{"id":36073,"date":"2010-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-09T06:19:50","modified_gmt":"2017-08-09T00:49:50","slug":"the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
The Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: S.A. Bobde, V. A. Naik<\/div>\n
    WP 4771\/09                                        1                            Judgment\n\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                         Writ Petition NO. 4771\/2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    1.           The Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti,\n                 Shirala, through its President, \n                 R\/o Shirala, Tq. And District :\n                 Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    2.           Late Bhagirathibai Deshmukh\n                 Jr. College, through its Principal\n                 Rathi Nagar, Shegaon Naka,\n                            \n                 Tq. and District : Amravati.                                PETITIONERS\n\n                                    .....VERSUS.....\n                           \n    1.           The State of Maharashtra,\n                 Department of School Education and Sports,\n                 through its Secretary, Mantralaya,\n      \n\n\n                 Mumbai.\n   \n\n\n\n    2.           Deputy Director of Education, \n                 Amravati Division, Amravati.\n\n    3.           Dinesh Umraoji Korde,\n                 Aged about 41 years, Occ: service,\n\n\n\n\n\n                 R\/o Khairy Post, Kalashi,\n                 Tq. Daryapur, District : Amravati.                         RESPONDENTS\n\n                                   ______________________________________________ \n                            Mr. A.S. Kilor, counsel for the petitioners.\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent \n                                            nos. 1 and 2.\n                      Mr. V.A. Kothale, counsel for the respondent no.3.\n\n                 CORAM  : S.A. BOBDE  AND\n                          SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                th
\n                 DATE     :  19
\n                                   JANUARY, 2010
\n                                                .\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:36 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
     WP 4771\/09                                      2                              Judgment<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.A. BOBDE, J.)<\/p>\n
                  RULE.  Rule returnable forthwith.  Heard by consent.\n<\/p>\n
    2.            The petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.06.2009 <\/p>\n
    by which the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati <\/p>\n
    has directed the petitioner-management, inter alia, to pay salary for the <\/p>\n
    years 1997-98 and 2000-01 to the respondent no.3-teacher.  The Deputy <\/p>\n
    Director of Education has also held that the respondent no.3’s approval <\/p>\n
    has rightly been rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    3.            The petitioners appointed the respondent no.3 as a teacher <\/p>\n
    and the appointment was made subject to the approval of the Education <\/p>\n
    Department in accordance with law.   It appears that the salary was not <\/p>\n
    paid   to   the   respondent   no.3   for   the   years   1997-98   and   2000-01.     It <\/p>\n
    appears that since the Department did not approve the services of the <\/p>\n
    respondent no.3, the salary was not paid for the year 1997-98 and 2000-\n<\/p>\n
    01.  There is no dispute that the respondent no.3 has not been in service <\/p>\n
    from 2001-02.\n<\/p>\n
    4.            The   respondent   no.3,   thereafter,   filed   a   Writ   Petition <\/p>\n
    No.5794\/2006 and this Court by an order dated 27.04.2009 directed the <\/p>\n
    respondent therein to consider the question of approval after hearing the <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:36 :::<\/span>
\n     WP 4771\/09                                     3                              Judgment<\/p>\n
    parties.  This Court did not grant the prayer made in the writ petition for <\/p>\n
    payment of salary.\n<\/p>\n
    5.            Thereafter, the matter was decided by the Deputy Director of <\/p>\n
    Education, who  has, by the impugned  order, held  that the respondent <\/p>\n
    no.3’s approval was rightly rejected but, has directed the management to <\/p>\n
    pay salary to the respondent no.3 for the years 1997-98 and 2000-01.\n<\/p>\n
    6.<\/p>\n
                  Mr. Kilor, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted <\/p>\n
    that the order of the Deputy Director of Education, to the extent that it <\/p>\n
    directs payment of salary, is without jurisdiction and in any case void for <\/p>\n
    want of notice to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause why <\/p>\n
    salary should not be directed to be paid.  The salary for the year 1997-98 <\/p>\n
    and 2000-01 could not have been directed to be paid by the order passed <\/p>\n
    in pursuance of a claim, made for the first time in the year 2006 in the <\/p>\n
    aforesaid   writ   petition   and   eventually   granted   by   an   order   dated <\/p>\n
    09.06.2009.\n<\/p>\n
    7.            Having considered  the  matter, we are of the  view  that the <\/p>\n
    Deputy Director of Education did not have the power to recover the salary <\/p>\n
    and direct it to be paid to the respondent no.3.  The law does not confer <\/p>\n
    any   such   power   on   the   Deputy   Director   of   Education.     Moreover,   the <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:36 :::<\/span>
\n     WP 4771\/09                                            4                               Judgment<\/p>\n
    claim for unpaid salary for the years 1997-98 and 2000-01 was barred by <\/p>\n
    the delay and laches.  It is settled law that a money claim, which is barred <\/p>\n
    by limitation, cannot be directed to be paid over to the claimant on the <\/p>\n
    principle that limitation bars the remedy and not the right.  In this case, <\/p>\n
    the respondent no.3 raised the demand for salary by way of writ petition <\/p>\n
    for the first time in the year 2006. That claim was not adjudicated upon <\/p>\n
    in the writ petition.   Suffice it to say, it was barred even at that stage.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter, the order has been passed by the Education Officer in the year <\/p>\n
    2009.  It is, thus, clear that the claim for unpaid salary is barred by law <\/p>\n
    and in any case could not have been granted by the Education Officer.  In <\/p>\n
    the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & another  Versus  Shah Hyder  <\/p>\n
    Beig   &   others,   reported   in  2001   (I)   SCALE   124,   the   Supreme   Court <\/p>\n
    observed in paragraph 13 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                   “It is now well-settled principle of law and we need not dilate on  <\/p>\n
    this score to the effect that while no period of limitation is fixed but in the  <\/p>\n
    normal course of events, the period, the party is required for filing a civil  <\/p>\n
    proceeding   ought   to   be   the   guiding   factor.     While   it   is   true   that   this  <\/p>\n
    extraordinary jurisdiction is available to mitigate the sufferings of the people  <\/p>\n
    in   general   but   it   is   not   out   of   place   to   mention   that   this   extraordinary  <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction has been conferred on to the law courts under Article 226 of the  <\/p>\n
    Constitution   on   a   very   sound   equitable   principle.     Hence,   the   equitable  <\/p>\n
    doctrine,   namely,   ‘delay   defects   equity’   has   its   fullest   application   in   the  <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:36 :::<\/span>
\n     WP 4771\/09                                           5                               Judgment<\/p>\n
    matter   of   grant   of   relief   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution.     The  <\/p>\n
    discretionary relief can be had provided one has not by his act or conduct  <\/p>\n
    given   a   go-bye   to   his   rights.   Equity   favours   a   vigilant   rather   than   an  <\/p>\n
    indolent litigant and this being the basic tenet of law, the question of grant  <\/p>\n
    of   an   order   as   has   been   passed   in   the   matter   as   regards   restoration   of  <\/p>\n
    possession upon cancellation of the notification does not and cannot arise.”\n<\/p>\n
    8.             We, thus, have no hesitation in holding that the respondent <\/p>\n
    no.3’s claim for unpaid salary was barred and in any case could not have <\/p>\n
    been granted by the Deputy Director of Education.\n<\/p>\n
    9.             Mr.   Kothale,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   no.3, <\/p>\n
    submitted that the limitation for claiming salary began to run from the <\/p>\n
    date,   a   decision   was   taken   on   the   approval   of   the   respondent   no.3’s <\/p>\n
    service.\n<\/p>\n
    10.            It is not possible to accept this argument since even by the <\/p>\n
    impugned  order, the  respondent no.3’s service  has not been approved.\n<\/p>\n
    Even   otherwise,   the   liability   to   pay   the   salary   is   not   made   dependent <\/p>\n
    upon the approval of the service of a teacher.  In this view of the matter, <\/p>\n
    Rule   is   made   absolute   in   terms   of   prayer   clause   (1),   which   reads   as <\/p>\n
    follows.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:31:36 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
     WP 4771\/09                                    6                             Judgment<\/p>\n
                 Issue any appropriate writ, order or directions in the <\/p>\n
                 nature of mandamus and thereby quash and set aside <\/p>\n
                 impugned   order   dated   09.06.2009   (Annexure-I), <\/p>\n
                 passed   by   the   respondent   no.2   Deputy   Director   of <\/p>\n
                 Education,   Amravati   Division,  Amravati  to   the   extent <\/p>\n
                 the   respondent   no.2   has   directed   the   petitioners   to <\/p>\n
                 deposit amount of arrears of salary within 30 days from <\/p>\n
                 the date of the order in favour of respondent no.3, in <\/p>\n
                 the interest of justice.\n<\/p>\n
    11.          The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.   No order as to <\/p>\n
    costs.\n<\/p>\n
                               JUDGE                                     JUDGE \n\n\n\n\n\n    APTE\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:31:36 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court The Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2010 Bench: S.A. Bobde, V. A. Naik WP 4771\/09 1 Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition NO. 4771\/2009 1. The Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti, Shirala, through its President, R\/o Shirala, Tq. And District […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36073","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 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\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-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=\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-09T00:49:50+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-09T00:49:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1024,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010\",\"name\":\"The Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-09T00:49:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 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":"The Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 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\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-09T00:49:50+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-09T00:49:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010"},"wordCount":1024,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010","name":"The Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-09T00:49:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-shikshan-samiti-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 January, 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\/36073","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=36073"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36073\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}