{"id":67379,"date":"2009-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-21T12:21:42","modified_gmt":"2016-09-21T06:51:42","slug":"smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan vs Additional Commissioner on 11 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan vs Additional Commissioner on 11 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. R. Joshi<\/div>\n
                                 1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n                                         \n                                        \n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR\n                  Writ Petition No. 94 of 1995\n\n\n\n\n                              \n     Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan,\n                   \n     aged about 31 years,\n     working as Junior College Teacher\n     in Govt. Girls High School &\n     Junior College, Amravati,\n                  \n     Distt. Amravati.                     ....          Petitioner.\n\n                              Versus\n\n     1.   Additional Commissioner,\n      \n\n\n          Amravati Division,\n          Amravati, Distt.\n   \n\n\n\n          Amravati.\n\n     2.   Chief Executive Officer,\n          Zilla Parishad,\n\n\n\n\n\n          Amravati,\n          Distt. Amravati.\n\n     3.   Principal, Zilla Parishad\n          Urdu Girls High School &\n          Junior College,\n\n\n\n\n\n          Amravati Camp,\n          Amravati,\n          Distt. Amravati.\n\n     4.   Education Officer (Primary),\n          Zilla Parishad,\n          Amravati,\n          Distt. Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:18:08 :::\n                                    2\n     5.   Khalid Yasmeen Reheman,\n          working as Asstt. Teacher\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n          in Zilla Parishad Urdu Girls\n          High School & Junior College,\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n          Amravati,\n          resident of Amravati Camp.\n\n     6.   Ku. Khurshid Anwar d\/o Abdul Rahman,\n          aged about 38 years,\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n          occupation   service,\n          resident of Jail Road,\n          Camp, Amravati.                ....                 Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                \n                                 *****\n                   \n     Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Adv., for the petitioner.\n\n     Mr. D.B. Yengal, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent\n                  \n     No.1.\n     None for respondent nos. 2 to 5.\n\n     Mr. M.K. Pathan, Adv., for respondent No.6.\n      \n\n                                 *****\n   \n\n\n\n                                 CORAM     :     A.H. JOSHI AND\n                                                 A.R. JOSHI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                             Reserved on :        04th November,2009.\n\n\n\n\n\n                     Pronounced on        :       11th November,2009.\n\n\n     ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.H. Joshi, J]:\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     1.       Heard learned Adv. Mr. P.C. Madkholkar for the<\/p>\n
     petitioner,   learned    Asstt.     Govt.      Pleader         Mr.      D.B.\n<\/p>\n
     Yengal for respondent no.1 and learned Adv. Mr. M.K.\n<\/p>\n
     Pathan for respondent no.6.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:18:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
     2.         Petitioner was appointed as a Junior College<\/p>\n
     Teacher in Zilla Parishad Girls              High School, Yavatmal,<\/p>\n
     on or before 9th November, 1990. She had applied for<\/p>\n
     transfer    to    Zilla    Parishad,       Amravati.          The      order      of<\/p>\n
     transfer and absorption into the establishment of Zilla<\/p>\n
     Parishad was passed on 3rd November, 1992. Perusal of<\/p>\n
     order, copy whereof is at Annex.                       A    at page 25 of<\/p>\n
     paper-book
\n                      reveals      that<\/p>\n
     transferred against a vacant post.\n<\/p>\n
                                           the        petitioner          has        been\n                      \n     3.         Respondent      no.5,     who    is    an       employee       in     the\n\n<\/pre>\n
     employment of Zilla Parishad, Amravati, as a Teacher in<\/p>\n
     Secondary    School,       also    possessed         qualification,              and<\/p>\n
     claimed that she was entitled for transfer and posting<\/p>\n
     as a Lecturer in Junior College in same Zilla Parishad.\n<\/p>\n
     4.         Respondent       No.5     had     already            applied          for<\/p>\n
     transfer and posting. The request of the respondent no.\n<\/p>\n
     5 was forwarded by the Zilla Parishad, Amravati, to<\/p>\n
     the Deputy Director of Education, who found that the<\/p>\n
     respondent       no.5   was    qualified         and       eligible        to     be<\/p>\n
     appointed by transfer as a Teacher in Junior College<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:18:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                             4<\/span>
\n     and   directed        under   his     letter     6th   October,         1992      to<\/p>\n
     consider     petitioner s           case   for       said      transfer          and<\/p>\n
     posting.\n<\/p>\n
     5.         It    is    seen    that    before      the      application           of<\/p>\n
     respondent no.5 was considered, treating the post of a<\/p>\n
     Teacher     in    Junior       College     to     be     vacant,          present<\/p>\n
     petitioner was appointed on the said post by transfer<\/p>\n
     from Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal and order for absorption<\/p>\n
     was passed.\n<\/p>\n
     6.         Respondent         no.5    herein      was       aggrieved,           as,<\/p>\n
     though she was qualified, eligible and entitled for<\/p>\n
     transfer and posting to said post, having higher scale<\/p>\n
     of pay, she was not given the same.                         She, therefore,<\/p>\n
     filed an appeal under Section 14 (a) of the Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     Zilla     Parishads      &    Panchayat        Samitis       (Discipline            &<\/p>\n
     Appeal) Rules, 1964 before the Additional Commissioner,<\/p>\n
     Amravati.\n<\/p>\n
     7.         The   petitioner          herein    got     herself        impleaded<\/p>\n
     before the Additional Commissioner, and was heard, and<\/p>\n
     has been dealt with in accordance with principles of<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:18:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                            5<\/span>
\n     natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
     8.         By     order     dated     7th     July,        1994,       Additional<\/p>\n
     Commissioner partly allowed the appeal, and directed<\/p>\n
     the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati,<\/p>\n
     to     consider        petitioner s       claim          and    to     scrutinize<\/p>\n
     whether present respondent no.5 has been met with any<\/p>\n
     injustice in the light of discussion contained in the<\/p>\n
     judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     9.         It is seen that the Chief Executive Officer<\/p>\n
     has considered the matter                 and issued a communication<\/p>\n
     dated 28th December, 1994, calling upon the petitioner<\/p>\n
     herein to say whether she would accept absorption on<\/p>\n
     post     of     Asstt.     Teacher        [Upper         Division]          and      to<\/p>\n
     relinquish       her    claim   for     the    post        of    a    Teacher        in<\/p>\n
     Junior College.\n<\/p>\n
     10.        Parties have not brought before this Court on<\/p>\n
     record    as      to     whether    after          the     decision         of      the<\/p>\n
     Additional       Commissioner         dated        7th     July,       1994,        and<\/p>\n
     before    the     decision      dated       28th    December,           1994,       any<\/p>\n
     order or decision is rendered by the Chief Executive<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:18:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                         6<\/span>
\n     Officer     in    compliance    with     the     directions           given      by<\/p>\n
     Additional       Commissioner.         It     seems     that      the     letter<\/p>\n
     dated     28th    December,     1994     by    the      Chief        Executive<\/p>\n
     Officer itself may be a part of the steps to be taken.\n<\/p>\n
     11.        Perusal of affidavit filed by respondent no.2<\/p>\n
     discloses that respondent no.5 herein was possessing<\/p>\n
     qualification and experience for transfer and posting<\/p>\n
     as a Teacher in Junior College and a proposal for this<\/p>\n
     was sent to the Deputy Director of Education, which was<\/p>\n
     also approved by communication dated 6th October, 1992,<\/p>\n
     which is Annexure-ZP-6 to the affidavit-reply of the<\/p>\n
     respondent no.2.\n<\/p>\n
     12.        It is also seen that it has been admitted in<\/p>\n
     the said affidavit of respondent no.2                    that by ordering<\/p>\n
     transfer     of    the   writ   petitioner         to    Zilla       Parishad,<\/p>\n
     Amravati, rightful claim of the respondent no.5 was<\/p>\n
     bypassed.\n<\/p>\n
     13.        It     is     seen     that        in        these        premises,<\/p>\n
     appropriate action to be taken by the respondent no.2<\/p>\n
     was to revoke or cancel the order of absorption of the<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:18:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                       7<\/span>
\n     petitioner s services and repatriate the petitioner                          to<\/p>\n
     Zilla   Parishad,      Yavatmal,     unless       there        existed         a<\/p>\n
     vacancy for the respondent no.5.            It appears that there<\/p>\n
     was no vacancy to promote the respondent 5 and also to<\/p>\n
     retain the petitioner as a Teacher in Junior College.\n<\/p>\n
     14.        It seems that because of situation indicated<\/p>\n
     in the preceding para, the respondent no.2 took steps<\/p>\n
     to ascertain whether the writ petitioner would agree<\/p>\n
     for absorption as Asstt. Teacher [Upper Division], and<\/p>\n
     in that event her claim for the post of a Teacher in<\/p>\n
     Junior College could be considered in future.\n<\/p>\n
     15.        It is seen that the Respondent No.2 has also<\/p>\n
     taken   his   stand,     inter     alia,     on     the      point        that<\/p>\n
     petitioner was not eligible for inter-district\/Zilla<\/p>\n
     Parishad    transfer,    and   tried   to      substantiate            it    by<\/p>\n
     producing on record copy of Govt. Circular dated 25th<\/p>\n
     September, 1992, which is at page 152 of the paper-\n<\/p>\n
     book.\n<\/p>\n
                Perusal of policy decision of the State Govt.\n<\/p>\n
     of writ petition, which is Annex.ZP-1], spells out that<\/p>\n
     a district cadre employee, who has put in ten years of<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:18:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                        8<\/span>
\n     service in the employment of Zilla Parishad, alone can<\/p>\n
     apply for a transfer to other Zilla Parshad.\n<\/p>\n
     16.        It is pertinent to note that petitioner has<\/p>\n
     not   filed   any   rejoinder     to     reply-affidavit               of     the<\/p>\n
     respondent    no.2.   Even   during          oral    submissions,             and<\/p>\n
     points on facts raised by respondents have not been<\/p>\n
     replied.\n<\/p>\n
                 On this ground, present petitioner, in fact,<\/p>\n
     is not eligible to apply and get transferred to another<\/p>\n
     Zilla Parishad.\n<\/p>\n
     17.        Arguing in support of the petition, learned<\/p>\n
     Adv. Mr. Madkholkar holding for Adv. Mr. M.D. Lakhey<\/p>\n
     has raised jurisdictional issue, namely in the matter<\/p>\n
     of inter-district transfer, Additional Commissioner has<\/p>\n
     no jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
     18.        This   Court   finds       that    the      point       urged       in<\/p>\n
     support of the petition is addressed with ingenuity,<\/p>\n
     however, it has been done without adverting to the<\/p>\n
     rights of the person who stood superseded and denied<\/p>\n
     his\/her legal right       due to wrongful absorption of writ<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:18:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                           9<\/span>
\n     petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     19.      Perusal       of     Appeal     Memo   preferred           by      the<\/p>\n
     respondent no.5 discloses that she did not, in any<\/p>\n
     manner, challenge the order of absorption.                     She made a<\/p>\n
     grievance that though she was eligible and her claim<\/p>\n
     was   approved    by    Deputy       Director   of     Education,           for<\/p>\n
     transfer and posting as a Lecturer\/Teacher in Junior<\/p>\n
     authority.\n<\/p>\n
     College, she has orders in her favour from competent<\/p>\n
                      Of course, her promotion\/transfer became<\/p>\n
     impossible due to petitioner s transfer and absorption.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, petitioner s transfer came under scrutiny as a<\/p>\n
     necessary, but consequential issue.\n<\/p>\n
     20.      The grievance as made by the respondent no.5<\/p>\n
     was   perfectly      within    the    jurisdiction       of    Additional<\/p>\n
     Commissioner.        The Additional Commissioner was bound to<\/p>\n
     consider all questions and adjudicate. This Court is<\/p>\n
     satisfied     that     the    questions,    which       fell       for      the<\/p>\n
     consideration     of    Additional       Commissioner,          have      been<\/p>\n
     rightly considered by him.\n<\/p>\n
     21.      This Court is satisfied that:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:18:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
             [a]          The     petitioner              had         got        the\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n                          protection of status quo, and she\n                          has got the status to which she was\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                          not entitled.\n\n\n             [b]          Respondent           no.5       was        wrongfully\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n                          denied what she was entitled to.\n\n\n             [c]          Petitioner s         claim       and     contentions\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n<\/pre>\n
                          contained in this petition are based
\n                          on technicalities, which too do not
\n                     ig   find support in law.\n<\/p>\n
             [d]          Any   of       the    legal       rights        of     the\n                          petitioner is not violated.\n\n\n             [e]          There is no error of law, or that of\n      \n\n\n                          jurisdiction           creeping              in        the\n   \n\n\n\n                          impugned orders.\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     22.     In these premises, Petition has no merit.\n<\/p>\n
     23.     Rule is, therefore, discharged.\n<\/p>\n
     24.     In    view    that      a   totally        untenable           plea      was<\/p>\n
     pursued by the petitioner and benefit was derived by<\/p>\n
     her being wholly unjust, the petitioner would be liable<\/p>\n
     to pay costs to the respondents which are quantified in<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:18:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                11<\/span>
\n     a sum of Rs.5,000-00 [rupees five thousand only] which<\/p>\n
     be recovered from her salary and allowances wherever<\/p>\n
     she is serving.\n<\/p>\n
               JUDGE                                 JUDGE\n\n                            -0-0-0-0-\n\n     |hedau|\n\n\n\n\n                            \n                       \n                      \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:18:08 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan vs Additional Commissioner on 11 November, 2009 Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. R. Joshi 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 94 of 1995 Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan, aged about 31 years, working as Junior College Teacher in Govt. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-67379","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Kausar Tasneem Khan vs Additional Commissioner on 11 November, 2009 - 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\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan vs Additional Commissioner on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-21T06:51:42+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan vs Additional Commissioner on 11 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-21T06:51:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1219,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan vs Additional Commissioner on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-21T06:51:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan vs Additional Commissioner on 11 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan vs Additional Commissioner on 11 November, 2009 - 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\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan vs Additional Commissioner on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-21T06:51:42+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan vs Additional Commissioner on 11 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-21T06:51:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009"},"wordCount":1219,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009","name":"Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan vs Additional Commissioner on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-21T06:51:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kausar-tasneem-khan-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Kausar Tasneem Khan vs Additional Commissioner on 11 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/67379","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=67379"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67379\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67379"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67379"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67379"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}