{"id":33905,"date":"2010-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-12T03:46:08","modified_gmt":"2017-07-11T22:16:08","slug":"kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kantilal Meena vs M.D.S. Uni.& Anr on 9 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Kantilal Meena vs M.D.S. Uni.& Anr on 9 February, 2010<\/div>\n
                              1\n\n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATAURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                    AT JODHPUR.\n\n                         ORDER.\n\n\n      Kanti Lal Meena       Vs.       Maharishi Dayanand\n                                      Saraswati University\n                                      & anr.\n\n                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1253\/2000 under\n          Article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n\n\n     Date of Order:                   February 9th, 2010.\n\n                       PRESENT\n           HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.\n             HON'BLE MR. H.R. Panwar, J.\n           Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari,J.\n\nMr. Harish Purohit for the petitioner.\nMr. R.L. Jangid, Addl. Advocate General.\nMr. Mukesh Rajpurohit for respondent.\n\n\nBY THE COURT ( Per Hon'ble Mr.Tatia,J):<\/pre>\n
     The substantial question of law referred to the larger<\/p>\n
Bench is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “Whether the select list for admission or for
\n          service, where it is required to be prepared
\n          state-wise, can be prepared district-wise ?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The facts in short are       that the petitioner sought<\/p>\n
admission to appear in Pre-Teachers Education Test (for<\/p>\n
short “PTET”) in the year 1999. These tests were conducted<\/p>\n
for the purpose of admission in various different Teachers<\/p>\n
Training Colleges for Bachelors Degree in Education. The<\/p>\n
petitioner was a member of Schedule Tribe and he disclosed<\/p>\n
so in his application form and according to the petitioner,
\n                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
admission letter was also issued to the petitioner with<\/p>\n
specific note on the left top corner of the admission letter<\/p>\n
mentioning that it is for member of Schedule Tribe. The<\/p>\n
result of the PTET was declared by the respondent-<\/p>\n
University   and the petitioner was declared successful and<\/p>\n
according to the petitioner, in the category of Schedule<\/p>\n
Tribe. The petitioner was permitted to take admission in<\/p>\n
Mahant   Shree     Raghunandan   Dass      Teachers    Training<\/p>\n
College, Dungarpur. However, in the said admission letter,<\/p>\n
the petitioner was shown in the category of candidate of<\/p>\n
Dependent     of   Defence    Personnel.     The      petitioner<\/p>\n
immediately contacted the officer-in-charge for the PTET,<\/p>\n
1999 and the officer-in-charge of the PTET immediately<\/p>\n
made correction in the admission letter and his category<\/p>\n
was changed from candidate of Dependent of Defence<\/p>\n
Personnel to candidate in the category of Schedule Tribe.<\/p>\n
The petitioner, then took admission in the College referred<\/p>\n
above at Dungarpur. The petitioner then deposited the fees<\/p>\n
and he started pursuing his studies allowed by the said<\/p>\n
College at Dungarpur. However, the petitioner and the said<\/p>\n
college received registered letter on 22.10.1999, whereby<\/p>\n
the officer-in-charge PTET, conveyed to the Principal of the<\/p>\n
said College of Dungarpur that if the petitioner does not<\/p>\n
produce the certificate of Dependent of Defence Personnel,<\/p>\n
his admission be cancelled. The petitioner then challenged
\n                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
the said action of the respondent by preferring S.B.Civil Writ<\/p>\n
Petition No.4467\/99. In said writ petition, the petitioner was<\/p>\n
allowed     to   continue   the   studies    and,   ultimately,   the<\/p>\n
respondent’s       order,   cancellation    of   admission   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner, was quashed in the petitioner’s Writ Petition<\/p>\n
No.4467\/99.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     In the      reply to the Writ Petition No.4467\/99, it was<\/p>\n
submitted by the respondents that the petitioner was<\/p>\n
otherwise not eligible for admission to the B.Ed. Course as<\/p>\n
the petitioner secured only 270 marks which was below the<\/p>\n
cut off marks in the category of Schedule Tribe for the<\/p>\n
District Dungarpur whereas cut off marks for admission to<\/p>\n
B.Ed. College in the District of Dungarpur was 334. This<\/p>\n
Court in the petitioner’s Writ Petition No.4467\/99 observed<\/p>\n
that if the petitioner is not otherwise qualified then the<\/p>\n
respondents will be free to take action against the petitioner<\/p>\n
on   the    said    ground.    The    respondents     then   started<\/p>\n
proceedings      for   cancellation of      the admission of      the<\/p>\n
petitioner to the B.Ed. Course on the ground that in district-<\/p>\n
wise, the merit list prepared for the admission to the course<\/p>\n
of B.Ed.,    the petitioner was not eligible. Faced with this<\/p>\n
situation, the petitioner preferred this writ petition and<\/p>\n
stated that the merit list for the admission to the course of<\/p>\n
B.Ed. could have been prepared only state-wise and not
\n                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
district-wise. The petitioner’s contention is that in other<\/p>\n
districts of the State of Rajasthan number of candidates<\/p>\n
have been given admission in the B.Ed. Course who secured<\/p>\n
less marks than the petitioner. Earlier the issue for<\/p>\n
admission to the B.Ed. Course came up for consideration<\/p>\n
before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of<\/p>\n
Mahavir Prasad Jangid vs. State of Rajasthan &<\/a> anr. and<\/p>\n
other 214 connected writ petitions. The Division Bench of<\/p>\n
this Court vide judgment dated 23.11.1987, held the<\/p>\n
district-wise preparation of the merit list for the purpose of<\/p>\n
grant of admission to the B.Ed. Colleges is just and legal<\/p>\n
and is not arbitrary or ultra vires.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     When the present petition came up for consideration<\/p>\n
before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted that the<\/p>\n
view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of<\/p>\n
Mahavir Prasad Jangid(supra) is contrary to the judgment of<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the cases of Govind A.<\/p>\n
Mahe & ors. v. State of Maharashtra & ors. ( JT 2000(4) SC<\/p>\n
384),   Minor p. Rajendran v. State of Madras and others<\/p>\n
(AIR 1968 SC 1012) and Minor A. Periakaruppan v. State<\/p>\n
of Tamil Nadu & ors.<\/a> ( AIR 1971 SC 2303). In view of above<\/p>\n
judgments, issue has been referred to the larger Bench as<\/p>\n
stated above.\n<\/p>\n
                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
     We considered the submissions of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the parties and perused the judgments of the Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Mahavir Prasad<\/p>\n
Jangid(supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex<\/p>\n
Court delivered in the case of Govind A. Mane(supra),Minor<\/p>\n
p. Rajendran(supra) and Minor A. Periakaruppan(supra).<\/p>\n
     Govind A. Mane’s case was decided on the basis of<\/p>\n
earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in<\/p>\n
the cases of (1) Minor p. Rajendran v. State of Madras and<\/p>\n
others (AIR 1968 SC 1012) and (2) Minor A. Periakaruppan<\/p>\n
v. State of Tamil Nadu & ors.<\/a> ( AIR 1971 SC 2303). It will<\/p>\n
be worthwhile to consider the judgment of the five Judges<\/p>\n
Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of<\/p>\n
Minor P. Rajendran(supra) first. In the said case, the<\/p>\n
Madras High Court promulgated the Rules for selection of<\/p>\n
candidates for admission to the first year integrated<\/p>\n
M.B.B.S. Course. There was large rush of the candidates for<\/p>\n
admission to the Medical Colleges in the State of Madras,<\/p>\n
while the seats were limited. In view of this situation, the<\/p>\n
State of Madras framed the Rules for admission to the<\/p>\n
candidates wherein provision was made for district-wise<\/p>\n
allocation   of   seats.   The   Hon’ble   Apex   Court,   while<\/p>\n
considering this issue, has held as under:-
\n                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
“The     question           whether           districtwise
\nallocation is violative of Article 14 will
\ndepend      on    what      is   the    object        to    be
\nachieved in the matter of admission to
\nmedical colleges. Considering the fact that
\nthere is a larger number of candidates than
\nseats available, selection has got to be
\nmade. The object of selection can only be
\nto secure the best possible material for
\nadmission        to   colleges        subject     to       the
\nprovision    for      socially    and      educationally
\nbackward          classes.        Further        whether
\nselection    is       from       the       socially        and
\neducationally backward classes or from the
\ngeneral pool, the object of selection must
\nbe to secure the best possible talent from
\nthe two sources. If that is the object, it
\nmust necessarily follow that that object
\nwould be defeated if seats are allocated
\ndistrict by district. It cannot be and has not
\nbeen denied that the object of selection is
\nto secure the best possible talent from the
\ntwo sources so that the country may have
\nthe best possible doctors. If that is the
\nobject, the argument on behalf of the
\npetitioners\/appellant is that that object
\ncannot possibly be served by allocating
\nseats districtwise. It is true that Article 14
\ndoes   not       forbid   classification,       but        the
\nclassification has to be justified on the basis
\nof the nexus between the nexus between
\nthe classification and the object to be
\nachieved, even assuming that territorial
\nclassification        may        be    a      reasonable
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
               classification. The fact however that the
\n               classification by itself is reasonable is not
\n               enough to support it unless there is nexus
\n               between the classification and the object to
\n               be achieved. Therefore, as the object to be
\n               achieved in a case of the kind with which
\n               we are concerned is to get the best talent
\n               for admission to professional colleges, the
\n               allocation    of       seats    districtwise   has   no
\n               reasonable relation with the object to be
\n               achieved. If anything, such allocation will
\n               result in many cases in the object being
\n               destroyed,     and         if    that   is     so,   the
\n               classification, even if reasonable, would
\n               result in discrimination, inasmuch as better
\n               qualified candidates from one district may
\n               be rejected while less qualified candidates
\n               from other districts may be admitted from
\n               either   of   the       two     sources.”    (emphasis
\n               supplied)<\/p>\n
     In the case of Minor A. Periakarupan(supra), Hon’ble<\/p>\n
the Apex Court, while considering the identical issue,<\/p>\n
observed that “Before a classification can be justified, it<\/p>\n
must be based on an objective criteria and further it must<\/p>\n
have reasonable nexus with the object intended to be<\/p>\n
achieved. The object intended to be achieved in the present<\/p>\n
case is to select the best candidates for being admitted to<\/p>\n
the Medical Colleges.” The above two decisions were<\/p>\n
followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Govind A
\n                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
Mane’s case(surpa).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     The facts of this case, already mentioned in earlier<\/p>\n
part of the judgment, clearly show that the petitioner<\/p>\n
denied admission to the B.Ed. Course because of only<\/p>\n
reason that in district-wise merit list he was not eligible for<\/p>\n
admission to B.Ed. Course, whereas the other candidates<\/p>\n
were given admission in other districts who secured less<\/p>\n
marks than the petitioner. The respondents submitted reply<\/p>\n
and relied upon admission rules 4 and 5, which provides to<\/p>\n
prepare the merit list district-wise and that too after taking<\/p>\n
into consideration the district from where the candidate<\/p>\n
passed the Secondary School Examination. According to the<\/p>\n
respondents, the petitioner since passed the Secondary<\/p>\n
School Examination from Dungarpur, therefore, his merit<\/p>\n
list was prepared at Dungarpur. From the reply filed by the<\/p>\n
State, we do not find any reason on the basis of which it<\/p>\n
has been decided to give admission to the B.Ed. Course<\/p>\n
after preparing merit list district-wise and no reason in<\/p>\n
support of any nexus to be achieved by providing such<\/p>\n
criteria for admission to the course of B.Ed. The B.Ed.<\/p>\n
Course is available to the candidates who shall ultimately be<\/p>\n
imparting education and shall be eligible for appointment to<\/p>\n
the post of teacher, obviously, in the entire State of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan, then there was no justification for giving
\n                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
preference to those candidates who secured less marks<\/p>\n
within the State in competitive examination for giving<\/p>\n
admission in the B.Ed. Course providing opportunity to<\/p>\n
become teachers in the entire State of Rajasthan. In view of<\/p>\n
the above reasons and in view of the judgments of the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred above, the decision of the<\/p>\n
Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Mahavir<\/p>\n
Prasad Jangid(supra) will not hold the field.<\/p>\n
     In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court, referred above, it is clear that the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India does not forbid the reasonable classification but the<\/p>\n
classification has to be justified on the basis       of nexus<\/p>\n
between the classification and the object to be achieved.<\/p>\n
The reasonableness in classification by itself is not enough<\/p>\n
to support the classification unless there is a nexus between<\/p>\n
the classification and the object to be achieved. The object<\/p>\n
to be achieved for admission to the technical course<\/p>\n
colleges, is to select best talent and the allocation of the<\/p>\n
seats district-wise has no reasonable relation with the<\/p>\n
object to be achieved. So far as second part of the above<\/p>\n
question is concerned, that refers the employment on the<\/p>\n
basis of district-wise merit list, that issue is not involved in<\/p>\n
the present facts of the case in any manner and, therefore,<\/p>\n
there is no need to answer this issue by the larger Bench.
\n                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
            The writ petition could have been sent to the Single<\/p>\n
       Bench of this Court after deciding the question referred to<\/p>\n
       the Larger Bench but since the petitioner has already<\/p>\n
       completed his studies in the B.Ed. Course by virtue of order<\/p>\n
       of this Court as an interim order, therefore, after nine years<\/p>\n
       of the petitioner’s obtaining the decree of B.Ed., this Court<\/p>\n
       finds no reason to send the matter back to the Single Bench<\/p>\n
       of this Court and it is proper to decide the writ petition<\/p>\n
       itself, as the law point has been decided in favour of the<\/p>\n
       petitioner, therefore, the action of the respondents seeking<\/p>\n
       cancellation of the admission of the petitioner to B.Ed.<\/p>\n
       Course cannot be justified and, therefore, it is held that the<\/p>\n
       petitioner was entitled to pursue his course of the B.Ed.<\/p>\n
       irrespective of the fact that in his District, he secured less<\/p>\n
       marks than the last candidate to whom admission was given<\/p>\n
       by preparing the district-wise merit list.<\/p>\n
            The question is answered, as above and the writ<\/p>\n
       petition of the petitioner is allowed in the terms referred<\/p>\n
       above.\n<\/p>\n
       (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.    (H.R. PANWAR),J.   ( PRAKASH TATIA), J.<\/p>\n
mlt.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Kantilal Meena vs M.D.S. Uni.& Anr on 9 February, 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATAURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ORDER. Kanti Lal Meena Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1253\/2000 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order: February 9th, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33905","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nKantilal Meena vs M.D.S. Uni.& Anr on 9 February, 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\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kantilal Meena vs M.D.S. Uni.& Anr on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-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=\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-11T22:16:08+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kantilal Meena vs M.D.S. Uni.& Anr on 9 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-11T22:16:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2109,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Kantilal Meena vs M.D.S. Uni.& Anr on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-11T22:16:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kantilal Meena vs M.D.S. Uni.& Anr on 9 February, 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":"Kantilal Meena vs M.D.S. Uni.& Anr on 9 February, 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\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kantilal Meena vs M.D.S. Uni.& Anr on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-11T22:16:08+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kantilal Meena vs M.D.S. Uni.& Anr on 9 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-11T22:16:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010"},"wordCount":2109,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010","name":"Kantilal Meena vs M.D.S. Uni.& Anr on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-11T22:16:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-meena-vs-m-d-s-uni-anr-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kantilal Meena vs M.D.S. Uni.& Anr on 9 February, 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\/33905","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=33905"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33905\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33905"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33905"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33905"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}