{"id":268105,"date":"1977-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1977-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2"},"modified":"2016-10-24T12:29:22","modified_gmt":"2016-10-24T06:59:22","slug":"state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2","title":{"rendered":"State Of Maharashtra vs Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi & Anr on 27 January, 1977"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Maharashtra vs Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi & Anr on 27 January, 1977<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1241, 1977 SCR (2) 782<\/div>\n
Author: P Shingal<\/div>\n
Bench: Shingal, P.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBHALCHANDRA KHANDERAO JOSHI & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/01\/1977\n\nBENCH:\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nBENCH:\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR 1241\t\t  1977 SCR  (2) 782\n 1977 SCC  (4) 598\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Maharashtra\t Educational Service Class  11--Amalgamation\n\tof History and Political Science lecturers--Proof of amalga-\n\tmation--Grant  of  option.  to teacher to  join\t History  or\n\tPolitical Science service..\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t    After  the reorganisation of the States a separate\tsen-\n\tiority list was prepared by the State of Bombay for  History\n\tand  Political Science teachers. On 20.8.1963, the  Director\n\tof  Education  issued  a letter conveying  the\tdecision  of\n\tGovernment  to amalgamate the list of lecturers\t in  History\n\tand  Lecturers in Political Science and to prepare a  single\n\tseniority  list for both the subjects.\tIt   was   expressly\n\tstated in the letter that it was issued in pursuance of\t the\n\tdecision  of  the State Government.   Thereafter  a  revised\n\tseniority  list\t was prepared.\t One Nanekar  filed  a\twrit\n\tpetition in the High Court challenging the said order on the\n\tground\tthat  when  two separate seniority  lists  had\tbeen\n\tprepared for the departments of History & Political  Science\n\tin accordance with the earlier Government Order of 1960. the\n\tnew  list was invalid.\t The High Court took the  view\tthat\n\tthe existence of the Government resolution dated  27.2.1963,\n\twhich  was said to be the authority for the issue of  Direc-\n\ttor's  letter  dated  20.8.1963, had not  been\tproved.\t  It\n\ttherefore held that there Was no such resolution- or.  order\n\trequiring the preparation of a combined seniority list.\t  It\n\tdecided that the earlier order of 1960 requiring the  prepa-\n\tration\tof  separate list of History and  Political  Science\n\tcontinued  to be operative.  It however dismissed  the\twrit\n\tpetition  filed by Nanekar on the ground that he  could\t not\n\tclaim to be the seniormost person in his department  In\t the\n\tpresent writ petition filed by B.K. Joshi and P.S. Kane\t the\n\tHigh Court followed its decision in Nanekar's case and\theld\n\tthat there was no order or decision dated 27.2.1963 so\tthat\n\tthe action of amalgamating   the list of' History and PoLit-\n\tical  Science  departments was invalid.\t  A  resolution\t was\n\ttaken on 15.1.1970 in which it was mentioned that the earli-\n\ter decision to amal-gainate the two categories was given  up\n\ton account of the difficulties which were experienced and an\n\toption was given by the 1970 resolution in order to  obviate\n\tthose difficulties.   That resolution was challenged in\t the\n\tpresent\t proceedings. The High Court examined the effect  of\n\tthe  Government Resolution dated 15.1.1970 and held that  in\n\tthe  absence of the earlier resolution dated  27.2.1963\t the\n\tDirector of Education was not competent to combine or  amal-\n\tgamate the seniority lists of History and Political  Science\n\tDepartments.   It assumed that legally there was no  amalga-\n\tmation\tat  all\t and any action taken on the  basis  of\t the\n\tamalgamation  would also consequently have to fall  on\tthat\n\tground.\t   The High Court held that the option given by\t the\n\t1970 resolution had the effect of perpetuating the effect of\n\tthe working of the invalid list and amounted to violation of\n\tArt.  16<\/a> of the Constitution.\tThe High Court held that  in\n\tNanekar's case no attempt was made to produce the resolution\n\tof 27.2.1963:\n\tAllowing the appeals,\n\t    Held:  1:  The High Court erred in\tobserving  that\t the\n\tresolution of 27.2.1963 did not exist.\tThe High Court\tlost\n\tsight  of the intrinsic evidence which was available on\t the\n\trecord to prove beyond doubt that Government had passed\t the\n\tresolution  on 27.2.1963 to amalgamate the two\tlists.\t  In\n\tthe  1970 resolution, the Government itself  reiterated\t the\n\tact that a decision was taken by Government in the year 1963\n\tto  amalgamate\tthe lists of Lecturers in  History  and\t the\n\tLecturers  in Political Science into one common list.\t The\n\treason for taking that decision to amalgamate the two  lists\n\twas also stated in that resolution.' In fact the 1970  reso-\n\tlution\tmade a mention of the difficulties   experienced  in\n\tworking the 1963 resolution and that was  why it was decided\n\tto revert to the decision to split up the combined seniority\n\t'list  which  formed the basis of promotion of some  of\t the\n\tteachers.  As the genuineness of the resolution of 1970 was\n\t783\n\tnot challenged, the High Court ought to have taken notice of\n\tits  intrinsic evidentiary value for the purpose of  proving\n\tthe  earlier resolution of 1963.   In fact the\tDirector  in\n\this  order  specifically  stated that the  decision  of\t the\n\tGovernment to amalgamate the two lists had to be brought  to\n\tthe  notice of all concerned.  The combined seniority  list,\n\twas  therefore fully authorised and there was nothing  wrong\n\tif  it formed the basis of the subsequent  promotions.\t[787\n\tG-H, 788 A-E]\n\t     2.\t No exception could be taken to the decision of\t the\n\tGovernment  to give option to the Lecturers to elect  either\n\tof  the\t two departments.   The decision to  amalgamate\t the\n\tseniority  lists  of the two departments was  not  taken  in\n\tconsultation  with them and if they were required  to  teach\n\tHistory or Political Science and were promoted as  Professor\n\tof  History or Political Science on the basis\tof  combined\n\tseniority list for which they themselves were not  responsi-\n\tble, it would have been unfair if they had been required  to\n\tserve in another depart.meat by a unilateral executive fiat.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\tCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos.  1173 to
\n\t1175 of 1976.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Appeals  by Special Leave from the Judgment and  Order
\n\tdated the 1-3-1975 of the, Bombay High Court (Nagpur  Bench)
\n\tin Special Civil Application No. 695 of 1971.
\n\t    L.N.  Sinha, Sol Genl., M.N. Shroff for the\t  Appellants
\n\tin  CA 1173\/76 for R. 3 in C.A. 1174\/76 and 1175\/76.
\n\t    M.N. Phadke, V. M. Phadke and ,4. G. Ratnaparkhi for RR.
\n\tJ. and 2 in CA 1173\/76 and CAs. 1174-75\/76.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Nilofer (Mrs.).Bhagwat, S.C. Agrawal  and  V. J.   Fran-
\n\tcis for R. 5 in C.A. 1174 and 1175\/76.\n<\/p>\n
\tV.J. Francis for RR. No. 6 in CA 1175\/76.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t\t  SINGHAL J.–These appeals arise out of a  judgment
\n\tof the Bombay High Court dated March 11, 1975, by which\t the
\n\tHigh  Court quashed that part of Government resolution dated
\n\tJanuary\t 15, 1970, “which holds that the respondents Nos.  3
\n\tto 5 should not be compelled to go back to their  respective
\n\tlists.\tand  which  gives a further option  to\tthese  three
\n\trespondents  to indicate whether they wanted to go  back  to
\n\tthe department of History.”  The High Court has further held
\n\tthat the writ petitioners will be entitled to be  considered
\n\tfor promotion to Class I posts in the department of  Politi-
\n\tcal  Science and the seniority of respondents Nos.  3  to  5
\n\t“will  be  considered  in   the seniority list\trelating  to
\n\tthe Department of History”.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The controversy arose because of  a writ petition  filed
\n\tby Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi and Padmakar Siddhanath Kane.
\n\tBoth  of  them were members of the  Maharashtra\t Educational
\n\tService, Class II (Collegiate Branch).\tBhalchandra  Khande-
\n\trao   Joshi  was M.A.  in Political Science as\twell  as  in
\n\tHistory.  He was appointed Lecturer in Political Science  in
\n\t1958,  and   was  confirmed  in\t that\tcapacity.  Padmaliar
\n\tSiddhanath  Kane  passed  M.A.\t Examination  in   Political
\n\tScience\t in  1956 and was appointed  Lecturer  in  Political
\n\tScience\t in 1958.  He was also confirmed on that post.\tBoth
\n\tof them filed a writ
\n\t784<\/span>
\n\tpetition and challenged the resolution of the State  Govern-
\n\tment,\tin the Education and Social Welfare Department,\t No.
\n\tSCP No. 1064-D dated January 15, 1970, in pursuance of which
\n\trespondents Smt. K.A. Parekh, S.A. Bari and Smt. R.S. Dossal
\n\twere  promoted as Professors of Political Science  and\twere
\n\tgiven  the  option to opt for the History or  the  Political
\n\tScience department.\n<\/p>\n
\t    It\tmay be mentioned that  after the  reorganisation  of
\n\tStates, a combined seniority list was prepared\ton  November
\n\t1,   1956,  for History and Political Science teachers.\t  In
\n\tthat  list respondent No. 3 was; shown at serial No. 3,\t and
\n\trespondent  No.\t 4  at serial No. 5. One  S.R.\tNanekar\t was
\n\tappointed  as  Lecturer in Political Science  on  June’\t 26,
\n\t1954.\tRespondents Nos. 3 and 5 were M.A. in  History.\t  It
\n\twas  not disputed in the High Court that  Political  Science
\n\twas  not a separate subject until 1956, in  Bombay,  because
\n\tout of the eight papers for post graduation in History, four
\n\twere  in  Political Science.  Smt. K.A. Parekh was  M.A.  in
\n\tHistory\t and  was recruited as Lecturer on August  5,  1946.
\n\tShe  however  taught both  History  and\t  Political  Science
\n\tupto 1963, when she was appointed  officiating Professor  of
\n\tPolitical  Science on February 27, 1963.  Dr. S.A. Bari\t was
\n\trecruited as Lecturer in History on October 1, 1947.  He was
\n\tthereafter promoted as Professor in that subject.  Smt. M.G.
\n\tSonnal, who. was M.A. in History, was appointed as Professor
\n\tof  Political Science.\tSmt. R. S, Dassal was  recruited  as
\n\tAssistant Lecturer in  History on August 5, 1946, and taught
\n\tboth History and Political Science upto 1956. Thereafter she
\n\ttaught only Political Science,\tand was\t promoted as Profes-
\n\tsor  in\t that subject in 1968.\tShe was\t confirmed  in\tthat
\n\tcapacity  in  1972.  These facts are  quite  sufficient\t for
\n\tpurposes of the present appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t controversy  relates to the  question\twhether\t the
\n\tDirector of Education, Maharashtra State, had the  authority
\n\tto   issue the\tletter dated August 20, 1963, which was\t ad-
\n\tdressed to all the Principals of he Government Colleges.  It
\n\twas stated by the Director in that letter as follows,–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    “It\t has been decided to amalgamate\t the
\n\t\t      two  lists  of  lecturers\t in  ‘History’\t and
\n\t\t      ‘Political  Science’  and to combine  the\t two
\n\t\t      lists  under the common subject  of  ‘History’
\n\t\t      and ‘Political Science’.\tThe revised seniori-
\n\t\t      ty  list\tso prepared  is\t enclosed  herewith.
\n\t\t      Please  bring this decision of  Government  to
\n\t\t      the notice of the officers concerned.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\tThe Director thus conveyed the\tdecision to amalgamate\t the
\n\tlists .of Lecturers in History and Political  Science and to
\n\tprepare\t a single seniority list for both the subjects.\t  It
\n\twas  expressly stated in the letter that it had been  issued
\n\tin  pursuance  of the decision of the State  Government.   A
\n\trevised\t seniority  list was  therefore prepared  in   which
\n\trespondent  No.\t 3 was placed at serial No,.  4,  respondent
\n\tNo..  4 at serial No. 5, and S.R. Nanekar at serial  No.  7.
\n\tNanekar challenged that order in the High Court by   Special
\n\tCivil\tApplication  No. 120 of 1964, mainly on\t the  ground
\n\tthat when two separate seniority lists had been prepared for
\n\tthe. departments of History and\t Political Science,
\n\t785<\/span>
\n\tin  accordance\twith the earlier Government Order  of  1960,
\n\tthe new list was invalid.  The High Court however  took\t the
\n\tview that the existence of the Government resolution   dated
\n\tFebruary   27, 1963, which was said to be the authority\t for
\n\tthe  issue of the Director’s letter dated August  20,  1963,
\n\thad  not been proved.  It therefore held that there  was  no
\n\tsuch  resolution  or order requiring the  preparation  of  a
\n\tcombined  seniority  list.   It decided\t that  the   earlier
\n\torder  of 1960, requiring the preparation of separate  lists
\n\tfor  History  and Political Science, continued to be  opera-
\n\ttive  and that as Nanekar could not claim to be the  senior-
\n\tmost  person in his department, he had no  cause of  action.
\n\tIt therefore dismissed the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The High Court, in the present case, went by the   deci-
\n\tsion in Nanekar’s case, and held that there was no  order or
\n\tdecision  dated\t February 27, 1963, so that  the  action  of
\n\tamalgamating   the  lists of History and  Political  Science
\n\tdepartments  was invalid.  The\tHigh Court made a  reference
\n\tto  the\t Director’s letter dated July 27,  1967\t asking\t the
\n\tPrincipals  to forward information  in the  prescribed\tpro-
\n\tforma in respect of those Professors and Lecturers of Histo-
\n\try in their respective colleges who were qualified to  teach
\n\tPolitical  Science and had been recognised   therefore.\t  It
\n\talso  made  a  reference to the\t impugned  resolution  dated
\n\tJanuary 15, 1970 which reads as follows,–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      “A  decision  was taken by Government  in\t the
\n\t\t      year 1963 to amalgamate the lists of Lecturers
\n\t\t      in  ‘History’   and  Lecturers  in  ‘Political
\n\t\t      Science’ into one\t common list of Lecturers in
\n\t\t      ‘History and Political  Science’.\t  According-
\n\t\t      ly,  a  combined seniority list  was  prepared
\n\t\t      with  reference to the date of appointment  of
\n\t\t      the officer concerned in the M.E.S. Class\t 11,
\n\t\t      irrespective  of\tthe fact as to\twhether\t the
\n\t\t      Lecturers\t are qualified in both the  subjects
\n\t\t      of “History” and “Political Science” or in any
\n\t\t      one of the two.\tThe  decision to  amalgamate
\n\t\t      the  two lists into one was taken\t because  it
\n\t\t      was noticed that some of the Lecturers in\t the
\n\t\t      seniority\t list of the subject “History”\talso
\n\t\t      possessed the  qualifications  in the  subject
\n\t\t      “Political Science”.   Similarly, some  of the
\n\t\t      Lecturers in “Political Science” possessed the
\n\t\t      qualifications  in “History”.  But  they\twere
\n\t\t      not considered  eligible for appointment to  a
\n\t\t      post of Professor in a subject other than\t the
\n\t\t      subject under which their names were  included
\n\t\t      in  the seniority list of their subject.\t  In
\n\t\t      order  to\t remove\t this anomaly,\tdecision  to
\n\t\t      amalgamate the seniority lists of Lecturers in
\n\t\t      “History”\t and  “Political Science”   and\t  to
\n\t\t      make appointment to the posts of Professors on
\n\t\t      the   basis of the combined seniority list  in
\n\t\t      the   subjects  of  “History”  and  “Political
\n\t\t      Science” was taken by Government.\t However, in
\n\t\t      view  of\tthe  difficulties  experienced\twith
\n\t\t      regard  to the implementation of the  decision
\n\t\t      of Government referred to above, Government on
\n\t\t      reconsideration  decided in the  year 1967  to
\n\t\t      revert to the old practice of having  separate
\n\t\t      seniority\t lists\tof  Lecturers  for  the\t two
\n\t\t      subjects., ‘History’  and ‘Political Science’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      786<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t\t     2. Some of the teaching members of\t the
\n\t\t      Department of History brought to the notice of
\n\t\t      Government   that in the\twestern\t Maharashtra
\n\t\t      formerly\tthere  were no\tseparate  posts\t for
\n\t\t      Political\t Science as “Political Science”\t did
\n\t\t      not  exist as distinct subject.  All  teachers
\n\t\t      were  designated as Lecturers\/  Professors  in
\n\t\t      History, but they\t used to  teach the  subject
\n\t\t      “Political  Science”  also.  The\tquestion  of
\n\t\t      giving  option to those  Lecturers\/Professors,
\n\t\t      who  were\t qualified to teach both,  the\tsub-
\n\t\t      jects, viz., “History” and “Political Science”
\n\t\t      and recognised as such, to elect either of the
\n\t\t      two   subjects,  was  under  consideration  of
\n\t\t      Government   for\tsome  time past.  While\t re-
\n\t\t      verting  to  the\tdecision to   split  up\t the
\n\t\t      combined seniority list of “History and Polit-
\n\t\t      ical Science”, Government considers that those
\n\t\t      who  were promoted to the posts of  professors
\n\t\t      on  the basis of the combined  seniority\tlist
\n\t\t      should  not be compelled to go back  to  their
\n\t\t      respective .lists.  Government has now decided
\n\t\t      that  an\toption\t should be  given  to  those
\n\t\t      Lecturers\/Professors of the Old Bombay  State,
\n\t\t      who were recruited as Lecturers\/Professors  of
\n\t\t      History  but have been recognised as  teachers
\n\t\t      of Political  Science  and also those who have
\n\t\t      been  promoted to the posts of  Professors  in
\n\t\t      M.E.S.C. II (Collegiate Branch)  on the  basis
\n\t\t      of  the  combined\t seniority  list,  to  elect
\n\t\t      either of\t the two  Departments, viz.  ‘Histo-
\n\t\t      ry’ or  ‘Political Science’.   Accordingly the
\n\t\t      concerned\t Lecturers\/Professors were asked  to
\n\t\t      exercise”\t their option.\tThe following  offi-
\n\t\t      cers  have  opted for their being\t treated  as
\n\t\t      belonging\t to  the  Department  of   Political
\n\t\t      Science:–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t   (i) Smt. K.A. Parekh, Officiating Profes-
\n\t\t      sor  of  Political  Science,  I.\tY.  College,
\n\t\t      Jogeshwari.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  (ii) Shri S.A. Bari, Officiating   Profes-
\n\t\t      sor  of  History, Government Arts and  Science
\n\t\t      College, Aurangabad.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  (iii)\t Smt. R.S. Dossal, Officiating\tPro-
\n\t\t      fessor  of Political Science, Elphistone\tCol-
\n\t\t      lege, Bombay.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\tThe option exercised by these officers\thave
\n\t\t      been accepted by Government and their  senior-
\n\t\t      ity  in  the Department of  Political  Science
\n\t\t      should be as shown in the accompanying  state-
\n\t\t      ment.”  (Emphasis added).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\tIt  therefore gave option to respondents Nos. 3 to 5  to  go
\n\tback to the department of History or not, and stated further
\n\tthat  the  option  had been  accepted  and  their  seniority
\n\tfinalised  in the  Political Science department. It is\tthis
\n\tresolution  of the Government  dated January 15, 1970  which
\n\thas  been  challenged in the present  petition.\t The  reason
\n\tis that if respondents Nos. 3 to 5  had not  been, given the
\n\toption to continue in the Political Science department,\t the
\n\tpetitioners  would  have been promoted to a  Class  I  Post.
\n\tThey have stated that they would then not have been deprived
\n\tof  that chance in violation of article 16<\/a> of the  Constitu-
\n\ttion.\n<\/p>\n
\t787<\/span><\/p>\n
\tRespondents  Nos.  4 and 5 did not enter appearance  in\t the
\n\tHigh. Court, but it was urged on behalf of respondent No.  3
\n\tthat  in view of the curriculam for the Master’s  degree  in
\n\tHistory,  upto 1956, a person obtaining the Master’s  degree
\n\tin History was equally qualified to teach Political Science.
\n\tIt  was\t also  urged that the  respondent  taught  Political
\n\tScience\t and  had  been recognised by the  University  as  a
\n\tteacher\t of Political Science.\tThe High Court examined\t the
\n\teffect of the Government resolution dated January 15,  1970,
\n\tand held that in the absence of the earlier resolution dated
\n\tFebruary 27, 1963, the\tDirector of Education was not compe-
\n\ttent  to  combine or amalgamate the seniority lists  of\t the
\n\tHistory\t and  Political\t Science  departments.\t It  assumed
\n\tthat  “legally\tthere  was no amalgamation at  all  and\t any
\n\taction\ttaken on the basis of such amalgamation\t would\talso
\n\tconsequently  have to fall on the ground.”  In that view  of
\n\tthe  matter,  the High Court held that promotions  were\t not
\n\tpermissible on the basis  of the combined list.\t It  accord-
\n\tingly held that the Government resolution dated January\t 15,
\n\t1970 proceeded on a “misapprehension” that the\trespondents.
\n\thad  been  promoted  as Professors  on the   basis  of\t the
\n\tcombined seniority list, which was itself invalid.  The High
\n\tCourt ‘held  that there was “no valid reason why persons who
\n\twere  qualified\t in   the Department  of  Political  Science
\n\titself could be prevented from having their names considered
\n\tfor  the post ‘of Professor in Class I.” That led: the\tHigh
\n\tCourt to hold further that the option which was given by the
\n\tresolution dated January 15, 1970 had the effect of perpetu-
\n\tating  the  effect of the working of the invalid  list,\t and
\n\tamounted  to  violation of article 16<\/a> of  the  Constitution.
\n\tThis  is why the State of Maharashtra, Smt. K.A. Parekh\t and
\n\tSmt. R.S. Dossal have come up in appeal by special leave  to
\n\tthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t controversy therefore is whether the State  govern-
\n\tment  passed.  the aforesaid resolution dated  February\t 27,
\n\t1963,  to amalgamate the lists of Lecturers in\tHistory\t and
\n\tPolitical   Science, as stated in  the Director’s  aforesaid
\n\tletter\tdated August 20, 1963, or whether there was no\tsuch
\n\tresolution  and the Director’s order was unauthorised ?\t The
\n\tHigh Court has taken the view that as no attempt was made to
\n\tproduce the resolution dated February 27, 1963 in  Nanekar’s
\n\tcase, there was no such, resolution at all.  On that  basis,
\n\tit  held  that\tthe Director had no authority  to  take\t the
\n\tdecision to  amalgamate the lists.\n<\/p>\n
\t    We find however that in taking that view’ the High Court
\n\tlost sight of the intrinsic evidence which was available  on
\n\tthe record, to prove beyond doubt that Government had passed
\n\tthe aforesaid resolution dated February 27, 1963, to amalga-
\n\tmate the two lists.  We have extracted the Government  reso-
\n\tlution\tdated January 15, 1970 and the\tunderlined  portions
\n\tthereof clearly show that the Government  itself  reiterated
\n\tthe  fact that “a decision was taken by Government  in\t the
\n\tyear 1963 to amalgamate the lists of Lecturers in  “History”
\n\tand Lecturers in “Political Science” into one common list of
\n\tLecturers  in  “History\t and Political\tScience”.”   It\t has
\n\tfurther\t been  stated in that resolution of  the  Government
\n\tthat  “accordingly, a combined seniority list  was  prepared
\n\twith reference to the date of  appointment  of the
\n\t788<\/span>
\n\tofficer\t concerned in the M.E.S. Class 11,  irrespective  of
\n\tthe  fact as to whether the Lecturers are qualified in\tboth
\n\tthe  subjects of ‘History’ and ‘Political Science’ or in any
\n\tone  of the two”.  The reason for taking that  “decision  to
\n\tamalgamate the two lists” has also been stated in the  reso-
\n\tlution.\t  Then\tit  has been stated that in  ‘:view  of\t the
\n\tdifficulties experienced with regard to the   implementation
\n\tof  the\t  decision  of Government referred  to\tabove,”\t the
\n\tGovernment “on reconsideration” had decided to revert to the
\n\told practice of having separate seniority lists of Lecturers
\n\tof  History and Political Science.  It has also been  stated
\n\tthat  the  decision  had been taken for\t “reverting  to\t the
\n\tdecision  to  split up” the combined  seniority\t list  which
\n\tformed\tthe basis of promotion of some of the teachers.\t  It
\n\twould  thus  appear that the resolution\t dated\tJanuary\t 15,
\n\t1970, repeatedly refers to the earlier decision of the State
\n\tGovernment  of 1963 for amalgamating the lists,\t states\t the
\n\treason\tfor the amalgamation, makes a mention of the  diffi-
\n\tculties experienced in the implementation of that  decision,
\n\tand  gives  the reasons for the\t government’s  decision\t to,
\n\trevert\tto  the old  practice of having\t separate  seniority
\n\tlists.\tAs it was not challenged in the High Court that\t the
\n\tresolution  dated  January 15, 1970 was\t genuine,  the\tHigh
\n\tCourt should have taken notice of its intrinsic\t evidentiary
\n\tvalue  for  the purpose of proving  the\t earlier  resolution
\n\tdated  February 27, 1963. If it had done so, it\t would\thave
\n\tinevitably  reached the conclusion that the  Government\t had
\n\treally decided in 1963 to amalgamate the lists, and that the
\n\tDirector  had  rightly conveyed that decision in  his  order
\n\tdated  August  20,1963, and it was therefore  an  authorised
\n\tcommunication.\tIn fact the Director specifically stated  in
\n\tthat  order that the “decision of Government” to  amalgamate
\n\tthe   two  lists  had  to be. brought to the notice  of\t all
\n\tconcerned.  The combined seniority list was therefore  fully
\n\tauthorised, and there  was nothing  wrong  if it formed\t the
\n\tbasis  of  the promotions which\t were given to\tthe  persons
\n\tmentioned  above.  We have no doubt that the High Court\t did
\n\tnot read the relevant document carefully and that was why it
\n\tarrived at a contrary conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The resolution dated January 15, 1970 shows that as\t the
\n\tGovernment  had decided to split up the seniority  list\t for
\n\tthe department of’ History and Political Science, it thought
\n\tit  desirable to. give an “.option” to those  Lecturers\/Pro-
\n\tfessors\t of  the  old Bombay State, who\t were  recruited  as
\n\tLecturers\/Professors of History, but were recognised by\t the
\n\tUniversity  as teachers of Political Science, to  elect\t for
\n\teither\tof  the two departments.  No exception can be  taken
\n\tto  that decision to give’ the option to the  Lecturers\/Pro-
\n\tfessors\t concerned  for, in the absence of such\t an  option,
\n\tthey would have been deprived of the opportunity of express-
\n\ting their desire to serve in the one or the other department
\n\ton the basis of their experience and prospects of promotion.
\n\tIt was to be appreciated that the decision to amalgamate the
\n\tseniority  lists  of the two departments was  not  taken  in
\n\tconsultation with them, and if they were required to.  teach
\n\tHistory, or Political Science, and were promoted as  Profes-
\n\tsors  of  History or Political Science, on the\tbasis  of  a
\n\tcombined seniority list for which. they themselves were\t not
\n\tresponsible,  it  would have been unfair if  they  had\tbeen
\n\trequired  to  serve in another department  by  a  unilateral
\n\texecutive fiat.\n<\/p>\n
\t789<\/span><\/p>\n
\t    It may be mentioned that Mr. Phadke tried to argue\tthat
\n\teven  if the resolution dated January 15, 1970 were held  to
\n\tbe  valid,  it\twould not be permissible  for  the  teachers
\n\tconcerned  to  take advantage or’ it because  they  did\t not
\n\tfulfill\t its.  requirements.  We do not\t find any  merit  in
\n\tthis  argument.\t  As has been stated,  those  teachers\twere
\n\tpromoted to posts of Professors on the basis of the combined
\n\tlist, they were ,recognised as such teachers by the  Univer-
\n\tsity, and were recruited initially as Lecturers in  History.
\n\tThey  were  therefore entitled to take the  benefit  of\t the
\n\tresolution dated January 15, 1970, as there is nothing wrong
\n\twith  it.  We have no doubt that in the facts  and   circum-
\n\tstances mentioned above, there could be no justification for
\n\tthe view taken by the High Court that there was violation of
\n\tarticle 16<\/a> of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The appeals are allowed, the  impugned  judgment of\t the
\n\tHigh  Court dated March 11, 1975 is set aside and  the\twrit
\n\tpetition  is dismissed.\t The State of Maharashtra  will\t pay
\n\tthe costs of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (Bhalchandra K.  Joshi
\n\tand  Padmakar Sidharath Rao) in Special Leave  Petition\t No.
\n\t915 of 1976, as directed by this Court October 8, 1976.\n<\/p>\n
\tP.H.P.\t\t\t\t\t Appeals allowed\n\t790<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Maharashtra vs Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi & Anr on 27 January, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1241, 1977 SCR (2) 782 Author: P Shingal Bench: Shingal, P.N. PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RESPONDENT: BHALCHANDRA KHANDERAO JOSHI & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/01\/1977 BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. GOSWAMI, P.K. CITATION: […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Maharashtra vs Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi & Anr on 27 January, 1977 - 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\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Maharashtra vs Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi & Anr on 27 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2\" \/>\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=\"1977-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-24T06:59:22+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi & Anr on 27 January, 1977\",\"datePublished\":\"1977-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-24T06:59:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2\"},\"wordCount\":3097,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2\",\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi & Anr on 27 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1977-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-24T06:59:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi & Anr on 27 January, 1977\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Maharashtra vs Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi & Anr on 27 January, 1977 - 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\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Maharashtra vs Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi & Anr on 27 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1977-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-24T06:59:22+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Maharashtra vs Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi & Anr on 27 January, 1977","datePublished":"1977-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-24T06:59:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2"},"wordCount":3097,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2","name":"State Of Maharashtra vs Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi & Anr on 27 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1977-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-24T06:59:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-bhalchandra-khanderao-joshi-anr-on-27-january-1977-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Maharashtra vs Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi & Anr on 27 January, 1977"}]},{"@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\/268105","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=268105"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268105\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}