{"id":33608,"date":"1969-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969"},"modified":"2015-07-15T20:25:31","modified_gmt":"2015-07-15T14:55:31","slug":"board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969","title":{"rendered":"Board Of High School &amp; &#8230; vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava &amp; &#8230; on 20 November, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Board Of High School &amp; &#8230; vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava &amp; &#8230; on 20 November, 1969<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1039, \t\t  1970 SCR  (3) 266<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL &amp; INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, U.P. &amp; OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKUMARI CHITTRA SRIVASTAVA &amp; OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n20\/11\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nMITTER, G.K.\nSHAH, J.C.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR 1039\t\t  1970 SCR  (3) 266\n\n\nACT:\nNatural\t Justice-Board\tof  examination\t cancelling   result\nwithout of opportunity to candidate-Notice if necessary.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent appeared in the Intermediate examination\t and\npassed, but the appellant, instead of declaring her  result,\naddressed a letter on May 24, 1961, to the Principal of\t the\ncollege\t in  which  the\t Respondent  was  studying,   making\nenquiries regarding the respondent's attendance.   According\nto  the\t regulations,  a candidate must attend\t75%  of\t the\nlectures  given\t in  each subject.  The\t Principal,  by\t her\nletter dated June 14, 1961, replied that the respondent\t was\nat  one\t time short of attendance, that she  made  good\t the\n'shortage  in all subjects except one, but the\tshortage  in\nthat  subject  was due to the fact that\t lectures  Were\t not\ngiven in that subject the lecturer having been on leave.  By\nits  letter dated July 6, 1961, the appellant cancelled\t the\nrespondent's  result  and  no  reference  was  made  to\t the\nPrincipal's letter in the appellant's letter.\nThe  respondent thereupon filed a writ petition\t challenging\nthe  appellant's order cancelling the result, and  the\tHigh\nCourt allowed the petition.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD : The appellant should have given an opportunity to the\nrespondent  to present her case and pursuade  the  appellant\nnot to cancel her result. [269 C]\nWhether\t a duty arises in a particular case to issue a\tshow\ncause notice before inflicting a penalty does not depend  on\nthe authority's satisfaction that the person to be penalised\nhas no defence but On the nature of the order proposed to be\npassed.\t  In the present case, the impugned order imposed  a\npenalty\t on the respondent as she was denied the  fruits  of\nher   labour,  and  when  passing  it,\tthe  appellant\t was\nexercising quasi-judicial functions. [269 D-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1191 of 1967.<br \/>\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nMay  23, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Special  Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 592 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n<p>C. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Rana, for the appellants.<br \/>\nThe respondent did not appear.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court as delivered by<br \/>\nSikri,\tJ. This appeal by special leave is directed  against<br \/>\nthe judgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby it  allowed<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">267<\/span><br \/>\nwrit  petition\tfile  by  the  respondent,  Kumari   Chittra<br \/>\nSrivastava,  hereinafter referred to as the petitioner,\t and<br \/>\nquashed the impugned order but left it open to the Board  of<br \/>\nHigh School and Intermediate Education, hereinafter referred<br \/>\nto  as\tthe Board, to reconsider the case after\t giving\t the<br \/>\npetitioner a chance to offer her explanation.<br \/>\nThe  facts  are not in dispute and the only  question  which<br \/>\narises\tis whether in the circumstances the  petitioner\t was<br \/>\nentitled to an opportunity to represent her case before\t the<br \/>\nBoard prior to the passing of the impugned order.<br \/>\nThe  relevant facts in brief are these.\t The petitioner\t was<br \/>\nin  1959-60 session a student of Basant\t Girls\tIntermediate<br \/>\nCollege,   Varanasi.   She  appeared  at  the\tIntermediate<br \/>\nexamination  in\t 1960  but  failed.   She  then\t joined\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  Inter  College for Girls at Jaunpur.   Her\tname\n<\/p>\n<p>-was sent up for Intermediate examination to be held in 1961<br \/>\nby  the Principal.  She appeared in the examination but\t her<br \/>\nresult was not declared by the Board.  On May 24, 1961,\t the<br \/>\nBoard  addressed a letter to the Principal making  enquiries<br \/>\nregarding  the attendance of the petitioner.   According  to<br \/>\nthe  regulations  framed by the Board no  candidate  can  be<br \/>\npresented for the Intermediate examination unless he\/she has<br \/>\nattended  during two academical years 75% of lectures  given<br \/>\nin  each subject in which the candidate is to  be  examined.<br \/>\nIn the case of a failed candidate, like the petitioner,\t the<br \/>\npercentage shall be calculated for one academical year,\t but<br \/>\nRegulation   5(xiii)  enables  the  head  of  a\t  recognised<br \/>\ninstitution  to\t condone the deficiency\t in  certain  cases.<br \/>\nThis regulation reads<br \/>\n&#8220;(xiii)\t The  rule  regarding minimum  attendance  shall  be<br \/>\nstrictly  enforced.  The head of the recognised\t institution<br \/>\nmay condone a deficiency in attendance of not more than\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)  ten days in the case of a candidate for the High School<br \/>\nExamination; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)  ten lectures (including periods -of practical work,  if<br \/>\nany)  given in each subject in the case of a  candidate\t for<br \/>\nthe Intermediate Examination.\n<\/p>\n<p>All  cases  in which this privilege is\texercised  shall  be<br \/>\nreported to the Director of Education as the Chairman of the<br \/>\nBoard.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  the\t cases\tof  failed  or\tdetained  candidates   whose<br \/>\nattendance  of\tone  year will be taken\t into  account,\t the<br \/>\nshortage to be condoned shall be reduced to half.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">268<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The  Principal received the letter when on vacation  outside<br \/>\nJaunpur.   The\tPrincipal replied on June 14,  1961,  saying<br \/>\nthat a proper reply to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the letter will<br \/>\nbe sent after July 8, 1961.  She, however, stated<br \/>\n&#8220;When  Km.  Chitra Srivastava absented herself for a  pretty<br \/>\nlong  period  on account of her illness, the  position\t:was<br \/>\nexplained  to her, besides informing her guardian  also\t who<br \/>\nwas  even  called  to the office  and  acquainted  with\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances.\t At  that time, it was possible for  her  to<br \/>\nmake good this shortage by her regular attendance.<br \/>\nThe teacher in Home Science took leave in February, 1961.<br \/>\nChitra\twas short in attendance in other subjects also,\t but<br \/>\nshe made good the shortage by her regular attendance.  When,<br \/>\nduring\tthe  days the classes were held, lectures  in  other<br \/>\nsubjects were held and the girl attended there, it was,\t not<br \/>\nconsidered  proper  to\tdetain her  from  appearing  at\t the<br \/>\nexamination  on\t account of her absence from lectures  in  a<br \/>\nsubject in which the required lectures were not held.<br \/>\nI  got\tthe  student admitted to the examination  as  I\t was<br \/>\nconfident that the officers of the Board will agree with  my<br \/>\nview.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  substance\tof  the\t letter was  that  the\tshortage  in<br \/>\nlectures was due to the lecturer taking leave.<br \/>\nThe Board was, however, impatient.  It is not clear  whether<br \/>\nthis  letter was received by the Board because no  reference<br \/>\nto  it is made in the letter dated July 6, 1961.  The  Board<br \/>\nwrote:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;In  continuation of this office letter No. E.I.\/617,  dated<br \/>\n24th May, 1961 and telegram dated 24th May, 1961 1 have\t the<br \/>\nhonour\tto  inform that you have not furnished\tthe  desired<br \/>\ninformation  about the student Km.  Chitra Srivastava,\troll<br \/>\nno.  50452.  From your previous letter No. 143\/E  dated\t 6th<br \/>\nMay,  1961,&#8217; it is learnt that the admission of the  student<br \/>\nby  you\t to the examination. by condoning her  absence\tfrom<br \/>\nseven  lectures on the subject of Home Science was  contrary<br \/>\nto rules.  Hence the student&#8217;s Inter Examination of 1961  is<br \/>\ncancelled.   Kindly  communicate this to the  student  under<br \/>\nintimation to this office.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    269<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The  Principal replied on July 11, 1961, giving\t details  of<br \/>\nthe  lectures  attended\t and requested\tthat  the  order  be<br \/>\ncancelled  and the severe punishment be not awarded  to\t the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>On  October 6, 1961, the petitioner filed a  petition  under<br \/>\nArt. 226 of the Constitution challenging the impugned  order<br \/>\ndated July 6, 1961.  Mathur, J., dismissed it summarily.  On<br \/>\nappeal, Srivastava and Katju, JJ., allowed the petition,  as<br \/>\nmentioned  earlier.  They were of the view that\t the  Board,<br \/>\nwhile cancelling the examination, acted in a  quasi-judicial<br \/>\ncapacity.   The\t Board was &#8220;by\tcancelling  the\t examination<br \/>\ninflicting  a penalty&#8221; and if opportunity had been given  to<br \/>\nthe petitioner to present her case she might have  persuaded<br \/>\nthe Board not to cancel the examination.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. C. B.  Aggarwal.<br \/>\ncontends that the facts are not in dispute and it is further<br \/>\nclear  that no useful purpose would have been served if\t the<br \/>\nBoard had served a show-cause notice on the petitioner.\t  He<br \/>\nsays  that  in\tview  of  these\t circumstances\tit  was\t not<br \/>\nnecessary for the Board to have issued a show-cause notice-.<br \/>\nWe  are\t unable to accept this contention.  Whether  a\tduty<br \/>\narises\tin&#8211;a particular case to issue a show  cause  notice<br \/>\nbefore\t inflicting  a\tpenalty\t does  not  depend  on\t the<br \/>\nauthority&#8217;s satisfaction that the person to be penalised has<br \/>\nno  defence  but on the nature of the order proposed  to  be<br \/>\npassed.\n<\/p>\n<p>We agree with the High Court that the impugned order imposed<br \/>\na  penalty.  The petitioner has appeared in the\t examination<br \/>\nand answered all the question papers.  According to her\t she<br \/>\nhad passed.  To deny her the fruits of her labour cannot but<br \/>\nto  be\tcalled a penalty.  We are unable to  appreciate\t the<br \/>\ncontention  that the Board, in &#8220;cancelling her\texamination&#8221;<br \/>\nwas  not  exercising quasijudicial functions.\tThe  learned<br \/>\ncounsel urges that this would be, casting a heavy burden  on<br \/>\nthe Board.  Principles of natural justice are to some  minds<br \/>\nburdensome  but\t this price-a small price indeed-has  to  be<br \/>\npaid if we desire a society governed by the rule of law.  We<br \/>\nshould not be taken to have decided that this rule will also<br \/>\napply\twhen  a\t candidate  is\trefused\t admission   to\t  an<br \/>\nexamination.   We are not concerned with this  question\t and<br \/>\nsay nothing about it.\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned counsel invites us to hold that the decision  of<br \/>\nthe Board was on the facts correct and that the Board had no<br \/>\npower to condone the shortage of 2 lectures.  But we decline<br \/>\nto  into these questions.  We are not sitting as a court  of<br \/>\nappeal\tand  it is for the Board to decide after  giving  an<br \/>\nopportunity  to\t the petitioner and pass such orders  as  it<br \/>\nthinks\tfit.   Whether\tit  has the  power  to\tcondone\t the<br \/>\nshortage  of  lectures\tis for it, at  least  in  the  first<br \/>\ninstance, to decide.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">270<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The  learned  counsel  further invites us to  say  that\t the<br \/>\npossible courses which the petitioner&#8217;s counsel had outlined<br \/>\nbefore\tthe High Court will not be legal or justified.\t The<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s  counsel had pointed out that the\tBoard  could<br \/>\nhave been persuaded to adopt -some of the following courses<br \/>\n&#8220;(1) To accept the explanation of the principal as valid.<br \/>\n(2)  To\t condone  the  shortage of two\tlectures  which\t the<br \/>\nPrincipal could not condone.  The question whether the Board<br \/>\nhad  power  to condone shortage was raised in the  Board  of<br \/>\nHigh   School  and  Intermediate  Education  Uttar   Pradesh<br \/>\nAllahabad and others versus G. Vishwanath Nayar but was\t not<br \/>\ndecided\t and was left open.  It -is urged on behalf  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant  that\t the  power  to\t admit\ta  candidate  to  an<br \/>\nexamination  vests  in\tthe  Board.  -The  Regulations\tonly<br \/>\nprovide\t the extent to which shortage in attendance  can  be<br \/>\ncondoned by the heads of institutions.\tThere is nothing  in<br \/>\nthe  Regulations to limit -the power of the Board itself  to<br \/>\nadmit a candidate to an examination after condoning shortage<br \/>\nwhich could -not be condoned by the head of the institution.<br \/>\n(3)  After noting that a technical breach of rules had\tbeen<br \/>\ncommitted the Board or the Chairman may have decided not  to<br \/>\ntake any action.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)  The  Board\t may  have  framed  a  new  regulation\twith<br \/>\nretrospective  effect  either  permitting the  head  of\t the<br \/>\ninstitution to condone a shortage in a case like that of the<br \/>\nappellant  or  permitting  the\tBoard  itself  to  make\t the<br \/>\nnecessary condonation in such cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>(5)  The   Board   could   have\t  given\t  an   authoritative<br \/>\ninterpretation of the words &#8216;lectures given&#8217; in clause (iii)<br \/>\nof regulation 5 of chapter XII and decided whether the words<br \/>\ncovered such cases where the students were present to attend<br \/>\nthe  lecture  but it could not be arranged because  of\tsome<br \/>\nunavoidable reason.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>But,  like  the\t High  Court, we  are  not  called  upon  to<br \/>\npronounce  on  their  legality or  appropriateness  at\tthis<br \/>\nstage.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  the\t result the appeal fails and is dismissed.   As\t the<br \/>\npetitioner (now respondent) is not represented there will be<br \/>\nno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.P.S.\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">271<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Board Of High School &amp; &#8230; vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava &amp; &#8230; on 20 November, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1039, 1970 SCR (3) 266 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL &amp; INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, U.P. &amp; OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: KUMARI CHITTRA SRIVASTAVA &amp; OTHERS DATE OF [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Board Of High School &amp; ... vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava &amp; ... on 20 November, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Board Of High School &amp; ... vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava &amp; ... on 20 November, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-15T14:55:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Board Of High School &amp; &#8230; vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava &amp; &#8230; on 20 November, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-15T14:55:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969\"},\"wordCount\":1636,\"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\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969\",\"name\":\"Board Of High School &amp; ... vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava &amp; ... on 20 November, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-15T14:55:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Board Of High School &amp; &#8230; vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava &amp; &#8230; on 20 November, 1969\"}]},{\"@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":"Board Of High School &amp; ... vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava &amp; ... on 20 November, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Board Of High School &amp; ... vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava &amp; ... on 20 November, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-15T14:55:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Board Of High School &amp; &#8230; vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava &amp; &#8230; on 20 November, 1969","datePublished":"1969-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-15T14:55:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969"},"wordCount":1636,"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\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969","name":"Board Of High School &amp; ... vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava &amp; ... on 20 November, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-15T14:55:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-kumari-chittra-srivastava-on-20-november-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Board Of High School &amp; &#8230; vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava &amp; &#8230; on 20 November, 1969"}]},{"@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\/33608","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=33608"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33608\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}