{"id":99852,"date":"2007-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007"},"modified":"2015-06-03T09:24:50","modified_gmt":"2015-06-03T03:54:50","slug":"state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & Ors on 20 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & Ors on 20 February, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr.Ar. Lakshmanan, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  863 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTUKARAM TRYAMBAK CHAUDHARI & ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/02\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr.AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
\n\tThe private respondents in all these special leave
\npetitions had filed several writ petitions   in the Bombay High
\nCourt questioning the decision of the  authorities to treat them
\nas Untrained Teachers  although they were all graduate
\nteachers having B.Ed. qualification and approval having been
\ngranted for their appointment as trained teachers.  According
\nto the said respondents, they had all been appointed as
\nAssistant Teachers in Primary Schools which conducted
\nclasses up to the 7th standard, from   about  the year 1988
\nonwards.  It is only after a decision was taken to treat them as
\nuntrained teachers, despite being fully trained and qualified,
\nthat  they were  compelled to move the  several writ petitions
\nwhich were  all allowed by a  common judgment of the Bombay
\nHigh Court dated 6th May, 2004.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe case of the writ petitioners before the Bombay High
\nCourt was that they were all graduate teachers having B.Ed.
\nqualification and that  they had been appointed  to teach in
\nPrimary Schools conducting classes up to the 7th standard.
\nIn most of the cases, approval was granted  for their
\nappointment as  Trained  Teachers.  Subsequently,  however,
\nin 2001, they were all informed   on different dates that they
\nwould  be treated as untrained teachers and would  be paid
\ntheir salaries accordingly.  According to the writ petitioners, in
\nterms  of Government Resolution dated 26th October, 1982,
\nthey were entitled to be appointed and  continued as Trained
\nTeachers in the B.Ed. scale.  The respondents in the several
\nwrit petitions, who are the appellants before us, had
\ncontended before the High Court that B.Ed. qualification was
\nnot sufficient for being treated as Trained Teacher in the
\nPrimary Schools and that what was required was a D.Ed.
\nqualification.  It was contended  that before joining the school,
\nthe teacher concerned was required to hold  the qualification
\nof S.S.C. and D.Ed. and that the teacher was also required to
\nacquire a  graduation degree  while in service  along  with  a
\nB.Ed. degree.\n<\/p>\n
\tRelying on a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High
\nCourt in the case of   Kondiba   vs.  State of Maharashtra
\n& Ors., referred to in paragraph  3 of the  impugned judgment
\nof the High Court, the Bombay High Court allowed all the writ
\napplications and set aside  all the impugned orders upon
\nholding that teachers who possess B.A.\/B.Sc. and B.Ed.
\nqualification are duly qualified  and are eligible  to continue to
\nreceive their  salaries as Trained Teachers from the date on
\nwhich they were appointed along with  all consequential
\nbenefits and were also entitled to be paid  the difference and
\nany other consequential benefits  within the period stipulated.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe State of Maharashtra is in appeal before us against
\nthe aforesaid  decision of the Bombay High Court.  Appearing
\nfor  the appellants, Mr. S.K. Dholakia, learned senior counsel,
\nsubmitted that  in the State  of Maharashtra  classes from 5th
\nto 7th   standard  are attached either with primary schools or
\nwith secondary schools.    He submitted that the provisions  of
\nthe Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981
\nprovides for  the qualification of teachers for appointment to
\nprimary schools.  Rule 6 provides that the minimum
\nqualifications  for the posts of teachers  and the non-teaching
\nstaff in the primary schools  are those specified in Schedule
\n“B” which  reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“Qualfiications for Primary Teachers”:- (1)
\nAppointment to the posts of Primary school
\nteachers (other than special teachers
\nDrawing teachers) shall be made by
\nnomination from  amongst candidates  who
\nhave passed S.S.C. examination or
\nMatriculation examination or Lokshala
\nexamination or any other examination
\nrecognised as such  by Government and the
\nPrimary Teachers Certificate Examination or
\nDiploma in Education Examination, or
\nDiploma in  Education (Pre-Primary of two
\nyears duration)<\/p>\n
Note.- A person holding a Diploma in
\nEducation (Pre-primary of two years’ duration)
\nshall be qualified to teach standards I to IV
\nonly notwithstanding anything contained in
\nthe foregoing provisions <\/p>\n
(a)\tCandidates who were recruited  before
\nthe coming into force of these rules  in
\naccordance with the recruitment
\nrules then in force and who were
\nthereafter discharged for want of
\nvacancies shall be eligible for
\nreappointment.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tOther things being equal, preference
\nmay be given to <\/p>\n
(i)\tcandidates who have passed
\nthe S.S.C. or other equivalent
\nexamination with English,
\nMathematics and Science or
\nany two of them  and <\/p>\n
(ii)\teligible women candidates
\nobtaining the qualification
\nmentioned at item (i) through
\ncondensed courses.\n<\/p>\n
2. Appointment to the post of Special Teacher
\n(Drawing Teacher) in Primary Schools shall be
\nmade by nomination from amongst candidates
\nwho have passed  S.S.C. examination and
\npossess Art Teaches Diploma or Drawing
\nTeachers Certificate or Drawing Masters
\nCertificate.\n<\/p>\n
3. Primary School teachers whose date of first
\nappointment as such teachers in the service of
\na Zilla Parishad or Municipal School Board or
\nMunicipal Corporation or Municipal Council or
\nrecognised private primary school is 15th
\nOctober  1966 or any prior date are exempted
\nfrom acquiring S.S.C. and training
\nqualification.\n<\/p>\n
4. Primary School teachers recruited prior to
\nthe 30th June 1972 and who are  possessing
\nacademic and training qualification  according
\nto the rules in force at the time of their
\nappointment are  exempted from the S.S.C.
\nand D.Ed. qualifications.  Those who were
\nrecruited  after the 30th June 1972 and who do
\nnot possess the S.S.C. and training
\nqualifications should acquire the same before
\nJune 1985.  Failure to acquire these
\nqualifications before June 1985 shall make
\nthem liable for termination of their services.\n<\/p>\n
5. The Primary School teachers with S.S.C.
\nplus S.T.C. or T.D. or D.T. (one  year) or
\nDiploma in Education (one year) qualification
\nwho have been appointed  in service on or
\nbefore the 30th September 1970 in  primary
\nschools shall be regarded as trained and held
\neligible for the scale of pay  for trained S.S.C.
\nteachers.”\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Dholakia submitted that the petitioners were all
\ngraduate teachers having B.Ed. qualification and they were
\nappointed to teach in primary schools  conducting classes
\nfrom 1st standard  to 7th standard.  While the writ petitioners
\nwere functioning as teachers in the primary schools, the
\nGovernment of Maharashtra  in its Education, Employment
\nand Youth Services Department, adopted a Resolution on 14th
\nNovember, 1979, with the aim of  gradually removing any
\ndiscrimination regarding  availability of teachers and other
\nfacilities for 5th  to 7th  standard classes  attached to secondary
\nschools  and 5th  to 7th standard classes attached to primary
\nschools  run by  Local Self Governing  Bodies.  In the
\nNotification itself it was noticed that in Maharashtra State,
\nthere is similar syllabus for 5th  to 7th  standard classes in
\nprimary and secondary schools but for these very classes there
\nwas a difference in staffing pattern and other facilities.  It was
\nalso  noticed that as per the  staffing pattern then existing, for
\n5th  to 7th  standard classes attached to secondary schools, for
\neach class 1.3 teachers are appointed.  In  these three
\nstandards, out of the four teachers, the first three teachers
\nhave H.S.C. and D.Ed. qualification  and the 4th teacher is a
\ntrained graduate teacher (graduate and B.Ed).   It was resolved
\nthat  in primary   \tschools also for the 5th  to 7th  standard
\nclasses, if the conditions are prescribed and attendance of
\nstudents was fulfilled then for each standard 1.3. teacher is
\nprovided.  All teachers in these classes attached to the primary
\nclasses are with H.S.C. and D.Ed. qualifications but in these
\nclasses of the  primary schools \t at the existing point of time
\nthere was no  permission given for appointing trained graduate
\nas teachers.  In order to remove this difference in the staffing
\npattern of  5th  to 7th  standard classes in  these two kinds of
\nschools, the Government  decided  that  in primary schools
\nrun by Local Self Governing Bodies where such  schools are
\nentitled to  four or more teachers, for 25% of approved
\nstrength of teachers  in those classes  pay-scale  could  be
\navailable  for trained graduate teachers in the increased scale
\nof pay.\n<\/p>\n
It was also stipulated that the post of Primary Teaches
\nconverted into Trained Graduate Teachers should  only be
\nfrom the cadre\/category of Primary  Teachers and only in
\nservice Primary Teachers who were in full time service and
\nwho fulfilled  the educational qualifications mentioned should
\nbe appointed.\n<\/p>\n
Paragraph  5 of the said Resolution further stipulated as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
“On  these converted post of increased pay
\nscale of Rs.365-760\/-  in  primary schools,
\nfrom below mentioned category, in service
\ngraduate primary teachers (inclusive of trained
\nteachers, who  have completed stipulated
\ntraining course (D.Ed.) or primary teachers)
\nshould be appointed on following conditions:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tTrained primary teachers who
\nhave obtained degree in Arts or
\nScience (at least by taking one
\nsubject which is being taught in
\nprimary schools) and obtained
\ndegree in education i.e. B.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tTrained primary teachers who
\nhave done graduation in other
\nsubjects (without taking any
\nsubject which is being taught in
\nprimary schools) but obtained
\ndegree in education i.e. B.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
Primary teachers, falling in this
\ncategory, should be given new
\nincreased pay scale on such
\ncondition that “within 5 years of
\ntheir appointment in the post of
\nincreased pay scale of Rs.365-\n<\/p>\n
760\/-, they – at their own
\ncost\/expenses – should obtained
\ndegree by taking at least one
\nsubject which is being taught in
\nprimary schools”.  If this
\ncondition is not fulfilled, then
\nfor such teachers further
\nincrement in this new pay scale
\nshould be stopped till he
\nacquires that degree.\n<\/p>\n
(c)  Trained primary teachers who
\nhave done graduation in other
\nsubjects (without taking any
\nsubject which is being taught in
\nprimary school) and who have
\nalso not obtained degree in
\nEducation i.e. B.Ed. Primary
\nteachers, falling in this category,
\nshould be given new increased
\npay scale on such condition that
\n“within  5 years  of their
\nappointments in the post of
\nincreased pay scale of Rs.365-\n<\/p>\n
760\/-, they – at their  own
\ncosts\/expenses – should
\nobtained degree by taking at
\nleast one subject which is being
\ntaught in primary schools and
\nalso obtained degree in
\nEducation i.e. B.Ed.   If this
\ncondition is not fulfilled, then
\nfor such teachers further
\nincrement in this new pay scale
\nshould be stopped till he
\nacquires those degrees.”\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Dholakia submitted that as trained graduate teachers
\nthe writ petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as
\nindicated in paragraph 5 of the Resolution extracted
\nhereinabove and accordingly they were informed that they
\nwould be treated as untrained teachers and paid salary
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the decision of the State Government to
\ntreat them as untrained teachers, despite their having the
\nB.Ed. qualification, purportedly  as per the  Government
\nResolution dated 14th November, 1979, the private
\nrespondents in these  appeals filed  separate writ applications
\nwhich, as indicated hereinbefore, were all taken up for hearing
\ntogether and disposed of by a common judgment dated 6th
\nMay, 2004.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Dholakia urged that although the Government
\nResolution of 14th November, 1979  had been brought to the
\nnotice  of the High Court, the High Court  relied on a  Bench
\ndecision of the Bombay High Court in case of Kondiba vs.
\nState of Maharashtra (supra), in arriving at the conclusion
\nthat  in schools having 1st  to 7th standards, it was permissible
\nto appoint one teacher having B.Ed.\/B.Sc. as per the State
\nGovernment Circular.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Dholakia also submitted that  a Full Bench decision
\nof the Bombay High Court in the case of Jayashree Sunil
\nChavan vs.  State of Maharashtra and Ors,.<\/a>  reported   in
\n2000 (3) Mah. L.J.  605, taking a different view, had been
\nbrought to the  notice of the High Court  but the said decision
\nappears not to have been considered by the High Court while
\ndeciding the writ petitions filed by the private respondents
\nherein.  Mr. Dholakia pointed out that in the said decision the
\nsame question had fallen for consideration and it had been
\nanswered by the Full Bench  by holding that D.Ed. is the
\nrequisite minimum qualification for teaching  students in
\nprimary schools and  a B.Ed.    qualification cannot be  treated
\nas equivalent thereto.  In paragraph 22 of the  judgment, the
\nopinion of the State Teachers Board to show  how D.Ed.
\neducation is better suited for teaching primary teachers  was
\nconsidered and it was mentioned  that it was the opinion  of
\nthe State Teachers Training Board  that candidates holding
\nB.Ed. qualification could not be  treated as candidates holding
\nthe qualification equivalent to D.Ed. by giving them  mere
\ntraining  of two-three months.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Dholakia submitted that the  mere fact that B.Ed.
\nqualification was a higher qualification  than D.Ed.
\nqualification could not be the  reason for holding that  trained
\ngraduates holding B.Ed. degree were  also   eligible in terms of
\nthe Government Resolution of 14th November, 1979 to be
\nappointed in the 4th post of Assistant Teacher in primary
\nschools conducting classes for the 5th and 7th  standards.  In
\nfact, such an argument was repelled by the Full Bench.
\nMr. Dholakia urged that by ignoring the Full Bench
\ndecision referred to above, the Bombay High Court
\nmisinterpreted the Government Resolution  dated 14th
\nNovember, 1979.   On account of such error, the Bombay High
\nCourt committed a further error by holding that of the 25%
\nposts of the approved strength of teachers to be converted into
\nthe pay scale of Rs.365-15-500-20-660\/-, the same was meant
\nfor trained graduate teachers which included graduate
\nteachers holding  a  B.Ed. degree, which was not the intention
\nof the Government Resolution dated 14th November, 1979.
\nMr. Dholakia submitted that  paragraph 5 of the Resolution
\nmade it clear  that only in service graduate  primary teachers,
\ninclusive of trained  teachers who had completed stipulated
\ntraining course (D.Ed.) could be appointed  to the converted
\nposts in the  increased pay-scale.  It was urged that such an
\ninterpretation finds support from the Full Bench decision.
\nSubmitting that the approach of the High Court and its
\nfindings were erroneous and contrary to the Government
\nResolution dated 14th November, 1979,  Mr. Dholakia urged
\nthat the  impugned judgment of the High Court was liable to
\nbe set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Dholakia’s submissions were strongly opposed on
\nbehalf of the respondents by Mr .R.S. Apte, advocate who
\nurged that the High Court had correctly interpreted the
\nGovernment Resolution of 14th November, 1979 and the
\ninterpretation now being sought to be given on behalf  of the
\nState was, in fact, erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Apte contended that the Government Resolution of
\n14th November, 1979 had been duly noticed by the High Court
\nin its correct perspective which was to bring about a parity
\nbetween the facilities given to the teachers of 5th to 7th
\nstandards attached both with primary schools as well as
\nsecondary schools.  In the Resolution itself it was indicated
\nthat 25% of the teachers teaching in the 5th to 7th standards
\nattached to secondary schools were enjoying the benefit of a
\nhigher  scale of play for the 4th teacher who was a trained
\ngraduate teacher being a graduate as well as having  the B.Ed.
\ndegree, while for the same  classes attached to primary
\nschools there was no such arrangement.  It was  noticed  that
\nall teachers in these classes of primary schools were with
\nH.S.C. and D.Ed. qualifications  and that in these classes of
\nprimary schools  there was no  permission for appointing
\ntrained graduate as teachers.   In order to remove the
\ndifference in the staffing  pattern of these classes  in these
\nkinds of schools, the Government decided that in primary
\nschools run by  local self governing bodies  and having 5th to
\n7th standard classes, 25% of the posts of approved strength of
\nteacher in those classes should be converted into increased
\npay-scale which was meant for those very classes in the
\nsecondary schools.  It was submitted that  the Government
\nconsciously    provided for the appointment of trained
\ngraduate teachers for  the 5th  to 7th standards  attached to
\nprimary schools.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Apte submitted that  paragraph 5 of the Government
\nResolution also indicated that in the converted posts to the
\nhigher scale in service  graduate  primary teachers, inclusive
\nof trained teachers who had completed  the D.Ed. course could
\nbe appointed on the conditions as stipulated.  Mr. Apte
\ncontended that the said paragraph was an inclusive paragraph
\nmeant to include those  trained  teachers who had completed
\nthe  D.Ed. course with  in service graduate primary teachers
\nwho would thereafter be required to obtain the B.Ed. degree.
\nMr. Apte contended that the Full Bench decision of the
\nBombay High Court   in the case of  Jayashree Sunil (supra)
\nhad dealt with the question as to whether  the D.Ed.
\nqualification is the requisite minimum qualification for
\nteaching students in primary schools and also whether the
\nB.Ed. qualification could be treated as equivalent thereto.  He
\nurged that  although the Maharashtra Employees of Private
\nSchools Rules 1981 had been considered  and referred to by
\nthe Full Bench,  and in particular Schedule ‘B’ thereof, the
\nGovernment Resolution dated 14th November, 1979 had not
\nbeen brought  to  its notice.  On the other hand, the said
\nResolution was considered in detail by the Division Bench of
\nthe Bombay High Court  in the case of Kondiba (supra) which
\nhad been decided on 12th September, 2002.  The Full Bench
\ndecision was made on 5th May, 2000 and dealt with the
\nquestion regarding the eligibility of the holder of a B.Ed.
\ndegree to be  appointed as a  teacher in a primary school.   Mr.
\nApte submitted that the subject matter of consideration, as
\nalso the facts were different in the cases before the Full Bench
\nand the Division Bench and the decision rendered by the Full
\nBench had no application to the facts of the instant case,
\nwhereas, the issue in Kondiba’s case (supra) was  directly on
\nthe point and the High Court correctly arrived at the decision
\nin deciding the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Apte submitted that the order passed by the High
\nCourt and impugned in the instant proceedings had been
\ncorrectly made  and no interference was called for therewith.
\nWe have carefully considered the submissions made on
\nbehalf of the respective parties.  Having particular regard to
\nthe fact that though  standards  5 to 7 were attached to both
\nprimary schools as well as secondary schools, these classes in
\nfact,  represented the middle schools for which different
\nstandards were being followed.\n<\/p>\n
Conscious of such disparity in respect of teachers who
\nare similarly situated but were treated differently on account
\nof their being attached to primary schools and\/or secondary
\nschools, the State Government resolved to eliminate such
\ndifferences and to make provisions for trained graduate
\nteachers to be upgraded to a higher scale to the extent of 25%
\nof the posts.  The said Resolution consciously refers to in
\nservice graduate primary teachers who were eligible for
\nappointment to the posts in the increased pay-scale.  In fact,
\none of the conditions for appointment of in service graduate
\nprimary teachers to the converted  post carrying the   higher
\npay-scale  was that such teacher should have obtained a
\ndegree in Arts or Science and had also obtained a degree in
\neducation namely, B.Ed.   While adopting  the  aforesaid
\nResolution,  the Government was, therefore,  fully  aware of
\nthe fact there were graduate teachers  teaching in  standards 5
\nto 7 in the primary schools.  This fact was also referred to by
\nthe Division Bench  of the High Court in its judgment under
\nappeal.  It has been mentioned that one of the contentions
\nraised on behalf of writ petitioners was that in terms of
\nGovernment Resolution dated 26th October, 1982, the
\npetitioners were entitled  to be appointed and continued as
\ntrained teachers  in B.Ed. scale.\n<\/p>\n
As has been pointed out by Mr. Apte, the said
\nGovernment Resolution does not appear to have been brought
\nto the notice of the Full Bench which rendered its decision on
\nthe reference made to it on the basis of the Maharashtra Rules
\nof 1981 in respect whereof conflicting views had been  taken
\nwith regard to the eligibility of  a graduate, also holding the
\nB.Ed. degree to be appointed in  a primary school.  The
\nResolution of 1979 was dealing with a situation which was
\nprior to the enactment of the said Rules and which
\ncontemplated the existence and appointment of graduate
\nteachers in primary schools.\n<\/p>\n
The decision rendered in Kondiba’s case (supra) is closer
\nto the facts of this case. The High Court, in our view, did not
\ncommit any error in following the same upon distinguishing
\nthe decision rendered by the Full Bench on account of the said
\nResolution and the Resolution dated 12th November, 2001
\nadopted on the basis thereof.\n<\/p>\n
We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the
\ndecision rendered by the High Court which has been
\nimpugned    in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed
\nbut without any order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & Ors on 20 February, 2007 Author: A Kabir Bench: Dr.Ar. Lakshmanan, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 863 of 2007 PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS RESPONDENT: TUKARAM TRYAMBAK CHAUDHARI & ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/02\/2007 BENCH: Dr.AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas […]<\/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-99852","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & Ors on 20 February, 2007 - 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\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & Ors on 20 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-03T03:54:50+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & Ors on 20 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-03T03:54:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3481,\"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\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007\",\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & Ors on 20 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-03T03:54:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & Ors on 20 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & Ors on 20 February, 2007 - 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\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & Ors on 20 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-03T03:54:50+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & Ors on 20 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-03T03:54:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007"},"wordCount":3481,"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\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007","name":"State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & Ors on 20 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-03T03:54:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-ors-vs-tukaram-tryambak-chaudhari-ors-on-20-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & Ors on 20 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/99852","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=99852"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99852\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99852"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99852"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99852"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}