{"id":60761,"date":"2010-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-12T17:49:16","modified_gmt":"2017-08-12T12:19:16","slug":"pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi &#8230; vs The National Council For Teacher &#8230; on 3 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi &#8230; vs The National Council For Teacher &#8230; on 3 February, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                     1\n\nCourt No. - 11\n\nCase :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 100 of 2010\n\nPetitioner :- Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi Institute Of Education Technology\nRespondent :- The National Council For Teacher Education Wing-Ii Hans\nPetitioner Counsel :- Pt.S.Chandra\nRespondent Counsel :- Vinay Bhushan\n\nHon'ble Anil Kumar,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>       Heard Sri Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nand Sri Vinay Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In brief the facts as stated by learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner are that the Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi Institute of<br \/>\nEducation Technology Ranjeetpur, which is situated at Chilbila<br \/>\nPratapgarh had applied for B.Ed. Course with the respondents<br \/>\nand the said application of the petitioner was rejected by the<br \/>\norder dated 10.7.2009 passed by Regional Director of National<br \/>\nCouncil for Teacher Education New Delhi (annexure no.2).\n<\/p>\n<p>       Aggrieved by the order dated 10.7.2009 the petitioner filed<br \/>\nan appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority<br \/>\nby means of order dated 11.12.2009 had rejected the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s appeal on the ground that the same was filed at a<br \/>\nbelated stage i.e. after expiry of period of two months four days,<br \/>\nhence the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Learned counsel for the petitioner Pt. S. Chandra submits<br \/>\nthat the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the respondent no.1<br \/>\nthereby rejecting the petitioner&#8217;s appeal on the ground of delay<br \/>\nis totally arbitrary and in-contravention to the principle of natural<br \/>\njustice. He further submits that the delay in filing the appeal<br \/>\nshould be condoned and the matter should be decided on merit.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Sri Vinay Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondents<br \/>\nsubmits that the order dated 10.7.2009 has been passed by the<br \/>\nRegional Direction, National Council for Teacher Education, New<br \/>\nDelhi under Section 14(1) of the N.C.E.T.Act, 1993 taking into<br \/>\nconsideration the facts and circumstances of the case, however<br \/>\nhe does not disputed that the appeal filed by the petitioner has<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>been rejected only on the ground of delay by order dated<br \/>\n11.12.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>      I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused<br \/>\nthe record.\n<\/p>\n<p>      From perusal of the record, it is clear that the appeal filed<br \/>\nby the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground of delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It has been the constant view of Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court<br \/>\nand this Court that the principles of natural justice must be<br \/>\nfollowed and nobody should be condemned unheard as such the<br \/>\nsubmission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the<br \/>\nimpugned action on the part of respondent no.1 rejecting the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s appeal only on the ground of delay is an action<br \/>\narbitrary in nature has got force.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Further in the matter of condonation of delay, the Apex<br \/>\nCourt has consistently held that pragmatic view should be taken.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst.<br \/>\nKati Ji and others,1987(13) ALR 306 (SC)                   Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nSupreme Court held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              &#8220;The legislator has conferred the power to<br \/>\n        condone delay by enacting section 5 of the<br \/>\n        Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable th Courts<br \/>\n        to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of<br \/>\n        matter on &#8220;merits&#8221;. The expression &#8220;sufficient<br \/>\n        cause&#8221; employed by the Legislature is adequately<br \/>\n        elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a<br \/>\n        meaningful manner which subserves the ends of<br \/>\n        justice &#8211; that being       the life &#8211; purpose of the<br \/>\n        existence of the institution of Courts. It is<br \/>\n        common knowledge that this Court has been<br \/>\n        making a justifiably liberal approach in matters<br \/>\n        instituted in this Court. But the message does not<br \/>\n        appear to have percolated down to all the other<br \/>\n        Courts in the hierarchy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>             And such a liberal approach is adopted on<br \/>\n       principle as it is realized that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             1. Ordinarily , a litigant does not stand to<br \/>\n       benefit by lodging an appeal late.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             2.   Refusing to condone delay can result in<br \/>\n       a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very<br \/>\n       threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As<br \/>\n       against this; when delay is condoned, the highest<br \/>\n       that can happen is that a cause would he decided<br \/>\n       on merit after hearing the parties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             3. &#8220;Every &#8221; day&#8217;s delay must be explained&#8221;<br \/>\n       does not mean that a pedantic approach should<br \/>\n       be made. Why not every hour&#8217;s delay, every<br \/>\n       second&#8217;s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a<br \/>\n       rational, common sense and pragmatic manner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             4.    When substantial justice and technical<br \/>\n       considerations are pitted against each other, the<br \/>\n       cause of substantial justice deserves to be<br \/>\n       preferred, for the other side can not claim to have<br \/>\n       vested right in injustice being done because of a<br \/>\n       non-deliberate delay.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             5.     There is no presumption that delay is<br \/>\n       occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable<br \/>\n       negligence, or on accout of mala fides. A litigant<br \/>\n       does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In<br \/>\n       fact, he runs a serious risk.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             6.      It must be grapped that the judiciary<br \/>\n       is respected not on account of its power        to<br \/>\n       legalise injustice      on technical grounds but<br \/>\n       because it is capable of removing injsutice and is<br \/>\n       expected to do so.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     In N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy,(1998) 7<br \/>\nSCC 133 the Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>condonatin of delay, observing as under :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              &#8221; The primary function of a Court is to<br \/>\n       adjudicate the dispute between the parties and<br \/>\n       to advance substantial justice. The time- limit<br \/>\n       fixed for approaching the Court in different<br \/>\n       situations is not because on the expiry of such<br \/>\n       time a bad cause would transform into a good<br \/>\n       cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to<br \/>\n       destroy the rights of parties . They are meant to<br \/>\n       see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics,<br \/>\n       but seek their remedy for the redress of the legal<br \/>\n       injury so suffered. The law of limitation is thus<br \/>\n       founded on public policy.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      In Smt. Prabha Vs. Ram Praskash                 Kalra, 1987<br \/>\n(Suppl.) SCC 338 the Supreme Court took the view that the<br \/>\nCourt should not      adopt an injustice- oriented approach in<br \/>\nrejecting the application for condonation of delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Vs.<br \/>\nShantaram Baburao Patil and others, 2001 (44) ALR<br \/>\n577 (SC) the Apex Court made a distinction in delay and<br \/>\ninordinate delay observing as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              &#8221; In exercising discretion under section 5<br \/>\n        of the Limitation Act, the Courts should adopt a<br \/>\n        pragmatic approach. A distinction must be<br \/>\n        made between a case where the delay is<br \/>\n        inordinate and a case where the delay is of a<br \/>\n        few days. Whereas in the former case the<br \/>\n        consideration of prejudice to the otherwise will<br \/>\n        be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more<br \/>\n        cautious approach&#8230;..&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti<br \/>\nMisra, AIR 1976 SC 237 Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court held that<br \/>\ndiscretion given by section 5 should not be defined or crystallized<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law.<br \/>\nThe expression&#8221; sufficient cause&#8221; should receive a liberal<br \/>\nconstruction.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari, AIR<br \/>\n1969 SC 575 , the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court                held that unless<br \/>\nwant bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive<br \/>\na party of the protection of section 5 is proved, the application<br \/>\nmust not be thrown out of any delay cannot be refused to be<br \/>\ncondoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In O.P. Kathpalia Vs Lakhmir Singh, AIR 1984 SC<br \/>\n1744 the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to<br \/>\ncondone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it<br \/>\nwould be a ground to condone the delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>      For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is allowed. The<br \/>\norder dated 11.12.2009 passed by respondent no.1 is set aside<br \/>\nand the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.1 to<br \/>\ndecide the same in accordance with law after hearing the parties<br \/>\nconcerned expeditiously say within a period of four months from<br \/>\nthe date of receipt of certified copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order Date :- 3.2.2010<br \/>\nPramod\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi &#8230; vs The National Council For Teacher &#8230; on 3 February, 2010 1 Court No. &#8211; 11 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. &#8211; 100 of 2010 Petitioner :- Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi Institute Of Education Technology Respondent :- The National Council For Teacher Education Wing-Ii Hans Petitioner Counsel :- Pt.S.Chandra [&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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi ... vs The National Council For Teacher ... on 3 February, 2010 - 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\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi ... vs The National Council For Teacher ... on 3 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-12T12:19:16+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\\\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi &#8230; vs The National Council For Teacher &#8230; on 3 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-12T12:19:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1243,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi ... vs The National Council For Teacher ... on 3 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-12T12:19:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi &#8230; vs The National Council For Teacher &#8230; on 3 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi ... vs The National Council For Teacher ... on 3 February, 2010 - 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\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi ... vs The National Council For Teacher ... on 3 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-12T12:19:16+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\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi &#8230; vs The National Council For Teacher &#8230; on 3 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-12T12:19:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010"},"wordCount":1243,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010","name":"Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi ... vs The National Council For Teacher ... on 3 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-12T12:19:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-sukhraj-raghunathi-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-3-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pandit Sukhraj Raghunathi &#8230; vs The National Council For Teacher &#8230; on 3 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60761","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=60761"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60761\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60761"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}