{"id":224579,"date":"2010-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-02T01:31:21","modified_gmt":"2018-10-01T20:01:21","slug":"shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shailendra Kumar Jha vs Regional Director,D.A.V.School on 9 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Shailendra Kumar Jha vs Regional Director,D.A.V.School on 9 March, 2010<\/div>\n
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n\n                                       A.C. (S.B.) No. 5 of 2009\n\n          Shailendra Kumar Jha                                ... ... Petitioner\/Appellant\n                                              - VERSUS -\n           1. The Regional Director, D.A.V. Public School, Bariatu Campus, Ranchi.\n\n           2. The Principal, Parmar Vidyawati Surjeet Singh D.A.V. Public School,\n              Bye-Pass Road, Jhumri Tilaiya.\n                                                ... Opposite Parties\/Respondents\n\n\n                CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY\n\n                For the Appellant:            Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate.\n                For the Respondents:          Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate.\n\n                C.A.V. On 24\/02\/2010                    PRONOUNCED ON 09\/03\/2010\n\nAmareshwar Sahay, J.            Heard the parties.\n\n           2.                   The points to be decided in the present appeal are as\n                under:-\n                       (I)      Whether the impugned order passed by the Jharkhand\n                         Education Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the present\n                         appellant as time barred, is legal and valid?\n\n                       (II)     Whether the Jharkhand Education Tribunal had the\n                         jurisdiction to entertain the application of the appellant for\n                         redressal of his grievance?\n\n           3.                   In order to go into the above two questions, relevant\n                undisputed facts of the case are necessary to be noticed which are as\n                under:-\n\n                                The appellant Shailendra Kumar Jha was employed as a\n                Clerk in Parmar Vidyawati Surjeet Singh D.A.V. Public School, Bye-Pass\n                Road, Jhumri Tilaiya. In the year 1993, a criminal case was lodged\n                against him for the alleged commission of the offences under Section\n                408, 468, 477A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that he\n                misappropriated the money received from the students as Fee.\n\n                                During the pendency of the Criminal case, he was not\n                allowed to work. He was however acquitted by the Trial Court giving him\n                the benefits of doubt by Judgment dated 21.08.2006.\n                                          2\n                                                                  A.C. (S.B.) No. 5 of 2009\n\n\n\n\n                    Thereafter,    the   appellant   Shailendra       Kumar         Jha,\n     represented the Management of the School to allow him to join his\n     service but when he found that no action was being taken then he sent a\n     Notice to the Management by registered post through his Lawyer on\n     05.11.2007<\/pre>\n
 calling upon them to allow him to resume work in the school.\n<\/p>\n
4.                  When the appellant did not receive any response to his
\n     Notice, he filed an application before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal
\n     on 19.03.2008 under Section 8 of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act,
\n     2005 praying therein for direction to the Management to allow him to join
\n     the School.\n<\/p>\n
                    The respondents\/ School appeared before the Tribunal
\n     filed their Counter Affidavit. They also filed a separate petition
\n     challenging the maintainability of the case filed by the employee on the
\n     ground that the application filed by the employee was hopelessly barred
\n     by limitation and accordingly, prayed that the said issue of limitation may
\n     be decided firstly as a preliminary issue.\n<\/p>\n
5.                  There is no dispute of the fact that the appellant did not
\n     make any application before the Education Tribunal for condoning the
\n     delay in filing the application.\n<\/p>\n
                    The Education Tribunal, by impugned order, has held that
\n     the application filed by the employee, was barred by limitation since it
\n     was filed beyond the period of six months as prescribed under Section
\n     10 of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act.\n<\/p>\n
6.                  Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the
\n     respondents, has however raised a further question before this Court
\n     that in view of Section 9 of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act the
\n     appellant had no cause of action for filing a case against the
\n     Management of the School, since no any order has been passed by the
\n     Management of the School against the appellant. The jurisdiction of the
\n     Tribunal would arise only when the concerned employee is aggrieved by
\n     an order said to have been passed by the Management of the School.
\n     Therefore, the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the
\n     application filed by the appellant and had no jurisdiction to adjudicate
\n     upon the grievance of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
7.                  Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the
\n     appellant, submitted that Section 9 of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal
\n     Act has to be read conjointly with Section 8 of the said Act, which
\n                                          3<\/span>
\n                                                               A.C. (S.B.) No. 5 of 2009<\/p>\n
      provides jurisdiction, power and authority to the Jharkhand Education
\n      Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
                    According to the learned counsel for the appellant, all the
\n      matters concerning the service condition of the employees of the
\n      Educational Institutions and the grievances of the employees against the
\n      Management of the Education Tribunal can be entertained and decided
\n      by the Tribunal. It is not that unless and until any order is passed by the
\n      Management of the School against an employee, he cannot approach
\n      the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance and, therefore, the Tribunal
\n      had ample powers to entertain and adjudicate the grievance of the
\n      appellant because his grievance was concerning his service condition
\n      and the grievance was against the action\/ inaction of the School
\n      Management.\n<\/p>\n
8.                  So far on the point of Limitation, Mr. Neeraj Rai submitted
\n      that the Education Tribunal has seriously erred by completely misreading
\n      the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act,
\n      2005 and has wrongly counted the period of six months from the date the
\n      Judgment was passed by the Criminal Court.\n<\/p>\n
9.                  By citing a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
\n      D.P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration and Others reported in
\n      1983(4) SCC 293 \/ AIR 1984 (SC) 153, he submitted that the Education
\n      Tribunal ought not to have decided the Limitation matter as the
\n      preliminary issue, since the question of limitation was a mixed question
\n      of law and fact and, therefore, the Tribunal should have resisted from
\n      deciding the question of Limitation as preliminary issue separately so as
\n      to avoid the protracted round of litigation.\n<\/p>\n
10.                 On the other hand, Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel
\n      appearing for the respondents submitted that Section 10(2) of the
\n      Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act clearly speaks that the Tribunal shall
\n      not admit any application unless such an application is filed within the
\n      period of six months from the date of order by an Educational Institution.
\n      He further submitted that though the Tribunal has the power to condone
\n      delay in appropriate cases which are filed beyond the period of limitation
\n      but such power has to be exercised by the Tribunal only when it is
\n      satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not making the application
\n      within the period of limitation and for that the aggrieved person who
\n      approaches the Tribunal after the period of limitation has to necessarily
\n      make an application praying for condonation of delay and he has to
\n                                            4<\/span>
\n                                                                    A.C. (S.B.) No. 5 of 2009<\/p>\n
      satisfactorily explain the delay but in the present case, admittedly the
\n      appellant did not file any such application before the Education Tribunal
\n      for condonation of delay in filing the application, therefore, in such a
\n      situation, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application of the
\n      appellant holding it to be barred by limitation and there is no error in it.
\n      The impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, this
\n      appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
11.                     In order to appreciate the rival contention of the parties and
\n      also to decide the questions raised by them before me, it is necessary to
\n      notice the relevant provisions of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act,
\n      2005.\n<\/p>\n
12.                     The object of enacting Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act,
\n      2005 has been to make suitable provisions for constitution of a statutory
\n      forum, to be known as Appellate Tribunal for looking into the grievances
\n      of teachers of aided, affiliated and Private Educational Institutions and
\n      that of the parents\/ guardians of the students studying therein and to
\n      comply with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of TMA
\n      Pai Vs. Karnataka State and the ruling dated the 5th August, 2003,
\n      passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the
\n      matter of W.P.(PIL) NO. 2744 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
13.                     Chapter-III of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005
\n      speaks about the jurisdiction, power and authority of Tribunal and
\n      Sections 8, 9 and 10, which are relevant for the purpose, are quoted
\n      hereinbelow:-\n<\/p>\n
              Section 8. Jurisdiction, power and authority of the Jharkhand
\n              Education Tribunal:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (1)       Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the
\n                    Jharkhand Education Tribunal shall exercise on and from the
\n                    appointed day, all the jurisdiction, power and authority
\n                    exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts (Except
\n                    the Jharkhand High Court and Supreme Court of India)
\n                    regarding:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (a) Matters concerning recruitment to any post in connection
\n                       with the affairs of the educational institution;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (b) All matters concerning the service conditions of employees
\n                       of the educational institutions;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (c) Grievances of the employees against the management of
\n                       the educational institutions;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (d) Grievances of the guardians and parents of students
\n                       against the management of the educational institutions
\n                       regarding teaching standards, fee structure, infrastructural
\n                                5<\/span>
\n                                                         A.C. (S.B.) No. 5 of 2009<\/p>\n
         facilities, development works and allied matters related
\n         thereto;\n<\/p>\n
      (e) Such matters relating to educational institutions as may be
\n         referred to the Tribunal by the State Government by
\n         notification from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
Section 9. Application to Tribunal. –\n<\/p>\n
(1)       Subject to other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved
\n      by an order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of a
\n      Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal for the
\n      redressal of his grievances.\n<\/p>\n
      Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section “Order”
\n      means an order made:-\n<\/p>\n
      (A) by the Management of an aided, affiliated and private
\n         educational institution;\n<\/p>\n
      (B) by an officer, committee or other body or agency of such
\n         educational institution referred to in Clause (A).
\n(2)       Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such
\n      form and be accompanied by such documents or other
\n      evidence and by such fee, if any, in respect of the filing of such
\n      an application and by such other fees for the service or
\n      execution of processes as may be prescribed by the State
\n      Government;\n<\/p>\n
(3)        On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the
\n      Tribunal shall, if satisfied “that the application is fit for
\n      adjudication or trial by it, admit such an application. Where the
\n      Tribunal is not satisfied, it may summarily reject the application
\n      after recording its reasons.\n<\/p>\n
(4)       Where an application has been admitted by the Tribunal
\n      under sub-section (3), every proceeding under the relevant
\n      service rules as to redressal of grievances in relation to the
\n      subject matter of such application pending immediately before
\n      such admission shall abate and save as otherwise directed by
\n      the Tribunal, no appeal or representation in relation to such
\n      matter shall thereafter be entertained under such rules.\n<\/p>\n
Section 10. Limitation:-\n<\/p>\n
(1)       A Tribunal shall not admit an application, unless-\n<\/p>\n
      (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made
\n         had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during
\n         the period of three years immediately preceding the date of
\n         the establishment of this Tribunal; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (b) no proceeding of the redressal of such grievance had
\n         commenced before the said date before any High Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(2)        Besides cases admissible for adjudi9cation under sub-\n<\/p>\n
      section (1), an application may be admitted within a period of
\n      six months from the date of the issue of the order by an
\n      educational institution. This limitation may be condoned by the
\n      Tribunal if it is satisfied that there exists sufficient cause for not
\n      making the application within such period.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                 A.C. (S.B.) No. 5 of 2009<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
14.                   On a plain reading of Sections 8 and 9 quoted
\n      hereinabove, I appears that the Tribunal has got all the jurisdiction,
\n      power and authority to decide all the matters concerning the service
\n      conditions of the employees of the educational institutions and the
\n      grievances of the employees against the management of educational
\n      institutions.\n<\/p>\n
15.                   Mr. Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
\n      is right in submitting that the jurisdiction of the Education Tribunal is not
\n      limited to examine only the orders passed by an Educational Institution
\n      against its employee. The Tribunal can look and adjudicate into the
\n      grievances of an employees of the educational institution regarding his
\n      conditions of service and any of his grievance against the action of the
\n      management.\n<\/p>\n
                      Accordingly, I hold that the Education Tribunal has all the
\n      jurisdiction, power and authority to decide all the matters concerning the
\n      service condition of an employee as well as the grievances of the
\n      employee against any action or inaction on the part of the Management
\n      of an educational institution.\n<\/p>\n
                      It can’t be said that the Education Tribunal can only
\n      examine the legality and validity of any specific order passed by the
\n      Management of the School. The Tribunal can examined not only the
\n      legality or validity of any order passed by the Management of the School
\n      but also examine the legality or validity of any action or inaction of the
\n      Management of the School concerning the service condition of an
\n      employee or any other grievance relating to his service.\n<\/p>\n
16.                   Now coming to the point of Limitation.\n<\/p>\n
                      From perusal of Section 8 and Section 10 of the Jharkhand
\n      Education Tribunal Act, 2005, quoted hereinabove, it appears that the
\n      Legislature has clearly envisaged that the Tribunal shall not admit an
\n      application unless the application is filed within a period of six months
\n      from the date of issue of the Order by the Educational institutions.\n<\/p>\n
                      Section 8 gives jurisdiction to the Tribunal to adjudicate
\n      regarding the grievance of the employee regarding action of the
\n      Management and about the matters concerning the service condition,
\n      then Section 10 of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005 has to be
\n                                          7<\/span>
\n                                                                A.C. (S.B.) No. 5 of 2009<\/p>\n
      read keeping in mind the jurisdiction and power given to the Tribunal by
\n      Section 8 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
17.                 It is well settled that the provisions of the Act has to be
\n      interpreted so as to make it effective and workable. In the words of
\n      Supreme Court, a bare mechanical interpretation of the words and an
\n      application of the legislative intent, devoid of concept or purpose, will
\n      reduce path of remedial and beneficial legislation to futility. Reference in
\n      this case may be made to the case of Organo Chemical Industries Vs.
\n      Union of India reported in AIR 1979 SC 1803.\n<\/p>\n
18.                 In the present case, as per Section 10(2) of the Jharkhand
\n      Education Tribunal Act, 2005, a person aggrieved by an order passed by
\n      the Educational Institution can approach the Tribunal within a period of
\n      six months from the date of the order. The period of Limitation has to be
\n      counted from the date the cause of action arises.\n<\/p>\n
                    In a case where a person is aggrieved by an order, then
\n      the cause of action would arise from the date of passing of that order and
\n      accordingly, the Limitation would start running from the date of the order
\n      and in other cases, the cause of action would depend upon the facts of
\n      each case.\n<\/p>\n
19.                 In the present case, admittedly during the pendency of the
\n      criminal case, the appellant was not allowed to work in the School and
\n      he applied before the Management allowing him to rejoin after he was
\n      acquitted from the criminal charges by a Criminal Court on 1109.2006,
\n      the date on which the Trial Court delivered the Judgment of acquittal
\n      giving the appellant benefits of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
                    Therefore, it is clear that the cause of action for filing
\n      application by the appellant before the Tribunal started from 11.09.2006
\n      whereas, the appellant filed the application for redressal of his grievance
\n      before the Tribunal on 19.03.2008 which was apparently barred by
\n      limitation as envisaged under Section 10(2) of the Jharkhand Education
\n      Tribunal Act, 2005. However, this delay in filing the application beyond
\n      the period of limitation prescribed under the Act could have been
\n      condoned by the Education Tribunal only if it was satisfied that the delay
\n      has sufficiently been explained.\n<\/p>\n
                    The Tribunal had the power to condone the delay only if
\n      there was sufficient cause explaining the delay and this sufficient cause
\n      has to be shown by the person who approached the Tribunal beyond the
\n                                               8<\/span>
\n                                                                      A.C. (S.B.) No. 5 of 2009<\/p>\n
            period of limitation prescribed under the law but admittedly, in the
\n            present case, no application was made by the appellant before the
\n            Education Tribunal praying for condonation of delay by giving sufficient
\n            explanation for the delay. Therefore, there was nothing before the
\n            Tribunal from which he could have satisfied that the delay in filing of the
\n            application was sufficiently explained. Since no such application was
\n            made by the applicant, the Tribunal had no option but to refuse
\n            admission of the application as per Sub Section (1) of Section 10 of the
\n            Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005 holding it to be time barred.\n<\/p>\n
                           Therefore, in my view, the Education Tribunal has rightly
\n            held that the application filed by the appellant before the Tribunal was
\n            barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
                           In view of the fact that the legislature has prescribed a
\n            period of limitation for approaching the Tribunal and, therefore, unless
\n            the Tribunal decides the question of Limitation first, he would not have
\n            power to enter into the merits of the case. Therefore, it was encumbent
\n            upon the Tribunal to decide the question of Limitation first, when it was
\n            raised before it.\n<\/p>\n
      20.                  Since the question of limitation goes to the root of
\n            jurisdiction of the Tribunal and, therefore, the question of Limitation has
\n            to be decided first and therefore, the Tribunal has not committed error in
\n            taking it as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal has rightly held that the
\n            Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari
\n            (Supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present
\n            case for the reasons stated in the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
      21.                  For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
            Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances,
\n            there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       (Amareshwar Sahay, J)<\/p>\n
RC\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Shailendra Kumar Jha vs Regional Director,D.A.V.School on 9 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.C. (S.B.) No. 5 of 2009 Shailendra Kumar Jha … … Petitioner\/Appellant – VERSUS – 1. The Regional Director, D.A.V. Public School, Bariatu Campus, Ranchi. 2. The Principal, Parmar Vidyawati Surjeet Singh D.A.V. Public […]<\/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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-224579","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShailendra Kumar Jha vs Regional Director,D.A.V.School on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shailendra Kumar Jha vs Regional Director,D.A.V.School on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-01T20:01:21+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shailendra Kumar Jha vs Regional Director,D.A.V.School on 9 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-01T20:01:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2584,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Shailendra Kumar Jha vs Regional Director,D.A.V.School on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-01T20:01:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shailendra Kumar Jha vs Regional Director,D.A.V.School on 9 March, 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":"Shailendra Kumar Jha vs Regional Director,D.A.V.School on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shailendra Kumar Jha vs Regional Director,D.A.V.School on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-01T20:01:21+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shailendra Kumar Jha vs Regional Director,D.A.V.School on 9 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-01T20:01:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010"},"wordCount":2584,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010","name":"Shailendra Kumar Jha vs Regional Director,D.A.V.School on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-01T20:01:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailendra-kumar-jha-vs-regional-directord-a-v-school-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shailendra Kumar Jha vs Regional Director,D.A.V.School on 9 March, 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\/224579","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=224579"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224579\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224579"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224579"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224579"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}