{"id":92026,"date":"2010-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-23T02:42:03","modified_gmt":"2017-12-22T21:12:03","slug":"dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya vs The Education Inspector on 8 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya vs The Education Inspector on 8 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: F.I. Rebello, A.A. Sayed<\/div>\n
     Mgn\n\n                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n                           WRIT PETITION NO.1598 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya       )\n     (Sanchalak Samiti)                   )..Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n            Vs.\n\n     1.The Education Inspector, Greater   )\n       Mumbai.                            )\n     2.The State of Maharashtra           )\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     3.Smt. Asmita R. Chaudhary           )\n     4.Smt.Sunita S. Singhig              )\n     5.Smt. Hemlata R. Singh              )\n     6.Shri Hriday Narayan Yadav          )\n     7.Shri Rajnarayan L. Patel           )\n     8.Shri Deshranjan Pandey             )\n                        \n     9.Shri Param Hana Tiwari             )\n     10.Smt. Jaibala B. Singh             )\n     11.Smt. Manjiri R. Singh             )..Respondents\n      \n\n     Mr. Surel Shah with Mr. Sanjay S. Gawde, for the petitioner.\n     Mr.A.L. Gore, for Respondent No.3.\n     Mr. M.D. Naik, A.G.P. For respondent Nos.1 and 2.\n   \n\n\n\n                                        WITH\n                             WRIT PETITION NO.272 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n\n     Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya       )\n     (Sanchalak Samiti)                   )..Petitioner\n\n\n            Vs.\n\n\n\n\n\n     1.The Education Inspector, Greater )\n       Mumbai.                          )\n     2.The State of Maharashtra         )\n\n\n     Mr. Surel Shah with Mr. Sanjay S. Gawde, for the petitioner.\n     Ms.Sindha Sreedharan, , A.G.P. For respondent Nos.1 and 2.\n\n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:10 :::\n                                           CORAM : FERDINO I. REBELLO &\n                                                  A.A. SAYED, JJ.\n                                          DATED : 8TH APRIL, 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n     JUDGMENT (PER FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.)\n<\/pre>\n
            Rule in both the petitions. With the consent of parties heard forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
     2.     Both these petitions are filed by the petitioners a registered Public Trust<\/p>\n
     through its Secretary Shri Umesh Pratap Singh. In Writ Petition No.1498 of 2009,<\/p>\n
     the petitioners impugn the order dated 14th November, 2008 whereby the Educational<\/p>\n
     Inspector, Respondent No.1 held that a legal Managing Committee and School<\/p>\n
     Committee are not in existence and as such approval cannot be granted to the seven<\/p>\n
     teachers whose names are listed in the communication being Shri Hakim R. Singh,<\/p>\n
     Shri Ajit Kumar Singh, Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Shri Shravan Kumar R. Gupta,<\/p>\n
     Shri Jagdish C. Sigh, Shri Yogendra Pratap Singh and Shri Neeraj Jangbahadur<\/p>\n
     Singh. The first six are purported to have been appointed on 9 th September, 2000 and<\/p>\n
     the seventh on 16th June, 2008. It was mentioned therein that change report No.<\/p>\n
     2185\/08, 1272\/87, 1771\/07 and 1770\/06 are on the board of the Deputy Charity<\/p>\n
     Commissioner and Change Report No.1168 of 2005 and 905 of 2004 are on the<\/p>\n
     Board of Assistant Charity Commissioner         are still pending for decision with<\/p>\n
     consequential relief to accept the proposal of the seven teachers forwarded vide letter<\/p>\n
     dated 26th May, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     Similarly, in Writ Petition No.272 of 2010 the prayer sought for is in respect<\/p>\n
     of order dated 27th September, 2008 whereby the Educational Inspector in respect of<\/p>\n
     the proposal for appointment of Rita Singh refused approval for the reason that there<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:49:10 :::<\/span>
\n      is no authorized management and the matter is pending before the Charity<\/p>\n
     Commissioner and also noted that for the academic year 2008-2009 there is a lack of<\/p>\n
     number of students and there is likely to be reduction in the number of classes and<\/p>\n
     consequently number of teachers.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     A few facts may now be set out. Two change reports being Change Report<\/p>\n
     No.2978 of 1995 and 2102 of 1977 were filed before the Assistant Charity<\/p>\n
     Commissioner, who rejected the change reports. These were in respect of elections<\/p>\n
     held on 11th June, 1995 and 19th January, 1997 respectively. Against that two appeals<\/p>\n
     were preferred being Appeal No.24 of 1999 and 25 of 1999. The Joint Charity<\/p>\n
     Commissioner by his order dated 4th January, 2001 allowed the Appeals and directed<\/p>\n
     that the Change Report be recorded in the P.T. Register (Schedule I) maintained<\/p>\n
     under Section 17 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act till the cessation of it by the<\/p>\n
     subsequent Change (ACC II\/3678\/99), which was pending. The Change Report<\/p>\n
     Application Nos.1 of 2001 and 2 of 2001 were moved against the said orders before<\/p>\n
     the City Civil Court which was decided by order dated 24 th September, 2002. It<\/p>\n
     appears that two appeals were preferred before the Court being First Appeal No.<\/p>\n
     1574 of 2002 and First Appeal No.1576 of 2002 which were dismissed on Octo0er<\/p>\n
     30, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     It may be noted that on rejection of the change report for the years 1995 to<\/p>\n
     1997 by order of 3rd February, 1999 a five Member Ad hoc Committee was appointed<\/p>\n
     by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. Elections were held on 20th March,<\/p>\n
     1999 and the Mithailal group filed Change Report No.ACC II\/2214\/\/99. By order<\/p>\n
     dated 10th June, 1999 the Assistant Charity Commissioner prohibited Mithailal group<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:49:10 :::<\/span>
\n      to act as Trustees till change report was decided. On 10th September, 1999 one C.K.\n<\/p>\n
     Singh filed an application being No.4270 of 1999 whereby an ad hoc arrangement of<\/p>\n
     appointing 17 members came to be allowed. However, on 16th September, 1999 the<\/p>\n
     Assistant Charity Commissioner stayed the said arrangement, on an order passed on<\/p>\n
     an application filed by the Agrawal group. C.K.Singh filed an application on 20th<\/p>\n
     September, 1999 to vacate the stay order dated 16th September, 1999.            The said<\/p>\n
     application r bearing No.4270 of 1999 was rejected on 12th November, 1999.\n<\/p>\n
     5.      The Mithailal group filed Writ Petition No.56 of 2000 challenging the order<\/p>\n
     of the Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 12th November, 1999. This Court on<\/p>\n
     9th February, 2000 directed the Charity Commissioner          to appoint an ad hoc<\/p>\n
     committee to function during the pendency of the Change Report No.2214 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n
     It was directed to dispose of the change report within two months. The Charity<\/p>\n
     Commissioner appointed three Member Ad hoc Committee including the members<\/p>\n
     of   Mithailal group and directed the Ad hoc Committee to take charge of<\/p>\n
     administration of the Trust. By order dated 20th January, 2001 the Deputy Charity<\/p>\n
     Commissioner rejected the Change Report and directed the Trustees whose names<\/p>\n
     are shown in Schedule I to hold elections to the managing committee. An Appeal<\/p>\n
     being Appeal No.1 was preferred before the Joint Charity Commissioner.                 An<\/p>\n
     Application for stay of the order dated 30th January, 2001 was moved. That was<\/p>\n
     rejected by order dated 28th February, 2001. The Appeal was dismissed on 26th April,<\/p>\n
     2001.\n<\/p>\n
     6.      By order dated 31st July, 2003 the Assistant Charity Commissioner in Misc.\n<\/p>\n
     Application No.17 of 2003 directed that elections be held to the new managing<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:49:10 :::<\/span>
\n      committee within three months by the ad hoc Committee. The Inspector was asked<\/p>\n
     to hold elections according to law. Writ Petition No.7261 of 2003 was filed against<\/p>\n
     the notice issued for holding elections. That was disposed off by order dated 5th<\/p>\n
     November, 2003 and that elections would be held on the basis of original voters list<\/p>\n
     of 31st August, 2003.\n<\/p>\n
               It appears that a change report No.4894 of 2003 was filed before the<\/p>\n
     Assistant Charity Commissioner. Writ Petition No.8057 of 2003 was filed by Ram<\/p>\n
     Chandra R. Singh.       The petition was admitted and allowed Shri R.R. Singh was<\/p>\n
     allowed to participate in the election of the Trust.\n<\/p>\n
            It is mentioned that at the time when the Writ Petition No.2209 of 2000 was<\/p>\n
     filed i.e. in October, 2000 almost all Change Reports filed by both groups claiming<\/p>\n
     to be the management were pending. During the pendency of the petition till the<\/p>\n
     date of the order dated 25th April, 2008 in Writ Petition No.2209 of 2000 all change<\/p>\n
     reports came to be decided except Change Report No.3678 of 1999 and 4894 of 2003<\/p>\n
     filed by Agarwal Group and Change Report No.905 of 2003 filed by Mithailal group.\n<\/p>\n
     It is not necessary to refer to the various other controversies.\n<\/p>\n
     7.     The fact remains that 7 teachers in respect of whom Writ Petition No.1598 of<\/p>\n
     2009 was filed were appointed by the Mithailal group. The change report filed in<\/p>\n
     1999 was challenged. That change report came to be rejected by order dated 30th<\/p>\n
     January, 2001. Further it was directed that the trustees whose names were shown in<\/p>\n
     Schedule I as Trustees of the trust were directed to hold the management committee<\/p>\n
     members election as per the approved Rules and Regulations of the Trust This order<\/p>\n
     was the subject matter of Appeal No.1 of 2001 before the Joint Charity<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:49:10 :::<\/span>
\n      Commissioner. The Appeal was dismissed by order dated 26 th April, 2001. Earlier<\/p>\n
     an application for interim stay was rejected by order dated 28th February, 2001.\n<\/p>\n
     8.      From the above position what emerges is that the Committees elected in<\/p>\n
     1995 and 1997 have been held to be validly elected, whereas the Committee elected<\/p>\n
     in 1999 was set aside and the committee which claimed to be elected in 1997 was<\/p>\n
     allowed to function as the Committee and also to hold elections.\n<\/p>\n
     9.      This Court in Writ Petition No.2209 of 2000 which was disposed off by order<\/p>\n
     dated April 25, 2008      recorded that the Court      was informed        that previous<\/p>\n
     management of the school was no longer in existence and properly constituted<\/p>\n
     managing committee has taken over charge since 2003. The Court then noted that<\/p>\n
     the teachers who have been appointed on ad-hoc basis by the Ad hoc Committee in<\/p>\n
     the year 2000 are still continuing in service and the State Government rejected the<\/p>\n
     said approval. The Ad hoc Committee preferred petition which has been allowed by<\/p>\n
     the Court by an order to run day-to-day affairs of the institution. The Court then<\/p>\n
     proceeded to observe that it was not necessary for them to decide whether Ad hoc<\/p>\n
     committee could have made the appointment. Directions were thereafter given to<\/p>\n
     direct the managing committee to make fresh selection and forward the select list to<\/p>\n
     the Government and the Government may grant its approval in accordance with law<\/p>\n
     to the teachers who were so selected. A further direction was given as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “Since the teachers who are appointed by Ad Hoc Committee are working<\/p>\n
            from year 2000 their appointments be also considered.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:49:10 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      10.    As noted earlier when the orders were initially passed in Writ Petition No.<\/p>\n
     2209 of 2000 an inspection was carried out in which it was found that there were two<\/p>\n
     sets of teachers claiming through two different managing committee. The attention<\/p>\n
     of the Court appears not to have been invited to the fact that the Education Inspector<\/p>\n
     had refused to grant approval on the ground that the change reports had not been<\/p>\n
     accepted. Also from the facts now set out atleast till elections were held in 2003 the<\/p>\n
     committed elected on 1997 continued to be in the Register in terms of the order<\/p>\n
     passed in Change Report No.2214 of 1999. In our opinion, though we are not sitting<\/p>\n
     in judgment over the said order nevertheless the facts on record are required to be<\/p>\n
     considered and it is in that context we are issuing the present directions.\n<\/p>\n
     11.    Considering the above, in our opinion, it will really not possible for this Court<\/p>\n
     at this stage to take a view that the appointment of the two sets of teachers who were<\/p>\n
     appointed in the year 2000 was according to law. We are, however, bound by the<\/p>\n
     order passed in Writ Petition No.2209 of 2000 unless the parties aggrieved including<\/p>\n
     the aggrieved teachers take out appropriate proceedings against the order dated 25 th<\/p>\n
     April, 2008. These Petitions will, therefore, have to be dismissed in view of the<\/p>\n
     pendency of the Change Reports.\n<\/p>\n
     12.    It will also be open to the petitioners and other aggrieved to move the office<\/p>\n
     of the Charity Commissioner where the Change Reports are pending to move an<\/p>\n
     application for early disposal of those Change Reports.          On such an application<\/p>\n
     being made the Authority before whom the Change Report is pending to dispose of<\/p>\n
     the same not later than three months and file compliance report to this Court. It will<\/p>\n
     thereafter be open to the petitioners based upon the decision to reapply to the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:49:10 :::<\/span>
\n      Education Inspector who will decide their application according to law.\n<\/p>\n
     13.    In Writ Petition No.272 of 2010 the same consequences must also follows.\n<\/p>\n
     14.    Both Petitions are accordingly disposed off.\n<\/p>\n
     (A.A. SAYED, J.)                                      (F.I. REBELLO,J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                                         \n                         \n                        \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:10 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya vs The Education Inspector on 8 April, 2010 Bench: F.I. Rebello, A.A. Sayed Mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1598 OF 2009 Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya ) (Sanchalak Samiti) )..Petitioner Vs. 1.The Education Inspector, Greater ) Mumbai. ) 2.The State […]<\/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-92026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya vs The Education Inspector on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya vs The Education Inspector on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-22T21:12:03+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\\\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya vs The Education Inspector on 8 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-22T21:12:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1696,\"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\\\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya vs The Education Inspector on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-22T21:12:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya vs The Education Inspector on 8 April, 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":"Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya vs The Education Inspector on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya vs The Education Inspector on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-22T21:12:03+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\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya vs The Education Inspector on 8 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-22T21:12:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010"},"wordCount":1696,"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\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010","name":"Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya vs The Education Inspector on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-22T21:12:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayanand-vedic-hindi-vidyalaya-vs-the-education-inspector-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dayanand Vedic Hindi Vidyalaya vs The Education Inspector on 8 April, 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\/92026","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=92026"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92026\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}