiry be conducted. According to Sri Ganguly the<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate has no jurisdiction under the Intermediate Education Act to<br \/>\ninterfere in the management of a recognized intermediate college run by the<br \/>\nCantonment Board.\n<\/p>\n<p>In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 28.6.2010 the District Magistrate and<br \/>\nAdditional District Magistrate are present in person duly identified by Sri R.B.<br \/>\nPradhan learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.\n<\/p>\n<p>They have filed their respective affidavits today as required by the court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted on the basis of<br \/>\naverments made in the affidavit that the District Magistrate and the Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate have not interfered in the management of the institution but<br \/>\nwhen a complaint was received by the District Magistrate from the petitioner<br \/>\nrelating to the intermediate college run by the Cantonment Board the entire records<br \/>\nhave been sent to the Cantonment Board for appropriate action.<br \/>\n Upon a perusal of the affidavit filed today it is clear that the said two authorities are<br \/>\nnot in any manner interfering in the internal management of the institution.<br \/>\nConsequently their affidavits are taken on record and their future presence is<br \/>\nexempted<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner alleges to be Principal of R.N. Tagore Inter College, Bareilly Cantt,<br \/>\nBareilly and is aggrieved by the suspension order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the<br \/>\nChief Executive Officer, Bareilly Cantt as also by the resolution No.- A dated<br \/>\n29.5.2010 passed by the Cantonment Board whereby the petitioner has been<br \/>\nsuspended and departmental proceedings are contemplated.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some members of the board<br \/>\nwere bent upon to remove the petitioner as principal and induct the respondent no.<br \/>\n5 in her place and hence the petitioner has been suspended and disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings have been contemplated only for victimizing and harassing the<br \/>\npetitioner. Learned counsel has referred to various annexures of the writ petition to<br \/>\nshow that the board has been making efforts even in the past to victimize the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not very<br \/>\nwell supported by averments to establish a case of malafide or bias. Although there<br \/>\nis a narration of facts of discrimination against the petitioner the same are not<br \/>\nclearly made out so as to enable this court to record a positive finding of malafide<br \/>\nagainst the respondents and bias against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid<br \/>\nfacts the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner to set aside the impugned<br \/>\norders\/resolution on the ground of malafide and bias is not made out.\n<\/p>\n<p>The suspension order has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Bareilly<br \/>\nCantt. exercising his power under Rule-10-A-1-a of the Cantonment Fund Servant<br \/>\nRule, 1937 and is in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The resolution of<br \/>\nthe Board dated 29.05.2010 indicates that Board was of the view that the petitioner<br \/>\nwas required to be suspended for the imputations made against her in the resolution<br \/>\nmore particularly when the said suspension pending disciplinary proceedings is not<br \/>\na penalty but an administrative action and so that the investigation or enquiry may<br \/>\nnot be prejudiced by the petitioner where an apprehension has been made that she<br \/>\nwould tamper with witnesses or documents. A further reason has been considered<br \/>\nin the resolution that her continuance in office is likely to seriously subvert<br \/>\ndiscipline in the office. The charges have not yet been given to the petitioner hence<br \/>\nthis court cannot record any finding on them or hold whether they were sufficient<br \/>\nto place the petitioner under suspension.\n<\/p>\n<p>The reasons given in the resolution of the Cantonment Board appear to be sufficient<br \/>\nfor suspension of the petitioner and as such the resolution cannot be set aside by<br \/>\nthis Court particularly when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated and it is for<br \/>\nthe authority to record their findings on the dispute raised by the petitioner against<br \/>\nthe action as and when she is served with the charges.\n<\/p>\n<p> The suspension order is an order in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. It<br \/>\nhas been passed in exerecise of power under the rules of 1937 and hence cannot be<br \/>\nheld to be without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>The suspension order contemplates disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner<br \/>\nand hence cannot be held to be an order of punishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>No grounds have been made out to set aside the suspension order which is in<br \/>\ncontemplation of disciplinary proceedings and therefore the petitioner would have<br \/>\nsufficient opportunity to defend herself from the charges which may be leveled<br \/>\nagainst her in the disciplinary proceedings. This court in exercise of its jurisdiction<br \/>\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not controvert itself to perform<br \/>\nthe duties of an enquiry officer by recording any findings of fact on the basis of the<br \/>\nallegations and counter allegations made between the parties. Moreover, in writ<br \/>\njurisdiction when there are serious disputed question of fact the writ court would<br \/>\nnot be able to record any finding only on the basis of exchange of affidavits and<br \/>\ntheir annexures. The said dispute requires to be decided by an authority which is<br \/>\ncompetent to consider the evidence of the parties and record its finding of fact.<br \/>\nSuch a process has been initiated when the Chief Executive Officer, Bareilly Cantt.<br \/>\nhas passed the impugned order dated 12.06.2010 by suspending the petitioner<br \/>\npending disciplinary proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>For the aforesaid reasons no interference is required in the impugned order of<br \/>\nsuspension nor in the impugned resolution of the Cantonment Board. The writ<br \/>\npetition is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sri Ganguly at this stage has submitted that the disciplinary proceedings should be<br \/>\nconcluded within a time period fixed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>In so far as the aforesaid submission is concerned, it is provided that in case the<br \/>\npetitioner cooperates in the disciplinary proceedings there is no reason why the<br \/>\nrespondent authority should not conclude the same as expeditiously as possible and<br \/>\nin accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>No order is passed as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order Date :- 12.7.2010<br \/>\nPravin\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Smt. Veena Jauhari vs Cantonment Board Bareilly And &#8230; on 12 July, 2010 Court No. &#8211; 3 Case :- WRIT &#8211; A No. &#8211; 37024 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Veena Jauhari Respondent :- Cantonment Board Bareilly And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Pulak Ganguly Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Prasant Mathur Hon&#8217;ble Sanjay Misra,J. [&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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-224087","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt. Veena Jauhari vs Cantonment Board Bareilly And ... on 12 July, 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\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Veena Jauhari vs Cantonment Board Bareilly And ... on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-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=\"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-01T12:35:53+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Veena Jauhari vs Cantonment Board Bareilly And &#8230; on 12 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-01T12:35:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1192,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt. Veena Jauhari vs Cantonment Board Bareilly And ... on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-01T12:35:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Veena Jauhari vs Cantonment Board Bareilly And &#8230; on 12 July, 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":"Smt. Veena Jauhari vs Cantonment Board Bareilly And ... on 12 July, 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\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Veena Jauhari vs Cantonment Board Bareilly And ... on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-01T12:35:53+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Veena Jauhari vs Cantonment Board Bareilly And &#8230; on 12 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-01T12:35:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010"},"wordCount":1192,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010","name":"Smt. Veena Jauhari vs Cantonment Board Bareilly And ... on 12 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-01T12:35:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-veena-jauhari-vs-cantonment-board-bareilly-and-on-12-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Veena Jauhari vs Cantonment Board Bareilly And &#8230; on 12 July, 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\/224087","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=224087"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224087\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224087"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224087"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224087"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}