{"id":543,"date":"1992-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992"},"modified":"2015-07-02T13:58:57","modified_gmt":"2015-07-02T08:28:57","slug":"bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992","title":{"rendered":"Bhushan Uttam Khare vs Dean, B.J. Medical College And Ors on 28 January, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bhushan Uttam Khare vs Dean, B.J. Medical College And Ors on 28 January, 1992<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR  917, \t\t  1992 SCR  (1) 386<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Pandian<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Pandian, S.R. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBHUSHAN UTTAM KHARE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDEAN, B.J. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/01\/1992\n\nBENCH:\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\nBENCH:\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\nFATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR  917\t\t  1992 SCR  (1) 386\n 1992 SCC  (2) 220\t  JT 1992 (1)\t583\n 1992 SCALE  (1)191\n\n\nACT:\n     Poona  University\tAct, 1974- Ordinance 134A  and\t146-\nRevaluation  of\t answer\t books-Whether\tsecond\t revaluation\npermissible.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Consequent\t upon  the  announcement  of  his   M.B.B.S.\nExamination  result on 12.12.1990, the petitioner  alongwith\nother 166 students, applied for revaluation of answer  books\nunder\tUniversity  of\tPoona  Ordinance  134A.\t  When\t the\nrevaluation  results  were declared, certain  students\tmade\nrepresentation\tto  the\t University  Authorities  for  their\nanswer papers being revalued from the same set of examiners.\nThe  University\t on  consideration  of\tthat  representation\nappointed  a  Committee for scrutiny and to  reasses  theory\npapers\tof the students acquiring more than 20% marks  after\nrevaluation,  from  senior teachers of the  Faculty.   After\nscrutiny, it was found out that the marks are closer to\t the\noriginal  marks\t in  Medicine, Surgery\tand  Preventive\t and\nSocial\tMedicine.  The Committee therefore recommended\tthat\nthe  entire revaluation of the papers should  be  cancelled.\nThe  Executive Council by a resolution cancelled the  result\nof  the revaluation and directed fresh revaluation  and\t the\nsecond\trevaluation was done through the  examiners  outside\nthe  State  and the result declared on\tthe  basis  thereof.\nThe peritioner and others challenged the aforesaid  decision\nof the Executive Council cancelling the earlier\t revaluation\nand  directing\ta  second  revaluation\tby  means  of\twrit\npetitions.  It was contended before the High Court on behalf\nof the petitioners that the action of the Executive  Council\nwas arbitrary in as much as there was no malpractice,  fraud\nor   anything  objectionable  to  the  revaluation  as\t the\nexaminers  were\t chosen by the Vice-Chancellor\tas  enjoined\nunder the Ordinance.  Hence the cancellation of\t revaluation\nwas not proper.\t The High Court repelled the two contentions\nadvanced before it and dismissed the writ petitions.   Hence\nthis Petition for Special Leave to appeal.\n     Dismissing\t the Petition for special leave\t to  appeal,\nthis Court,\n     HELD: In deciding the matters relating to orders passed\nby authorities of educational institutions, the Court should\nnormally be\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       387\nvery slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters\nfalling\t within the jurisdiction of educational\t authorities\nshould\tnormally  be left to their decision  and  the  Court\nshould interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so\nin the interest of justice. [390 B]\n     Under Ordinance 134A, the Vice-Chancellor shall use his\ndiscretionary  power  to  decide  as  to  whether  all\t the\napplications   received from the candidates, considered\t for\nrevaluation  or\t not.\tIf as a\t result\t of  revaluation  of\nanswer-books,  the marks obtained by the candidate  increase\nover the original marks by 10% or more then only the  result\nof revaluation will be accepted by the University. [388 C-D]\n     Ordinance\t146  is\t comprehensive\tenough\tto   include\nrevaluation  also  for further action.\tThe  fact  that\t two\nexaminers  were\t also  the members of  the  Committee  which\nrecommended  for revaluation cannot result in any bias\teven\nif  they  had  been directly  concerned\t with  the  original\nevaluation.  It is true that in the second revaluation\talso\nthere  had been some changes between the original  valuation\nand the revaluation results.  However, it is not so  glaring\nor  demonstrably  unconscionable  as  seen   in\t the   first\nrevaluation. [390 D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special  leave  Petition<br \/>\n(Civil) No. 10330 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n<p>     From  the\tJudgement and Order dated  3.5.1991  of\t the<br \/>\nBomaby High ourt in writ Petition No. 186 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Kapil Sibal, Makrand D. Adkar and Ejaz Maqbool  for the<br \/>\nPetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>     R.D.  Tulpule, D.M. Nargolkar, Ms. Kiran Bhagalia,\t Ms.<br \/>\nV.D.Khanna and A.M. Khanwilkar for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Caveator-in-person.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The following Order of the Court was delivered.<br \/>\n     The  petitioner, Bhushan Uttam Khare, appeared for\t the<br \/>\nThird Year M.B.B.S. Examination held by University of  Poona<br \/>\nin  the\t months of October-November, 1990.  The\t results  of<br \/>\nthe   said examination were declared on 12.12.1990.  As\t per<br \/>\nUniversity  of Poona Ordinance 134A, the petitioner  applied<br \/>\nfor   revaluation  of  his  answer  papers.   167   students<br \/>\nincluding the petitioner had applied for revaluation.\tWhen<br \/>\nthe revaluation results were declared, certain students made<br \/>\nrepresentation\tto  the\t University  authorities  for  their<br \/>\nanswer papers being revaluate from the same set of examiners.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       388<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     On receipt of the representation, the Executive Council<br \/>\nof University appointed a Committee to make an enquiry.\t  On<br \/>\nthe report of the Committee, the University of Poona decided<br \/>\nto  cancel the revaluation  results and to  conduct  further<br \/>\nrevaluation.\tThis  decision\tof  the\t Executive   Council<br \/>\ncancelling  the earlier revaluation and directing  a  second<br \/>\nrevaluation  was challenged by the petitioner and others  in<br \/>\nwrit  petitions filed before the High Court at\tBomaby.\t  By<br \/>\nthe  impugned  judgement dated May 3, 1991  the\t High  Court<br \/>\ndismissed  the writ petitions.\tAggrieved by the  decisions,<br \/>\nthe petitioners have moved this petition for special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  Poona University Act, 1974 defines the powers\t and<br \/>\nduties of the Executive Council.  The Executive Council\t may<br \/>\nmake   Ordinances  to  provide\tfor  the  conduct   of\t the<br \/>\nexaminations.\tUnder  Ordinance 134A,\tthe  Vice-Chancellor<br \/>\nshall  use his discretionery powers to decide as to  whether<br \/>\nall  the  applications\treceived  from\tthe  candidates,  be<br \/>\nconsidered  for\t revaluation  or not.  If  as  a  result  of<br \/>\nrevaluation  of\t answer-books, the  marks  obtained  by\t the<br \/>\ncandidate increase over the original marks by 10% or more of<br \/>\nthe  marks  carried  by the paper then only  the  result  of<br \/>\nrevaluation will be accepted by the University.\t Application<br \/>\nfor vertification of answer-books will be entertained within<br \/>\na  period of two weeks from the date of declaration  of\t the<br \/>\nresults.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Ordinance 146 reads:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t &#8220;146.\t In  any  case where it is  found  that\t the<br \/>\n\t result\t of  an\t examination has  been\taffected  by<br \/>\n\t error,\t malpractice,  fraud,  improper\t conduct  or<br \/>\n\t other\tcourse of whatsoever nature,  the  Executive<br \/>\n\t Council  shall have power to amend such  result  in<br \/>\n\t such  manner  as shall be in accord with  the\ttrue<br \/>\n\t position  and\tto  make  such\tdeclaration  as\t the<br \/>\n\t Executive Council shall consider necessary in\tthat<br \/>\n\t behalf.   Provided that, but subject to  0.147,  no<br \/>\n\t result shall be amended after the expiration of six<br \/>\n\t months\t from  the date of publication of  the\tsaid<br \/>\n\t result&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t the Third Year M.B.B.S. Examination,  402  students<br \/>\nappeared   for\t the  examination  and\t167   students\t for<br \/>\nrevaluation of the answer-books.  When the representation of<br \/>\nstudents  opting  for  revaluation  was\t placed\t before\t the<br \/>\nExecutive  Council  as glaring difference was  indicated,  a<br \/>\nCommittee was appointed for scrutiny and to reassess  theory<br \/>\npapers\tof the students acquiring more than 20% marks  after<br \/>\nrevaluation,  from  senior teachers of the  Faculty.   After<br \/>\nscrutiny, it was found out that the marks are closer to\t the<br \/>\noriginal  marks\t in  Medicine, Surgery\tand  Preventive\t and<br \/>\nSocial Medicine.  Therefore, the Committee recommended\tthat<br \/>\nthe  entire revaluation of the papers should  be  cancelled.<br \/>\nThis report of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       389<\/span><br \/>\nCommittee  was\tplaced before the Executive Council  in\t its<br \/>\nmeeting\t held  on  March 27, 1991 and  the  Council  by\t the<br \/>\nresolution  cancelled  the  result of  the  revaluation\t and<br \/>\ndirected fresh revaluation.  The second revaluation was done<br \/>\nthrough the examiners outside the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  results  on revaluation intimated to\tthe  Medical<br \/>\nCollege\t thus  stood cancelled and the\tfinal  results\twere<br \/>\ndelcared in pursuance to the second revaluation.  The action<br \/>\nof the Executive Council was attacked on the grounds that it<br \/>\nwas  an arbitrary action; that the choice of  the  examiners<br \/>\nwas  that  of  the Vice-Chancellor  as\tenjoined  under\t the<br \/>\nOrdinance   and\t there\twas  no\t glaring  instance  of\t any<br \/>\nmalpractice,  fraud or other course of whatsoever nature  to<br \/>\ncancel\tthe revaluation and in the absence of any  provision<br \/>\nin  the statute or the Ordinance for a\tsecond\trevaluation,<br \/>\nthe  decision taken by the Executive Council is\t unwarranted<br \/>\nand, therefore, illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t repelling  these contentions, the  High  Court\t has<br \/>\ntaken the view that educational institutions set up  Enquiry<br \/>\nCommittee  to  deal with problem posed by  the\tadoption  of<br \/>\nunfair\tmeans and  it  is  normally  within  their  domestic<br \/>\njurisdiction  to  decide all questions in the light  of\t the<br \/>\nmaterial   adduced.   Unless  there  is\t an   absolute\t and<br \/>\ncompelling   justification,  the  Writ\tCourt  is  slow\t  to<br \/>\ninterfere  with\t the autonomous activity  of  the  Executive<br \/>\nCouncils.   The High Court said that the material on  record<br \/>\nindicated   that  this\tis  not\t a  case  for  exercise\t  of<br \/>\njurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and since<br \/>\nthe  Court  has found that there is material  to  reach\t the<br \/>\ndecision  as regards cancellation of the impugned result  of<br \/>\nrevaluation, the contentions taken up by the petitioner\t are<br \/>\nuntenable.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  petitioners have reiterated  the submissions\tthat<br \/>\nthere  had  been no improper conduct come to light  and\t the<br \/>\nabsence\t of any provision for a second revaluation  vitiates<br \/>\nthe whole action.  We have been taken through a\t comparative<br \/>\nchart\tcontaining  the\t marks\tawarded\t in   the   original<br \/>\nexamination,   the   first  revaluation\t  and\tthe   second<br \/>\nrevaluation.   The  attempt of the learned counsel  for\t the<br \/>\npetitioners had been to make out that the  disparity was not<br \/>\nsuch  as  to  indicate any improper practice  and  that\t the<br \/>\nCommittee constituted consisted\t of four members of whom two<br \/>\nwere  original\texaminers and the report submitted  by\tthat<br \/>\nCommittee  should  not\thave been made\tthe  basis  for\t the<br \/>\ndecision which affected the prospects and career of a  large<br \/>\nnumber\tof medical students.  The learned counsel   for\t the<br \/>\nUniversity  as also the standing counsel for the State\tdrew<br \/>\nour  attention to the fact that Executive Council  had\tonly<br \/>\ncautiously  proceeded  in  the matter  and  before  ordering<br \/>\ncancellation a probe was made and the mem-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       390<\/span><\/p>\n<p>bers  of  the Enquiry Committee were competent\tpersons\t and<br \/>\nthat  there is no illegality which warrants interference  of<br \/>\nthe Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We\t have considered all the materials placed before  us<br \/>\nin the light of arguments advanced keeping in mind the\twell<br \/>\naccepted principle that in deciding the matters relating  to<br \/>\norders\tpassed by authorities of  educational  institutions,<br \/>\nthe Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its<br \/>\njurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction<br \/>\nof educational authorities should normally be left to  their<br \/>\ndecision and the Court should interfere with them only\twhen<br \/>\nit thinks it must do so in the interest of justice.  We\t are<br \/>\nsatisfied that there had been sufficient material before the<br \/>\nExecutive  Council to proceed in the manner in which it\t has<br \/>\ndone.\tIt  is not correct to say that\tthe  University\t had<br \/>\nacted\ton  non-existing  rule\tfor  ordering\trevaluation.<br \/>\nOrdinance 146 is comprehensive enough to include revaluation<br \/>\nalso  for further action.  The fact that two examiners\twere<br \/>\nalso  the  members of the Committee  which  recommended\t for<br \/>\nrevaluation cannot result in any bias even if they had\tbeen<br \/>\ndirectly concerned with the original evaluation.  It is true<br \/>\nthat  in  the second revaluation also there  had  been\tsome<br \/>\nchanges\t   between   the   original   valuation\t  and\t the<br \/>\nrevaluation  results.\tHowever,  it is not  so\t glaring  or<br \/>\ndemonstrably   unconscionable\tas   seen   in\t the   first<br \/>\nrevaluation.  We cannot, therefore, accept the contention of<br \/>\nthe petitioner that the High Court had erred in not granting<br \/>\nthe relief sought for.\tWe can only observe that the case of<br \/>\nthe petitioner, who alone has come before this Court and who<br \/>\nhad  secured higher marks in the first revaluation  and\t is,<br \/>\ntherefore, aggrieved by the cancellation of the same,  would<br \/>\nby  duly  considered  in  the  selection  for  Post-Graduate<br \/>\nCourse. The special leave petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>Y.L.\t\t\t\t\tSLP dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       391<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Bhushan Uttam Khare vs Dean, B.J. Medical College And Ors on 28 January, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 917, 1992 SCR (1) 386 Author: S Pandian Bench: Pandian, S.R. (J) PETITIONER: BHUSHAN UTTAM KHARE Vs. RESPONDENT: DEAN, B.J. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/01\/1992 BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH: PANDIAN, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bhushan Uttam Khare vs Dean, B.J. Medical College And Ors on 28 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhushan Uttam Khare vs Dean, B.J. Medical College And Ors on 28 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1992-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-02T08:28:57+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhushan Uttam Khare vs Dean, B.J. Medical College And Ors on 28 January, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-02T08:28:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992\"},\"wordCount\":1343,\"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\\\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992\",\"name\":\"Bhushan Uttam Khare vs Dean, B.J. Medical College And Ors on 28 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-02T08:28:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhushan Uttam Khare vs Dean, B.J. Medical College And Ors on 28 January, 1992\"}]},{\"@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":"Bhushan Uttam Khare vs Dean, B.J. Medical College And Ors on 28 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhushan Uttam Khare vs Dean, B.J. Medical College And Ors on 28 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-02T08:28:57+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhushan Uttam Khare vs Dean, B.J. Medical College And Ors on 28 January, 1992","datePublished":"1992-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-02T08:28:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992"},"wordCount":1343,"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\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992","name":"Bhushan Uttam Khare vs Dean, B.J. Medical College And Ors on 28 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-02T08:28:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhushan-uttam-khare-vs-dean-b-j-medical-college-and-ors-on-28-january-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhushan Uttam Khare vs Dean, B.J. Medical College And Ors on 28 January, 1992"}]},{"@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\/543","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=543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/543\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}