{"id":233613,"date":"2010-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-05T01:39:06","modified_gmt":"2016-04-04T20:09:06","slug":"dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dhanraj vs Station Road on 14 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Dhanraj vs Station Road on 14 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Deshmukh, Shrihari P. Davare<\/div>\n
                                          1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n              AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n                  WRIT PETITION NO. 2239 OF 2001\n\n    1      Dhanraj s\/o Ramdas Patil,\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n           age 53 years, occ. Service \n           r\/o  Shri Shivaji High School,\n           Dist. Dhule,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n    2      Dinkarrao s\/o Anandrao Patil,\n           age 53 years, occ. Service \n                   \n           r\/o  Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji High School,\n           Sakri Road, Dhule,  Dist. Dhule,\n                  \n    3      Bhanudas s\/o Anantrao Bhosale,\n           age 46 years, occ. Service \n           r\/o Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji High School,\n           Sakri Road,  Dhule, Dist. Dhule, \n      \n\n\n    4      Madhukar s\/o Govardhan Patil,\n   \n\n\n\n           age 54 years, occ. Service,\n           r\/o Nutan Padvi Vidyalaya,\n           Dhule, Dist. Dhule,\n\n\n\n\n\n    5      Gaman s\/o Genda Pawar,\n           age 56 years, occ. Service,\n           r\/o Jijamata Kala Vidyalaya,\n           Dhule, Dist. Dhule,\n\n\n\n\n\n    6      Ashok Himmatrao Shinde,\n           age 52 years, occ. Service,\n           r\/o Jijamata Kala Vidyalaya,\n           Dhule, Dist. Dhule,\n\n    7      Bhalchandra s\/o Ganpat Patil,\n           age 54 years, occ. Service,\n           r\/o Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji\n           High School, Dhule,\n\n    8      Bharat s\/o Dharamdas Nerkar,\n           age 45 years, occ. Service,\n\n\n                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::\n                                          2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n           r\/o Kala Vidyalaya, Station Road,\n           Dhule,\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    9      Shantilal s\/o Namdeo More,\n           age 54 years, occ. Service,\n           r\/o Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Dhule,\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n    10     Trambakrao s\/o Panditrao Shinde,\n           age 48 years, occ. Service,\n           r\/o Nutan Padvi, Vidyalaya, Dhule                      ...Petitioners\n                   \n\n\n\n\n                                        \n           VERSUS\n\n    1\n                   \n           State of Maharashtra,\n           through Secretary, Education\n           Department, Maharashtra State,\n                  \n           Sachivalaya, Mumbai 32,\n\n    2      Director of Education, Loni\n\n    3      Education Officer (Secondary),\n      \n\n\n           Zilla Parishad, Dhule,\n   \n\n\n\n           Dist. Dhule,\n\n    4      Shivaji Vidya Prasarak Sanstha,\n           through its Chairman,\n\n\n\n\n\n           Phule Bhavan, Galli No. 6,\n           at Dhule, Dist. Dhule,\n\n    5      Pradip s\/o Damodhar Navsare,\n           age 36 years, occ. Head Master,\n\n\n\n\n\n           r\/o Principal, Aghay Training College\n           (S.S.V.P.), Opp. Dist. Court,\n           Dhule, Dist. Dhule,\n\n    6      Nanabhau Pandlik Deore,\n           age 43 years, occ. Head Master,\n           r\/o Krishnanagar High School (S.S.V.P.),\n           Krishnanagar, Dhule, Dist. Dhule,\n\n    7      Shobha R. Jadhav,\n           age 55 years, occ. Headmistress,\n           r\/o Head Mistress, Kanyashala (S.S.V.P.),\n\n\n                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::\n                                               3\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n                 Station Road, Dhule, Dist. Dhule,\n\n    8            Shivram Mahadu Pardeshi,\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n                 age 55 years, occ.Head Master,\n                 r\/o Head Master, Nutan  Padvi Vidyalaya, \n                 (S.S.V.P.), Station Road,\n                 Dist.  Dhule,\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n    9            Zipru Kalu Pawar,\n                 age 37 years, occ. Head Master,\n                 r\/o Chilane High School (S.S.V.P.),\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                 Chilane, Tq. Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule                      ...Respondents\n                          \n                 [Resp.Nos. 5 to 9 added with leave of this court, dt. 26.2.2002]\n\n\n                                              .....\n                         \n    Shri P.R.Patil,  advocate for the petitioner\n    Shri D.V.Tele, A.G.P.  for respondent  nos. 1 to 3\n    Shri S.P.Shah, advocate holding for\n    Shri Amol S. Sawant, advocate for respondent no.4\n      \n\n    Shri A.S.Golegaonkar, advocate for respondent nos. 5 to 9 absent.\n                                              .....\n   \n\n\n\n                                    CORAM  :     S.B.DESHMUKH\n                                                          AND\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                         SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                               DATE OF RESERVING
\n                               THE JUDGMENT                 :   06.10.2010<\/p>\n
                               DATE OF PRONOUNCING
\n                               THE JUDGMENT                 :   14.10.2010<\/p>\n
    J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T   :  [ Per Shrihari P.Davare, J. ]<\/p>\n
    1            By   the   present   petition,   filed   by   the   petitioners   under <\/p>\n
    Article   226   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   the   petitioners   prayed   as <\/p>\n
    follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
              ” [C]       By  appropriate  writ,  direction or  orders   in <\/p>\n
             the   nature   of   writ,   the   respondents   be     directed   to
\n             maintain ratio of only 24% in respect of post Head and
\n             Assistant Head  Master  with respondent  no.4  Shivaji <\/p>\n
             Vidya Prasarak Sanstha.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             [D]           By  appropriate  writ,  direction or  orders   in
\n             the nature of writ, the respondent no.4 Shivaji Vidya <\/p>\n
             Prasarak Sanstha be directed to get the caste claims <\/p>\n
             verified from the respective caste scrutiny committee
\n             of   the   teachers   who   have   obtained   benefits   on   the
\n             basis of reservation.  ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2             Respondent no.1 is the State of Maharashtra through the <\/p>\n
    Secretary,   Education   Department   and   respondent   no.2   is   the <\/p>\n
    Director of Education, Maharashtra State; whereas respondent no.3 <\/p>\n
    is   the   Education   Officer   (Secondary),   Zilla   Parishad,   Dhule   and <\/p>\n
    respondent no.4 is Shri Shivaji Vidya Prasarak Sanstha, a registered <\/p>\n
    public trust through its Chairman and respondent nos. 5 to 9 are the <\/p>\n
    added respondents i.e. Head Masters of respondent no.4 school.\n<\/p>\n
    3             Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present petition are <\/p>\n
    as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                  There are seven posts of Head Master with respondent <\/p>\n
    no.4, namely Shivaji Vidya Prasarak Sanstha.    As per Rule 9(10)(a)<\/p>\n
    of   the   Maharashtra   Employees   of   Private   Schools   (Conditions   of <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
    Service)  Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1981”) <\/p>\n
    only 24 percent of total posts of Head Master and Assistant Head <\/p>\n
    Master are to be reserved for backward classes.   Hence, for seven <\/p>\n
    posts, total reservation comes to 1.68 posts, of which rounded figure <\/p>\n
    can be taken as two posts as per the afore said Rule.  However, out <\/p>\n
    of   seven   posts,   respondent   no.4   Sanstha   has   given   five   posts   to <\/p>\n
    reserved category candidates i.e respondent nos. 5 to 9 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
    Apparently, according to the petitioners, it is more percentage than <\/p>\n
    what   is   required   as   per   the   afore   said   Rule,   which   resulted   into <\/p>\n
    depriving   of   three   teachers   from   open   category   to   their   rightful <\/p>\n
    claims.\n<\/p>\n
    4            Another grievance of the petitioners  is  that  the persons <\/p>\n
    who have claimed the post on the basis of their caste, have no caste <\/p>\n
    validity certificates from the Caste Scrutiny Committee.  In fact, it is <\/p>\n
    the contention of the petitioners that some of them have obtained <\/p>\n
    their caste certificates fraudulently.  Hence, it is appropriate to send <\/p>\n
    the caste claims  of such persons  for verification before the Caste <\/p>\n
    Scrutiny Committee.\n<\/p>\n
    5            It is also the contention of the petitioners that in view of <\/p>\n
    the excess   reservation,  62 Assistant  Teachers  of respondent no.4 <\/p>\n
    Sanstha submitted representation   dated 29.12.2000 to respondent <\/p>\n
    no.4, which was duly received by it on 3.1.2001. However, it is the <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
    grievance of the petitioners  that till today no decision has been taken <\/p>\n
    by respondent no.4 Sanstha in that respect. It is also submitted that <\/p>\n
    similar representation was submitted to respondent no.2 Director of <\/p>\n
    Education, Pune and the Collector, Dhule was apprised about the <\/p>\n
    said situation and he was requested to verify the caste claims, but no <\/p>\n
    action has been taken in that regard so far. Hence,   the petitioners <\/p>\n
    have filed the present petition for the prayers as set out hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
    6            Respondent   no.3   has   filed   affidavit   in   reply,   which   is <\/p>\n
    sworn in by Dinesh Lala Solunke, presently working as the Education <\/p>\n
    Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule, and thereby opposed the <\/p>\n
    present petition and denied the averments made   and contentions <\/p>\n
    raised   by   the   petitioners   in   the   present   petition   unless   admitted <\/p>\n
    specifically.  It is the contention of respondent no.3 that although as <\/p>\n
    per Rule 9(10)(a) of the Rules of 1981,  24 percent of total number of <\/p>\n
    posts for Heads and Assistant Heads were reserved for backward <\/p>\n
    classes,   the   said   percentage   has   been   changed   in   view   of   the <\/p>\n
    Government   Resolution,   dated   18.10.1997   issued   by   the   General <\/p>\n
    Administration   Department,   State   of   Maharashtra,   in   view   of   the <\/p>\n
    judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the <\/p>\n
    case   of   R.A.Sabarwal   and   others   vs   The   State   of   Punjab.\n<\/p>\n
    Accordingly,   now   the   said   percentage   of   reservation   has   been <\/p>\n
    increased from 24 percent to 33 percent  and respondent no.3  has <\/p>\n
    annexed   a   copy   of   the   said   Government   Resolution   dated <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
    18.10.1997   at  Exh.  ‘R-1’  .  Respondent  no.3  also  submits   that  the <\/p>\n
    reservation for promotion is  maintained in view  of Annexure II   of <\/p>\n
    Government   Resolution   dated   17.9.1980.     Moreover,   by   virtue   of <\/p>\n
    above said Government Resolution, 50 point model roster is followed <\/p>\n
    from 17.9.1980 onwards till the issuance of Government Resolution <\/p>\n
    dated 18.10.1997, copy of which is produced at Exh. ‘R-2’.\n<\/p>\n
    7<\/span><\/p>\n
                As   regards   another   grievance   of   the   petitioners, <\/p>\n
    respondent   no.3   submits   that   the   caste   certificates   of   reserved <\/p>\n
    category   employees   have   been   submitted   to   the   Divisional   Social <\/p>\n
    Welfare Officer for caste verification from time to time by respondent <\/p>\n
    no. 4.   Accordingly, respondent no.3 submits that in view of the afore <\/p>\n
    said position, nothing survives in the present petition, and therefore, <\/p>\n
    same deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    8           Respondent no.3 also filed additional affidavit, which was <\/p>\n
    affirmed   by   Dinesh   Lala   Solunke,   Education   Officer   (Secondary), <\/p>\n
    Zilla   Parishad,  Dhule,  and  reiterated  the  contents  in  the  aforesaid <\/p>\n
    affidavit in reply and submitted that  appointments of all the teachers <\/p>\n
    referred in the petition are made as per 50 point model roster, and <\/p>\n
    according   to   the   said   model   roster,   Pradeep   Damodhar   Nausare, <\/p>\n
    who   belongs   to   S.T.   Category   is   promoted   as   Head   Master   on <\/p>\n
    seniority     basis,  since   he  was found seniormost  in S.T.category.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
      Moreover, Nanabhau Pundlik Deore, who belongs to S.T.category <\/p>\n
    was   promoted   as   Head   Master   on   the   basis   of   seniority   and <\/p>\n
    according   to   50   point   model   roster;   as   well   as   Shivram   Mahadu <\/p>\n
    Pardeshi,   who   belongs   to   N.T.category   was   appointed   as   Head <\/p>\n
    Master in place of Shri Gosawi who was retired and who was also <\/p>\n
    from   N.T.category,   and   therefore,   said   Shri   Shivram   Mahadu <\/p>\n
    Pardeshi was promoted in place of N.T.category candidate according <\/p>\n
    to 50 point model roster.  Moreover, Zipru Kalu Pawar, who belongs <\/p>\n
    to   S.T.category   was   appointed   as   Head   Master   as   per   seniority <\/p>\n
    according   to   50   point   model   roster   and   Smt.   Shobhana   Onkar <\/p>\n
    Jadhav, who is female teacher was appointed as Head Mistress from <\/p>\n
    N.T.category and also she was appointed there as the said School is <\/p>\n
    Girls School.\n<\/p>\n
    9            Hence,   respondent   no.3   submitted   that   all   these <\/p>\n
    appointments   were   verified   from   the   office   of   the   Assistant <\/p>\n
    Commissioner, B.C. Cell, Nashik Division, Nashik, and accordingly, <\/p>\n
    same   were   verified   from   the   competent   authority.     Moreover,   it   is <\/p>\n
    submitted   that   these   appointments   were   made   prior   to   the <\/p>\n
    Government   Resolution   dated   18.10.1997.     It   is   further   stated, <\/p>\n
    according to Government Resolution dated 18.10.1997 in Schedule <\/p>\n
    Column   5,   it   has   been   specifically     mentioned   that   if   the <\/p>\n
    appointments are made prior to said Government Resolution more <\/p>\n
    than reserved posts, then in that event those appointments shall not <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
    be   affected.     According   to   the   said   Government   Resolution,   33 <\/p>\n
    percent   posts   are   reserved   for   reserved   categories   of   different <\/p>\n
    reserved castes and 67 percent posts are kept for open category. In <\/p>\n
    view   of   the   said   facts   and   circumstances,   it   is   submitted   by <\/p>\n
    respondent no.3 that present petition bears no substance and same <\/p>\n
    is devoid of any merits and same be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    10<\/span><\/p>\n
                Respondent  no.4 also filed affidavit in reply, which was <\/p>\n
    sworn in by one Prafulla Madhukarrao Sisode and thereby denied <\/p>\n
    the averments made and contentions raised by the petitioners in the <\/p>\n
    present petition unless admitted specifically.\n<\/p>\n
    11          It   is   submitted   that   each   and   every   appointment   to   the <\/p>\n
    post of Head Master is made in consonance with the Rules of 1981 <\/p>\n
    and as per the guidelines issued by the State Government.   It is also <\/p>\n
    submitted that the Management is operating in all seven secondary <\/p>\n
    schools, out of which two schools are Girls Secondary Schools and <\/p>\n
    the list of all the teachers appointed as Head Masters and Assistant <\/p>\n
    Head Masters in all the seven schools along with particulars thereof <\/p>\n
    is annexed with the said reply and marked as Exh. ‘R-1’ collectively.\n<\/p>\n
    According to respondent no.4, all the appointments of Head Masters <\/p>\n
    made   by   the   Management   are  approved   by   the  Education   Officer <\/p>\n
    (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule i.e. respondent no.3.  Moreover, it <\/p>\n
    is also further submitted that all these appointments are made by the <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
    Management   in accordance with the seniority list prepared by the <\/p>\n
    Management   as   well   as   by   applying   50   point   model   roster,   and <\/p>\n
    hence, there is no irregularity therein.\n<\/p>\n
    12          As   regards   further   grievance   of   the   petitioners,   it   is <\/p>\n
    submitted by respondent no.4 that the Management has also sent all <\/p>\n
    the relevant documents of all the teachers  who have been appointed <\/p>\n
    as Head Masters in various schools to the Caste Scrutiny Committee <\/p>\n
    for validation and the Secretary, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik <\/p>\n
    Division, Nashik   issued the letter to the Management and returned <\/p>\n
    back all the documents without   verifying the same,   on the ground <\/p>\n
    that the said Committee has no jurisdiction to verify the caste claim <\/p>\n
    of the employee who has been appointed prior to 5.7.1997, and copy <\/p>\n
    of the said letter is annexed at Exh. ‘R-5’.\n<\/p>\n
    13          Thus,   respondent   no.4   submits   that   the   appointments <\/p>\n
    made by the Management are approved by the Education Officer, <\/p>\n
    and therefore, there is no irregularity committed by the Management <\/p>\n
    while appointing the teachers and Head Masters in various schools, <\/p>\n
    and  hence,  present   petition  is   devoid  of  any   merits   and  same  be <\/p>\n
    dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n
    14          Respondent nos. 5 to 9 also filed their affidavit in reply <\/p>\n
    and opposed the present petition vehemently, and submitted that the <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                               11<\/span><\/p>\n
    appointments of respondent nos. 5 to 9, by way of promotion, have <\/p>\n
    been made as per roster.   It is also submitted that for the post of <\/p>\n
    Head Master, persons from the cadre of Assistant Head Master are <\/p>\n
    considered,   as   the   post   of   Head   Master   falls   in   category   ‘A’.\n<\/p>\n
    Moreover, post of Assistant Head Master falls in category ‘B’ and the <\/p>\n
    post of Assistant Teacher falls in category ‘C’.   It is submitted that <\/p>\n
    respondent nos. 5 to 9 have been promoted on the basis of their <\/p>\n
    seniority as well as their respective roster point to the post of Head <\/p>\n
    Master.  It is further submitted that only persons from category ‘B’ are <\/p>\n
    being considered for promotion to the post from category ‘A’ as per <\/p>\n
    Rule 12 of the Rules of 1981 and guidelines provided in Schedule ‘F’ <\/p>\n
    under the said Rules.\n<\/p>\n
    15           It is also submitted that respondent nos. 5 to 9 have been <\/p>\n
    promoted quite earlier   and at the time of their promotions, present <\/p>\n
    petitioners   have   not   raised   any   objections   and   they   have   made <\/p>\n
    representation   only   on   2.11.1999   and   thereafter.   In   short,   it   is <\/p>\n
    submitted by respondent nos. 5 to 9 that the present petition suffers <\/p>\n
    from inordinate delay and gross laches on the part of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    It is also submitted by respondent nos. 5 to 9 that if the petitioners <\/p>\n
    claim   that   they   are   senior   to   respondent   nos.   5   to   9,   remedy   of <\/p>\n
    appeal against any order or supersession has been provided under <\/p>\n
    Section   9   of   the   Maharashtra   Employees   of   Private   Schools <\/p>\n
    (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, “the Act of <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                              12<\/span><\/p>\n
    1977″) before the School Tribunal is provided. However, none of the <\/p>\n
    petitioners   have   either   raised   objection   or   filed   appeal   before   the <\/p>\n
    School Tribunal as provided under the Act of 1977.  Accordingly, it is <\/p>\n
    submitted   that   substantive   and   efficacious   remedy   has   been <\/p>\n
    provided   by   the   Act   of   1977   itself   to   the   petitioners,   but   the <\/p>\n
    petitioners have chosen wrong forum by filing the present petition, <\/p>\n
    and therefore, present petition deserves to be dismissed on the said <\/p>\n
    count itself.    Accordingly, it is submitted by respondent nos. 5 to 9 <\/p>\n
    that present petition is erroneous and unsustainable, and therefore, <\/p>\n
    same be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    16             Heard the learned respective counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
    17             It is necessary to reproduce Rule 9 (10) (a) of the Rules of <\/p>\n
    1981, which reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
             ” 9.  Appointment of staff.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (1)          ……………            ……………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (10)(a)   The management shall reserve 24 per cent of
\n             the total number of posts (or vacancies) of Heads and
\n             Assistant Heads for the members of Scheduled Caste,
\n             Scheduled   Caste   converts   to   Buddhism,   Scheduled
\n             Tribes,   Denotified   Tribes   and   Nomadic   Tribes   as
\n             follows, namely :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
               (i)   Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Castes
\n                    converts to 13 per cent Buddhism.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (ii)   Scheduled Tribes including those living outside
\n                    the 7 per cent specified areas.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (iii)   Denotified Tribes and Nomadic Tribes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b)  In case it is not possible to fill in the post of a Head
\n            or Assistant Head for which a vacancy is reserved for a
\n            person belonging to the Castes and Tribes specified in <\/p>\n
            clause   (a),  the  post   may   be   filled   in   by   promoting   a
\n            candidate from the other remaining categories  in the <\/p>\n
            order   specified   in   clause   (a),   so   however   that   the
\n            percentage   of   filling   up   such   vacancies   does   not <\/p>\n
            exceed the limit laid down for each such category. If
\n            candidates   belonging   to   any   of   these   categories   are
\n            not available, then the vacancy or vacancies —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (i)       of the Head may be filled in by promoting any <\/p>\n
            other teacher on the basis of seniority-cum-merit after
\n            obtaining previous approval of the Education Officer;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (ii)     if the Assistant Head shall be kept unfilled for a <\/p>\n
            period   of   three   years,   unless   such   vacancy   or
\n            vacancies   could   be   filled   in   by   promotion   of   any
\n            teachers belonging to  such Castes or Tribes becoming
\n            available during that period. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    18          Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon <\/p>\n
    the Full Bench Judgment of this court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of <\/p>\n
    New English High School Association Nagpur and Another vs <\/p>\n
    Baldev s\/o Fakira Ade and Another, reported at 2007 (1) ALL MR <\/p>\n
    381, wherein it is held that :-\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                     14<\/span><\/p>\n
     ”   From the reading of R.9(10)(a) as well as G.R. dt.\n<\/p>\n
     17.9.1980 it is apparent that in relation to the posts of
\n     Head   Masters   and   Assistant   Head   Masters,   the
\n     statutory reservation is to the extent of 24% which is <\/p>\n
     divided into 13% in favour of the Scheduled Castes,
\n     7% in favour of the Scheduled Tribes and 4% in favour
\n     of the Denotified and Nomadic Tribes.\n<\/p>\n
                  Undoubtedly,   the   Constitution   mandates <\/p>\n
     implementation of reservation policy.  However, at the
\n     same   time,   it   assures   opportunities   to   all   the   open
\n     class category candidates.  The implementation  of the <\/p>\n
     reservation   policy   should   not   lead   to   absurd   result.
\n     The   application   of   reservation   percentage   has   to   be
\n     with reference to the number of posts.  It is always to <\/p>\n
     be remembered that the reservation percentage is to
\n     be applied  and the 50 point roster is  to be followed <\/p>\n
     taking into consideration the total number of posts in a
\n     cadre and at the same time care has to be taken that
\n     other   category   candidates   are   not   prejudiced   in   the <\/p>\n
     sense   that   the   statutorily   recognized   reservation
\n     percentage does not exceed while implementing   the
\n     reservation   policy.     Undisputedly,   the   relevant   rule
\n     requires 24%  of reservation out of which 13% for the <\/p>\n
     S.C.,   7%   for   the   S.T.   And   4%   for   the   D.T.\/N.T.\n<\/p>\n
     Considering the 24% reservation if one applies the 50
\n     point roster, it would result in reservation in excess of
\n     the   statutorily   specified   percentage.     In   a   cadre
\n     comprising of three posts with 24% reservation rule, if
\n     one applies the 50 point roster, then the reservation
\n     even   in   respect   of   one   post   would   exceed   24%
\n     reservation. One-third cannot be equated to 24%.  It is
\n     settled law that the reservation cannot be allowed to
\n     exceed the percentage prescribed for reservation as it <\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                                15<\/span><\/p>\n
             would   result   in   injustice   to     the   candidates   falling
\n             outside   the   reservation   category.     Considering   the <\/p>\n
             same, 24% reservation can be applicable only in cases
\n             where there are minimum of four posts in a cadre and
\n             not otherwise.  The fall out of the above discussion is
\n             that in case the cadre consists of three or less number <\/p>\n
             of   posts   and   the   total   percentage   of   reservation   is
\n             24%, there cannot be any reservation in such a case
\n             and it would be only  in case of four posts that one of <\/p>\n
             those  will have to be filled in by the reserved category
\n             candidate.   The applicability of the reservation   policy <\/p>\n
             would  depend upon  the  number  of posts   in  a  cadre
\n             and the percentage of reservation.  The 50 point roster <\/p>\n
             can   be   made   applicable   only   when   the   applicability
\n             thereof   would   not   result   in   implementation   of
\n             reservation   policy   in   excess   of   the   percentage
\n             statutorily   prescribed   for   the   reserved   category <\/p>\n
             candidates.  1997 (2) SCC 332, 1997 (4) SCC 278 and <\/p>\n
             1995 Supp (1) SCC 432 held no longer good law. 2006
\n             (2) Mh.L.J. 68 held not good law in view and 2003 (3)
\n             Mh.L.J. 1010 (FB) and 1998 (4) SCC 1. ”\n<\/p>\n
    19            Applying   the   provision   of   Rule   9(10)(a)   of   the   Rules   of <\/p>\n
    1981 and the ratio laid down in the afore said Ruling in the instant <\/p>\n
    case, now   the issue in controversy in the present case is no more <\/p>\n
    Res   integra,   and   it   is   crystal   clear   that   in   case     where   the   cadre <\/p>\n
    consists of three or less number of posts and the total percentage of <\/p>\n
    reservation is 24 percent, there cannot be any reservation in such a <\/p>\n
    case and it would be only in case of four posts, one of those will have <\/p>\n
    to   be   filled   in   by   the   reserved   category   candidate.     It   is   also <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                             16<\/span><\/p>\n
    undisputed   that   the   applicability   of   the   reservation   policy   would <\/p>\n
    depend upon the number of posts in a cadre and the percentage of <\/p>\n
    reservation.  The 50 point roster can be made applicable only when <\/p>\n
    the   applicability   thereof   would   not   result   in   implementation   of <\/p>\n
    reservation policy in excess of the percentage statutorily prescribed <\/p>\n
    for the reserved category candidates.\n<\/p>\n
    20<\/span><\/p>\n
                 However, in the present case, out of seven posts of Head <\/p>\n
    Master,   respondent   no.4   filled   in   five   posts   from   backward   class <\/p>\n
    candidates i.e. respondent nos. 5 to 9 respectively, which is excess <\/p>\n
    and beyond the reservation of 24 percent as per Rule 9(10(a) of the <\/p>\n
    Rules of 1981, which resulted into depriving of rightful claim of the <\/p>\n
    open category candidates, and hence, present petition is required to <\/p>\n
    be allowed partly in terms of prayer clause ‘C’ thereof relying upon <\/p>\n
    the aforesaid Full Bench judgment of this court.\n<\/p>\n
    21           As   regards   the   another   grievance   of   the   petitioners   in <\/p>\n
    respect of caste verification of caste claims of respondent nos. 5 to 9 <\/p>\n
    by the Caste Scrutiny Committee as prayed for in prayer clause ‘D’ of <\/p>\n
    the present petition,  respondent no.4 has categorically stated in its <\/p>\n
    affidavit   in   reply   that   respondent   no.4   had   already   sent   all   the <\/p>\n
    relevant documents  of all the teachers who have been appointed as <\/p>\n
    Head Masters in various schools to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for <\/p>\n
    validation,   but   the   Secretary   of   the   Caste   Scrutiny   Committee, <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                           17<\/span><\/p>\n
    Nashik   Division,   Nashik   issued   a   letter   to   respondent   no.4   and <\/p>\n
    returned back all the documents along with it   without verifying the <\/p>\n
    same on the ground that the said Committee had no jurisdiction to <\/p>\n
    verify the caste claim of the employee who has been appointed prior <\/p>\n
    to 5.7.1997 and copy of the said letter has been annexed with the <\/p>\n
    said affidavit in reply at Exh. ‘R-5’, and hence, in the light of the said <\/p>\n
    facts, nothing survives in the prayer clause ‘D’ of the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
    22           In   the   circumstances,   present   petition   deserves   to   be <\/p>\n
    allowed partly  in terms of prayer clause ‘C’ thereof,  but as nothing <\/p>\n
    survives in prayer clause ‘D’, and therefore, petition  is required to be <\/p>\n
    disposed of in respect of the  said prayer.\n<\/p>\n
    23           In the result, present petition is allowed partly in terms of <\/p>\n
    prayer clause ‘C’.  However, since nothing survives in prayer clause <\/p>\n
    ‘D’ thereof, the petition stands disposed of, to the extent of the said <\/p>\n
    prayer.\n<\/p>\n
    24           Rule is made absolute accordingly in the aforesaid terms.\n<\/p>\n
    In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
    (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)                              (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.)\n                   \n\n\n                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>\n                        18<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                                        \n    dbm\/wp2239.01\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                                      \n                     \n                    \n                   \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:32:23 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Dhanraj vs Station Road on 14 October, 2010 Bench: S.B. Deshmukh, Shrihari P. Davare 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2239 OF 2001 1 Dhanraj s\/o Ramdas Patil, age 53 years, occ. Service r\/o Shri Shivaji High School, Dist. Dhule, 2 Dinkarrao s\/o […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-233613","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDhanraj vs Station Road on 14 October, 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\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dhanraj vs Station Road on 14 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-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=\"2010-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-04T20:09:06+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dhanraj vs Station Road on 14 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-04T20:09:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3196,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Dhanraj vs Station Road on 14 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-04T20:09:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dhanraj vs Station Road on 14 October, 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":"Dhanraj vs Station Road on 14 October, 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\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dhanraj vs Station Road on 14 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-04T20:09:06+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dhanraj vs Station Road on 14 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-04T20:09:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010"},"wordCount":3196,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010","name":"Dhanraj vs Station Road on 14 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-04T20:09:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanraj-vs-station-road-on-14-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dhanraj vs Station Road on 14 October, 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\/233613","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=233613"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233613\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233613"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233613"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233613"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}