{"id":46986,"date":"2003-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003"},"modified":"2018-05-02T08:51:38","modified_gmt":"2018-05-02T03:21:38","slug":"kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & … vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & … vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: S V Patil<\/div>\n
Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3266 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nKendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRam Ratan Yadav\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/02\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nSHIVARAJ V. PATIL  & ARIJIT PASAYAT\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent was selected for the post of
\nPhysical Education Teacher.  An appointment order dated
\n16.12.1997 was issued to him.  On getting the
\nappointment order, he was required to fill in the
\nattestation form. As against column no. 12(I) of the
\nsaid attestation form, he mentioned “No” despite the
\nfact that a criminal case was pending against him in
\nthe court of law.  On the ground of suppression of
\nfactual information in the attestation form, his
\nservices were terminated by the Memorandum dated
\n7\/8.4.1999. He approached the Central Administrative
\nTribunal by filing O.A. No. 1150\/99 challenging the
\nsaid order of termination contending that he had
\neducation in Hindi medium and he is not well-conversant
\nwith English words.  As such, he failed to understand
\nthe meaning of the word ‘prosecution’ or ‘conviction’.
\nUnder the misconceived notion, he did not take note of
\nthe column no. 12 in the attestation form.  He also
\nsubmitted that whatever was done by him, was in order
\nto get employment because at the relevant time, he was
\nundergoing great difficulty.  It was his case that the
\nincident took place at Raipure Square (Jabalpur) where
\nnumber of persons were raising their grievances against
\nthe State authorities relating to non-grant of
\nearthquake relief;  he was not at all part of that mob;
\nwhile he was passing, a few demonstrators who were his
\nfriends pulled him into the mob; he, all of a sudden,
\nlater learnt that a case has been registered against
\nhim under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B read with
\nSection 34 IPC.\t The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. at the
\nadmission stage itself observing that “the intention
\nfor suppression and giving false information and the
\nexplanation following it that lack of knowledge in
\nEnglish resulted in the misunderstanding of the meaning
\nof the word ‘prosecution’ does not inspire any
\nconfidence in us.  In the instant case, the applicant
\nis a Graduate and a bare look of the Attestation
\nindicates that the applicant intentionally concealed
\nthe facts.  The Courts\/Tribunals are not to pat a
\nperson on his shoulders in a case where he is making
\nfalse statement to the authorities concerned for
\nobtaining employment.  In the circumstances, we are not
\ninclined to interfere with the impugned memorandum.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAggrieved by and not satisfied with the order of
\nthe Tribunal, the respondent approached the High Court
\nby filing a writ petition challenging the correctness
\nand validity of the same.  The Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court, after considering the respective
\ncontentions urged on behalf of the parties, allowed the
\nwrit petition, set aside the order passed by the
\nTribunal and held that the respondent shall be deemed
\nto be in service and entitled to consequential
\nbenefits.  In allowing the writ petition, the High
\nCourt observed thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“Non-mention of pending criminal case
\nin column\t12(I) of the attestation
\nform can be for the reasons stated by
\nthe petitioner; more so when the medium
\nof instructions in this State is
\nprimarily Hindi.  That apart, the
\ncriminal case in which the petitioner
\nwas involved, has been withdrawn by the
\nState Government.  That means, the case
\nwas not serious and involvement of
\nagitators in it was found for
\njustification, otherwise the case
\nagainst them would not have been
\nwithdrawn.  That apart, it did not
\ninvolve moral turpitude disqualifying
\nthe petitioner from seeking the
\nemployment.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe present appeal is directed against the said
\njudgment and order of the High Court made in the writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel for the appellants urged that
\nin terms of memorandum containing offer of appointment
\ndated 16.12.1997, the respondent was required to file
\nnecessary annexures and attestation forms if he was to
\naccept the offer of appointment as per the terms and
\nconditions stipulated as stated in para 8 of the said
\nmemorandum; para 9 of the said memorandum itself
\nclearly shows that suppression of any information will
\nbe considered a major offence for which the punishment
\nmay extend to dismissal from service.  He drew our
\nattention, in particular to column no. 12 of the
\nattestation form dated 26.6.1998; the learned counsel
\nfurther submitted that after proper consideration,
\ntaking note of his statement made in column nos. 12 and
\n13 of the attestation form in regard to verification of
\ncharacter and antecedents, memorandum dated 7\/8.4.1999
\nterminating services of the respondent was issued.  He
\ncontended that the High Court committed a serious error
\nin setting aside the order of the Tribunal on the
\nground that the medium of instruction of the respondent
\nbeing Hindi and that the criminal case had been
\nwithdrawn which was of not serious nature; the
\nrespondent having obtained the degrees of B.A., B.Ed.
\nand M.Ed., it could not be accepted that he could not
\nunderstand as to what is stated in column no. 12;
\nsubsequent withdrawal of criminal case or that the
\noffences were not serious were immaterial; the
\nquestion, whether on the date when he filed the
\nattestation form, the respondent suppressed the
\ninformation or made a false statement, was material.
\nThe learned counsel further added that the High Court
\nwas not justified in setting aside the order passed by
\nthe Tribunal exercising power of judicial review; the
\nHigh Court was also not right in relying upon the case
\nor Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda vs. Presiding
\nOfficer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and Anr.
\n(AIR<\/a> 1999 SCW 474) which was on the peculiar facts of
\nthat case.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel for the respondent made
\nsubmissions in support of the impugned order.
\nAccording to him, suppression of information was not
\ndeliberate; it was because of the respondent not
\ncorrectly understanding the contents of column no. 12
\nhaving studied in Hindi medium; he could not understand
\nthe terms like ‘prosecution’ and ‘conviction’ properly;
\nhe urged that suppression of information could be
\nconsidered as a major offence for which the punishment
\nmay extend to dismissal from service as per para 9 of
\nthe memorandum of offer of appointment but, dismissal
\nfrom service was not automatic; the appellant ought to
\nhave considered the case of the respondent before
\nterminating his services.  According to him, the High
\nCourt was right and justified in setting aside the
\norder of the Tribunal for the reasons stated in para 7
\nof the impugned order.\tHe urged that this Court may
\nnot interfere with the impugned order having regard to
\nnature of the offences in regard to which a criminal
\ncase was filed against the respondent which did not
\ninvolve any moral turpitude, the respondent having been
\nselected based on qualification and suitability and he
\nhaving put in one and a half years service.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn order to appreciate the respective contentions
\nadvanced on behalf of either side, it is necessary and
\nuseful to notice the terms of offer of appointment and
\nthe columns contained in the attestation form.
\nParagraph 8 of the memorandum containing offer to the
\nextent relevant reads:-\n<\/p>\n
“If he\/she accepts the offer on the
\nterms and conditions stipulated, he\/she
\nwould send her acceptance immediately to
\nthis office on receipt of this
\nmemorandum and join the Kendriya
\nVidyalaya mentioned overleaf.  Necessary
\nproforma for the purpose in Annexure I
\nto VI and attestation forms are enclosed
\nherewith which should be submitted to
\nthe concerned Principal, after getting
\nthe same duly completed in all
\nrespects.”\n<\/p>\n
\tPara 9 of the same memorandum is to the following
\neffect:\n<\/p>\n
“Suppression of any information will be
\nconsidered a major offence for which the
\npunishment may extend to dismissal from
\nthe service”.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe attestation form dated 26.6.1998 duly filled
\nin by the respondent and attestation show that the
\nrespondent has taken B.A. degree from St. Alyusius
\nCollege, JBP and B.Ed and M.Ed. degrees from
\nR.Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, JBP.  Column nos. 12 and
\n13 as filled up read thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“12.\tHave you ever been prosecuted\/
\n\tkept under detention or bound
\n\tdown\/fined convicted by a Court
\n\tof Law of any offence?\t\t\tNO<\/p>\n
13.\tIs any case pending against you
\n\tin any Court of Law at the time
\n\tof filing up this attestation form\tNO”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent has also certified the information
\ngiven in the said attestation form as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“I certify that the foregoing
\ninformation is correct and complete to
\nthe best of my knowledge and belief.  I
\nam not aware of any circumstances which
\nmight impair my fitness for employment
\nunder Government.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe memorandum dated 7\/8.4.1999 terminating the
\nservices of the respondent refers to column nos. 12 and
\n13 of the attestation form, the criminal case
\nregistered against the respondent on the basis of the
\nreport given to the appellants by IGI police,
\nsuppression of material information by the respondent
\nwhile submitting attestation form and violating the
\nclause stipulated under para 9 of the offer of
\nappointment issued to him, O.M. dated 1.7.1971 of
\nCabinet Secretary, Department of Personnel, New Delhi,
\nin which it is clearly mentioned that furnishing of
\nfalse information or suppression of factual information
\nin the attestation form would be disqualification and
\nis likely to render the candidate unfit for employment
\nunder the Government and that as per clause 4 of offer
\nof appointment, the respondent was on probation for a
\nperiod of two years and that his services were liable
\nto be terminated by one month’s notice.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is not in dispute that a criminal case
\nregistered under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B read
\nwith Section 34 IPC was pending on the date when the
\nrespondent filled the attestation form.\t Hence, the
\ninformation given by the respondent as against column
\nnos. 12 and 13 as “No” is plainly suppression of
\nmaterial information and it is also a false statement.
\nAdmittedly, the respondent is holder of B.A., B.Ed. and
\nM.Ed. degrees.\tAssuming even his medium of instruction
\nwas Hindi throughout, no prudent man can accept that he
\ndid not study English language at all at any stage of
\nhis education.\tIt is also not the case of the
\nrespondent that he did not study English at all.  If he
\ncould understand column nos. 1-11 correctly in the same
\nattestation form, it is difficult to accept his version
\nthat he could not correctly understand the contents of
\ncolumn nos. 12 and 13.\tEven otherwise, if he could not
\ncorrectly understand certain English words, in the
\nordinary course he could have certainly taken help of
\nsomebody.  This being the position, the Tribunal was
\nright in rejecting the contention of the respondent and
\nthe High Court committed a manifest error in accepting
\nthe contention that because the medium of instruction
\nof respondent was Hindi, he could not understand the
\ncontents of column nos. 12 and 13.  It is not the case
\nthat column nos. 12 and 13 are left blank.  The
\nrespondent could not have said “no” as against column
\nnos. 12 and 13 without understanding the contents.
\nSubsequent withdrawal of criminal case registered
\nagainst the respondent or the nature of offences, in
\nour opinion, were not material.\t The requirement of
\nfilling column nos. 12 and 13 of the attestation form
\nwas for the purpose of verification of character and
\nantecedents of the respondent as on the date of filling
\nand attestation of the form.  Suppression of material
\ninformation and making a false statement has a clear
\nbearing on the character and antecedents of the
\nrespondent in relation to his continuance in service.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe object of requiring information in columns 12
\nand 13 of the attestation form and certification
\nthereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify
\nthe character and antecedents to judge his suitability
\nto continue in service.\t A candidate having suppressed
\nmaterial information and\/or giving false information
\ncannot claim right to continue in service.  The
\nemployer having regard to the nature of the employment
\nand all other aspects had discretion to terminate his
\nservices, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of
\nthe offer of appointment.  The purpose of seeking
\ninformation as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find
\nout either the nature or gravity of the offence or the
\nresult of a criminal case ultimately.  The information
\nin the said columns was sought with a view to judge the
\ncharacter and antecedents of the respondent to continue
\nin service or not.  The High Court, in our view, has
\nfailed to see this aspect of the matter.  It went wrong
\nin saying that the criminal case had been subsequently
\nwithdrawn and that the offences, in which the
\nrespondent was alleged to have been involved, were also
\nnot of serious nature.\tIn the present case the
\nrespondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher
\nin Kendriya Vidyalaya.\tThe character, conduct and
\nantecedent of a teacher will have some impact on the
\nminds of the students of impressionable age.  The
\nappellants having considered all the aspects passed the
\norder of dismissal of the respondent from service.  The
\nTribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a
\nfinding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal
\npassed by the appellants.  The High Court was clearly
\nin error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal.  The
\nHigh Court was again not right in taking note of the
\nwithdrawal of the case by the State Government and that
\nthe case was not of a serious nature to set aside the
\norder of the Tribunal on that ground as well.  The
\nrespondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to
\nthe terms and conditions mentioned therein with his
\neyes wide open.\t Para 9 of the said memorandum
\nextracted above in clear terms kept the respondent
\ninformed that the suppression of any information may
\nlead to dismissal from service.\t In the attestation
\nform, the respondent has certified that the information
\ngiven by him is correct and complete to the best of his
\nknowledge and belief; if he could not understand the
\ncontents of column nos. 12 and 13, he could not certify
\nso.  Having certified that the information given by him
\nis correct and complete, his version cannot be
\naccepted.  The order of termination of services clearly
\nshows that there has been due consideration of various
\naspects.  In this view, the argument of the learned
\ncounsel for the respondent that as per para 9 of the
\nmemorandum, the termination of service was not
\nautomatic, cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court in passing the impugned order took
\nsupport of the judgment of this Court in Regional
\nManager, Bank of Baroda vs. Presiding Officer, Central
\nGovernment Industrial Tribunal and<\/a> another [(1999) 2
\nSCC 247].  The very judgment specifically stated,
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
“We make it clear that this order of
\nours is rendered on the peculiar facts
\nand circumstances of the case as
\nmentioned earlier and will not be
\ntreated as a precedent in future.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is unfortunate that the High Court treated the
\nsaid judgment as a precedent despite this Court’s
\nsaying that it will not be treated as a precedent in
\nfuture, while confining the said judgment to the
\npeculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
\n\tIn view of what is stated above and taking note of
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, we are not
\ninclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel
\nfor the respondent that this Court may not disturb the
\nimpugned order exercising jurisdiction under Article
\n136 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
In our considered view, the impugned judgment and
\norder of the High Court cannot be sustained.  Hence,
\nthe appeal is allowed.\tThe impugned judgment is set
\naside and the order passed by the Tribunal is restored.
\nNo costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & … vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003 Author: S V Patil Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3266 of 2001 PETITIONER: Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. RESPONDENT: Ram Ratan Yadav DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/02\/2003 BENCH: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & ARIJIT PASAYAT […]<\/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-46986","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & ... vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003 - 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\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & ... vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-02T03:21:38+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & … vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-02T03:21:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2557,\"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\\\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003\",\"name\":\"Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & ... vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-02T03:21:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & … vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & ... vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003 - 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\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & ... vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-02T03:21:38+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & … vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-02T03:21:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003"},"wordCount":2557,"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\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003","name":"Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & ... vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-02T03:21:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kendriya-vidyalaya-sangathan-vs-ram-ratan-yadav-on-26-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & … vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003"}]},{"@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\/46986","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=46986"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46986\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46986"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46986"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46986"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}