{"id":99496,"date":"2009-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009"},"modified":"2018-09-21T07:31:39","modified_gmt":"2018-09-21T02:01:39","slug":"secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Secretary, Board Of Basic … vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 5 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Secretary, Board Of Basic … vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 5 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, J.M. Panchal<\/div>\n
                             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 844-846 OF 2002\n\n\n\nSECRETARY, BOARD OF BASIC EDUCATION, U.P                   ..... Appellant\n\nVs.\n\nRAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.                                  ....... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                               O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      Application for impleadment allowed.           Heard.<\/p>\n
2.    These   appeals     relate   to   recruitment    to     the   post     of<\/p>\n
Assistant Teachers in primary schools run by the Board of<\/p>\n
Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, regulated by the U.P. Basic<\/p>\n
Education     (Teachers    Services)      Rules,    1981     (`Rules’      for<\/p>\n
short).     The qualifications prescribed in Rule 8 of the said<\/p>\n
Rules, for appointment to the post of Assistant Master in<\/p>\n
Junior basic    Schools are as follows :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      “Assistant Master and             Assistant   Mistress        of
\n      Junior Basic Schools :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Intermediate Examination of the Board of High
\n      Court and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh
\n                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
      or any other qualification recognized by the
\n      State Government as equivalent thereto together
\n      with the training qualification consisting of a
\n      Basic    Teacher’s    Certificate,     Hindustani
\n      Teacher’s     Certificate,     Junior   Teacher’s
\n      Certificate, Certificate of Teaching or any other
\n      training    course   recognized    by the   State
\n      Government as equivalent thereto.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.    The    appellant          Board     (`Board’       for     short)     issued     an<\/p>\n
advertisement dated 18.1.1997 inviting applications for the<\/p>\n
posts of Assistant Teachers in its Basic Schools. The said<\/p>\n
advertisement reiterated the aforesaid qualification of BTC,<\/p>\n
HTC, JTC certificate of teaching or other training courses<\/p>\n
recognized         by    state        government        as     equivalent     thereto,<\/p>\n
(prescribed        under       Rule     8)       as   eligibility      criterion      for<\/p>\n
recruitment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    The private respondents in these appeals have undergone<\/p>\n
a    one    year    Physical          Education       Course     and    possess      CPEd<\/p>\n
Certificates.           The     Basic    Teacher’s           Certificate    and    other<\/p>\n
qualifications prescribed under Rule 8 are two years training<\/p>\n
Courses.      The       CPEd     was     never        recognized       by   the    State<\/p>\n
Government as equivalent to either BTC, HTC or JTC prescribed<\/p>\n
as qualifications for the post of Assistant Teachers\/Masters.
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
5.     On 23.3.1995, the State Government issued a direction<\/p>\n
under Section 13 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (`Act’<\/p>\n
for    short)    to     the    Board   that       candidates    possessing    CPEd<\/p>\n
Certificate could be appointed in the schools run by the<\/p>\n
Board by treating them as untrained candidates and provide<\/p>\n
training to them during the course of their employment. The<\/p>\n
said letter further directed that the pay scale applicable to<\/p>\n
trained teachers should be extended to such appointees only<\/p>\n
after they undergo training and necessary examination. The<\/p>\n
letter also informed that the State Government had taken a<\/p>\n
decision to close training of the CPEd in the State from the<\/p>\n
1996-97 Session.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.     The   State      Government      issued       another    direction     dated<\/p>\n
28.2.1996       under    Section       13    of     the   Act   superseding    the<\/p>\n
Government Order dated 24.8.1978 which had recognized the<\/p>\n
CPEd   Certificates           issued   by    Shri    Hanuman    Vyayam   Prasarak<\/p>\n
Mandal,      Amravati,         Maharashtra          as    equivalent     to    CPEd<\/p>\n
Certificate       issued         by    the     State      of    Uttar    Pradesh.<\/p>\n
Consequently, it was informed that CPEd Certificate issued by<\/p>\n
the Amrawati Institute will not be recognized.<\/p>\n
7.     In view of the directions contained in Government order<\/p>\n
dated 23.3.1995, the applications from private respondents
\n                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
who possessed only CPEd Certificates were entertained for the<\/p>\n
post    of    Asstt.     Teachers   against         the    advertisement         dated<\/p>\n
18.1.1997. The private respondents allege that a select list<\/p>\n
was also prepared, which contained their names.                          The select<\/p>\n
list, was, however, not given effect.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.     On 11.8.1997, the State Government in supersession of<\/p>\n
the earlier orders, directed that posts of Assistant Teachers<\/p>\n
in the Basic Schools run by the Board shall be filled up,<\/p>\n
only    by    those    candidates    who      are    BTC    trained      from     U.P.<\/p>\n
Government         Training     Institutes           or     those        possessing<\/p>\n
HTC\/JCT\/Teacher’s Certificate.             The said order cancelled the<\/p>\n
equivalence given to other training courses. The said order<\/p>\n
dated    11.8.1997       contains   a    specific          direction      that     the<\/p>\n
appointment to the posts of Assistant Teachers in the schools<\/p>\n
run by the Board shall be made only in accordance with the<\/p>\n
Rules,        by      candidates    possessing             BTC\/HTC\/JCT\/Teaching<\/p>\n
Certificate. According to the government, the said direction<\/p>\n
dated    11.8.1997       was   issued    to    give       effect    to    the     NCTE<\/p>\n
guidelines and the Rules.           In view of the said direction, the<\/p>\n
Board    abandoned       the   process        of    selection       commenced      in<\/p>\n
pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.1.1997 and issued a<\/p>\n
fresh        advertisement      dated      17.8.1997          restricting          the<\/p>\n
qualifications to what was stated in the direction dated
\n                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
11.8.1997. It also made it clear that those claiming the<\/p>\n
benefit of equivalence or those with CPEd Certificate were<\/p>\n
not eligible for the post of Assistant Teachers.<\/p>\n
9.     Some    of   the    CPEd   candidates              from   Amrawati     Institute<\/p>\n
approached the Allahabad High Court and a learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge by Order dated 11.2.1997 held that CPEd candidates,<\/p>\n
either from the State run institutions of Uttar Pradesh or<\/p>\n
from Amrawati, should not be treated as disqualified for<\/p>\n
appointment as Assistant Teachers, until the CPEd course is<\/p>\n
brought to an end in terms of the G.O. dated 23.3.1995, that<\/p>\n
is    from    the   sessions      1996-97           and   consequently,        the   writ<\/p>\n
petitioners therein had to be considered for appointment.<\/p>\n
When another batch of petitions filed by some other CPEd<\/p>\n
candidates came up before another learned Single judge of the<\/p>\n
High Court, he did not agree with the reasoning of the order<\/p>\n
dated 11.2.1997 and referred the matter to a Division bench<\/p>\n
by order dated 10.7.1997.                  In the reference order, it was<\/p>\n
observed that the Government direction dated 23.3.1995 was<\/p>\n
not    of    any    assistance       to       the    candidates,        as    the    Rules<\/p>\n
contemplated        only     trained           teachers,         that    is    teachers<\/p>\n
possessing BTC or other equivalent training being considered<\/p>\n
as eligible and there was no question of giving appointment<\/p>\n
to    candidates       who     did        not       possess      the    qualification
\n                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules.                           Another learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge,    who    considered            the    matter      after        the    issue       of    the<\/p>\n
Government       direction          dated        11.8.1997       made    an     order      dated<\/p>\n
23.8.1998 in          another batch quashing the Government direction<\/p>\n
dated    11.8.1997          and     the    consequential          advertisement            dated<\/p>\n
17.8.1997 and directed that all candidates who had obtained<\/p>\n
CPEd Certificates prior to 6.8.1997 should be considered for<\/p>\n
appointment          to    the     post      of    Assistant       teachers          in    Basic<\/p>\n
Schools.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.    The     appeals        from         the     orders       dated        11.2.1997          and<\/p>\n
23.8.1998       of    the     two      learned      Single       judges       and    the       writ<\/p>\n
petitions       referred          to   a     larger      Bench    by     another        learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge, were all considered by the Division bench.                                         By<\/p>\n
the     impugned          order     dated        26.6.2000,       the        Division      Bench<\/p>\n
directed that CPEd candidates trained in the institutions run<\/p>\n
by the state, or institutions recognized by state or trained<\/p>\n
from     any    other        institutions              which     had    been        recognized<\/p>\n
equivalent       to        CPEd     Course        of     Uttar     Pradesh          should      be<\/p>\n
considered for appointment in terms of the Government orders<\/p>\n
dated    23.3.1995          and     28.2.1996.            The    Division        Bench         also<\/p>\n
directed that CPEd candidates who have obtained certificates<\/p>\n
from Amrawati Institute should also be considered on the
\n                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
basis of the judgment dated 11.2.1997 of the learned Single<\/p>\n
Jude.    The said judgment is challenged in these appeals.<\/p>\n
11.    Though the Division Bench noted that CPEd was never<\/p>\n
recognized by the State Government as equivalent to BTC, HTC<\/p>\n
or    JTC,   it    was    of   the   view    that      having     regard   to    the<\/p>\n
directions contained in the Government letter dated 23.3.1995<\/p>\n
issued under Section 13 of the Act, candidates who possess<\/p>\n
CPEd Certificates were eligible to be considered as untrained<\/p>\n
candidates,       who,    on   selection       and    appointment      should     be<\/p>\n
subjected to training. But the Division Bench overlooked the<\/p>\n
fact that though the government direction dated 23.3.1995,<\/p>\n
may     apply     to     advertisement      dated      18.1.1997,      the      said<\/p>\n
direction dated 23.3.1995 was revoked and superseded by the<\/p>\n
subsequent        government       direction       dated    11.8.1997.            The<\/p>\n
Government direction dated 11.8.1997, is a policy formulated<\/p>\n
in pursuance of NCTE guidelines, to make appointments only in<\/p>\n
accordance with the rules, without relaxations. It did not<\/p>\n
suffer    from     any    infirmity.        When     the   said   direction      was<\/p>\n
received, the Board apparently decided not to proceed with<\/p>\n
the     selection        process     commenced        in   pursuance       of    the<\/p>\n
advertisement          dated       18.1.1997         and   issued      a        fresh<\/p>\n
advertisement dated 17.8.1997, which it was entitled to do.<\/p>\n
It is now well settled that merely because a candidate is
\n                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
eligible     when    the   advertisement    was    issued     or   that    a<\/p>\n
candidate’s name is included in the selection list does not<\/p>\n
confer any right to the candidate to be appointed.                    It is<\/p>\n
also well settled that it is for the rule making authority or<\/p>\n
the appointing authority to prescribe the qualifications for<\/p>\n
recruitment     and    courts    will     not     interfere    with       the<\/p>\n
qualifications prescribed by such authority.             In this case,<\/p>\n
the Board decided not to pursue the recruitment advertisement<\/p>\n
dated 18.1.1997 for good and valid reasons and issued a fresh<\/p>\n
advertisement dated 17.8.1997 in terms of the direction dated<\/p>\n
11.8.1997. Therefore, the issue whether the CPEd Certificate<\/p>\n
candidates     who    applied   against    the     advertisement      dated<\/p>\n
18.1.1997, were eligible or not, with reference to the said<\/p>\n
superseded advertisement dated 18.1.1997, becomes academic.<\/p>\n
The High Court could not have, therefore, directed that the<\/p>\n
CPEd Certificate candidates be considered in terms of the<\/p>\n
government directions dated 23.3.1995 after the Government<\/p>\n
direction dated 11.8.1997. In the view we have taken, it is<\/p>\n
not necessary to examine the other question as to whether the<\/p>\n
government, by an executive order, can direct the Board to<\/p>\n
deviate from the qualifications prescribed by the rules.<\/p>\n
12.   The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the order of the<\/p>\n
Division bench is set aside and the writ petitions by the
\n                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
private     respondents          are   dismissed.         The    validity     of   the<\/p>\n
Government           direction     dated       11.8.1997        and   consequential<\/p>\n
advertisement is upheld.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.    We may, however, make it clear that if any candidate<\/p>\n
with CPEd Certificate had already been appointed by virtue of<\/p>\n
any interim or final order of the High Court, and continues<\/p>\n
to    be   in    appointment       even       as   on   date,    after   undergoing<\/p>\n
training        as    stated     in    the     Government        directions    dated<\/p>\n
23.3.1995, his service may not be terminated merely on the<\/p>\n
ground that the said Government direction was superseded by<\/p>\n
the Government direction dated 11.8.1997.<\/p>\n
                                                            __________________J
\n                                                             [R. V. Raveendran]<\/p>\n
                                                                _________________J
\n                                                                     [J M Panchal]
\nNew Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
February 5, 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Secretary, Board Of Basic … vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 5 February, 2009 Bench: R.V. Raveendran, J.M. Panchal IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 844-846 OF 2002 SECRETARY, BOARD OF BASIC EDUCATION, U.P ….. Appellant Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS. ……. Respondents O R […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-99496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSecretary, Board Of Basic ... vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 5 February, 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\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Secretary, Board Of Basic ... vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-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=\"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-21T02:01:39+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Secretary, Board Of Basic … vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 5 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-21T02:01:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1547,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Secretary, Board Of Basic ... vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-21T02:01:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Secretary, Board Of Basic … vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 5 February, 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":"Secretary, Board Of Basic ... vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 5 February, 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\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Secretary, Board Of Basic ... vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-21T02:01:39+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Secretary, Board Of Basic … vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 5 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-21T02:01:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009"},"wordCount":1547,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009","name":"Secretary, Board Of Basic ... vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-21T02:01:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-board-of-basic-vs-rajendra-singh-ors-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Secretary, Board Of Basic … vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 5 February, 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\/99496","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=99496"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99496\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}