{"id":109110,"date":"2006-07-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006"},"modified":"2017-12-21T18:18:06","modified_gmt":"2017-12-21T12:48:06","slug":"a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"A.P. Public Service Commission vs K. Sudharshan Reddy And Ors on 4 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
A.P. Public Service Commission vs K. Sudharshan Reddy And Ors on 4 July, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4202 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nA.P. Public Service Commission\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. Sudharshan Reddy and Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/07\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nDr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/p>\n
Pursuant to an advertisement No. 2\/83 published by it, the Andhra Pradesh
\nPublic Service Commission conducted recruitment to Group-II (A) Services
\nand upon completion of the process of selection, the selected candidates
\nwere appointed in 1985 itself. In keeping with GOMS No. 502 dated 26th
\nJune, 1976, 5% weightage marks were awarded to candidates who had obtained
\ntheir basic qualifications through Telugu medium. The same was challenged
\nbefore the Andhra Pradesh High Court by Non-Telugu Medium candidates in a
\nWrit Petition, being No. 2041\/1981, which was allowed by the learned Single
\nJudge by his judgment dated 7th June, 1981. By the said judgment and order
\nthe learned Single Judge quashed the aforesaid Government Order on the
\nground that it was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
\nthe Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Two Writ Appeals were filed from the order of the learned Single Judge, one
\nby the State of Andhra Pradesh and the other by the Telugu Medium
\ncandidates. Both the Writ Appeals were heard analogously by a Division
\nBench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which by its judgment and order
\ndated 15th September, 1981 allowed the Writ Appeals and upheld the
\nGovernment Orders whereby 5 % weightage in total marks was given to Telugu
\nMedium candidates, upon holding that the same did not violate Articles 14
\nand 16 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Writ Petition filed by the
\nNon-Telugu Medium Candidates was dismissed. The same resulted in the filing
\nof Civil Appeal No.2914\/1981 (V.N. Sunanda Reddy and Ors. v. State of
\nAndhra Pradesh and Ors.)<\/a> in this Court. Subsequently, the State of Andhra
\nPradesh issued a more comprehensive Government Order No.603 dated 18th
\nNovember, 1981 and extended 5 % weightage to all Telugu Medium Students who
\nwere candidates for recruitment by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service
\nCommission to any service in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The statutory
\nrules framed in terms of the said Government Order were once again
\nchallenged by Non-Telugu Medium candidates before the Andhra Pradesh
\nAdministrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. The Tribunal by its order dated 18th
\nJanuary, 1994, allowed the said application filed by the Non-Telugu Medium
\ncandidates upon holding as was done in the earlier matter, that the said
\nGovernment Order was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
\nAs will be apparent, the view taken by the Tribunal was contrary to the
\ndecision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and it
\nresulted in a Special Leave Petition being (Civil) No. 6395\/1994 filed by
\nthe Telugu Medium candidates and by the State of Andhra Pradesh by way of
\nSpecial Leave Petition c No. 13446\/1994. As the question involved in both
\nthe matters was the same, they were taken up together for hearing by this
\nCourt and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 25th January, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
Although, at the time of the hearing of the appeals, it was sought to be
\nurged on behalf of the State that the weightage had been given in the
\ninterest of the State to enable it to recruit persons who are better
\nacquainted with Telugu language, which was the official language of the
\nState, such a stand was rejected and it was held that the Division Bench of
\nthe Andhra Pradesh High Court was not right when it accepted such view.
\nThis Court held further that the Division Bench was not justified in
\nupsetting the views expressed by the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
While disposing of the said appeals, this Court took note of a submission
\nmade on behalf of Telugu Medium students that in the event the weightage
\ngiven to them in recruitment was found to be faulty, those Telugu Medium
\ncandidates who had already been appointed on the basis of such weightage
\nshould not be disturbed and it was also submitted that those Telugu Medium
\nstudents whose appointments could not be made on account of pendency of the
\nproceedings should be given one further chance to compete for future
\nrecruitment in the post in question and for that purpose suitable age
\nrelaxation may be made in their case. Finding such submission to be
\nreasonable, this Court observed and directed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“…In our view this request is quite reasonable and deserves to be
\ngranted. We, therefore, direct that despite our finding that 5 percent
\nweightage given to the Telugu medium graduates in the present case is
\nviolative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, those Telugu medium
\ngraduates who have already been appointed on the strength of such weightage
\nand who are working on their concerned posts should not be disturbed and
\ntheir appointments will not be adversely affected by the present judgment.
\nOn the other hand, those Telugu medium graduates who have been selected on
\nthe strength of the weightage but to whom actual appointments have not been
\ngiven on account of pendency of the present proceedings should be given a
\nchance to compete for such posts as and when future recruitment to such
\nposts is resorted to and for that purpose only once suitable age relaxation
\nmay be given to them in case they are otherwise found suitable on merits to
\nbe appointed in such future direct recruitment to such posts. In other
\nwords, only on account of the fact that they have become age barred, they
\nshould not be denied appointments on the strength of their meritorious
\nperformance. This will be by way of only one time concession about age
\nrelaxation.”\n<\/p>\n
Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 2914\/1981 was allowed, the judgment and
\norder of the Division Bench was set aside and the decision of the learned
\nSingle Judge was restored and the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP c Nos.
\n6395 & 13446\/1994 were dismissed and the judgment and order of the Andhra
\nPradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A.No. 2142\/1993 was
\nconfirmed.\n<\/p>\n
Despite the views expressed by this Court in the above appeals, the matter
\nwas not allowed to rest and one K. Sudharshan Reddy, the respondent No.1
\nbefore us in Civil Appeal No.4202\/203 and Sri Y.T. Naidu, who is respondent
\nNo.1 before us in Civil Appeal No.4201\/2003, filed separate applications
\nbefore the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, being O.A.No.6141\/1995
\nand O.A.No.2470\/2001, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act,
\n1985, complaining that the respondents had acted in a manner contrary to
\nlaw by giving the advantage of weightage marks while preparing the merit
\nlist for preparation of the seniority list in view of the aforesaid
\njudgment of this Court. It was the contention of the said applicants that
\nthe direction that the services of those Telugu Medium candidates who had
\nbeen appointed on account of the weightage given should not be disturbed,
\ndid not include any condition that such candidates were to be given the
\nbenefit of weightage of 5% of the total marks also for the purpose of
\ncomputing seniority. In other words, it was sought to be contended that the
\nprotection given by the aforesaid judgment of this Court to Telugu Medium
\nstudents, who had already been selected with the benefit of weightage, was
\nonly to the extent of their appointment and that for their ranking in the
\nmerit list, the additional 5% marks could not be counted.\n<\/p>\n
The said argument advanced on behalf of the said two respondents found
\nfavour with the Tribunal which was persuaded to hold that the protection
\nafforded to the Telugu Medium candidates did not extend to the counting of
\nsuch weightage for the purpose of determining seniority in the cadre. The
\nlearned Tribunal, therefore, directed the Government to take follow up
\naction to reduce the weightage marks given to the Telugu Medium candidates
\nand to prepare the new ranking list and to fix the seniority on the basis
\nthereof.\n<\/p>\n
Both the Original Applications were disposed of by the Tribunal by its
\naforesaid judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2001, which was challenged
\nbefore the Andhra Pradesh High Court by way of Writ Petitions Nos.
\n16321\/1001 and 16283\/2001. Both the Writ Petitions were dismissed by
\nidentical orders with the observation that the Tribunal had merely followed
\nthe judgment of this Court and the impugned order did not, therefore,
\nsuffer from any legal infirmity. These two appeals before us have been
\nfiled by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission against the orders
\npassed in the said Writ Petitions and since they involve common questions
\nof law and fact, the same have been taken up together for hearing and
\ndisposal.\n<\/p>\n
Appearing for the appellant-Commission, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior
\nadvocate, took us through the relevant portions of the directions given by
\nthis Court which have been quoted hereinbefore and tried to explain the
\ntrue meaning and purport thereof, which according to him, had been
\ncompletely misunderstood both by the Tribunal, as also the Andhra Pradesh
\nHigh Court. Mr. Kumar emphasized on the use of the expression “those Telugu
\nMedium Graduates who have already been appointed on the strength of such
\nweightage and who are working on their concerned posts should not be
\ndisturbed and their appointments will not be adversely affected by the
\npresent judgment.” (underlining by us). He emphasized that the said
\ndirection could be broken up into three parts in order to understand and
\nappreciate their true meaning and purport. It was submitted that this Court
\nincluded in the scope of its order Telugu Medium candidates who had already
\nbeen appointed on the strength of the weightage given. Secondly, those
\npersons who were working on their concerned posts should not be disturbed
\nand thirdly their appointments were not to be adversely affected. Mr. Kumar
\nadded that a conscious distinction had been made by the Court in respect of
\nthose Telugu Medium graduates who had been selected on the strength of the
\nweightage but to whom actual appointments had not been given. Mr. Kumar
\nsubmitted that in their case the Court directed that they should be given a
\nchance to compete for such posts when future recruitment to such posts was
\nrequired and for that purpose only once suitable age relaxation could be
\ngiven to them in case they were otherwise found suitable on merit to be
\nappointed in future to such posts.\n<\/p>\n
In addition to his aforesaid submission on the merits of the views
\nexpressed by the Tribunal and the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
\nCourt, Mr. Kumar also urged that if the judgment and order of the Tribunal
\nand the High Court were allowed to stand, it would result in unsettling of
\nthe entire seniority position which prevailed in 1981 in different services
\nthrough out the State and the same would lead to a chaotic situation. It
\nwas submitted that such an action could hardly be undertaken at such a
\ndistant point of time.\n<\/p>\n
In support of his said submission, Mr. Kumar referred to the decision of
\nthis Court in the case of Prabodh Verma and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
\nand Ors.,<\/a> [1984] 4 SCC 251, wherein in paragraph 28 such a scenario has
\nbeen considered, discussed and dilated upon.\n<\/p>\n
Reference was also made to a decision of this Court in the case of Arun
\nTewari and Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and Ors.,<\/a> [1998] 2 SCC 332,
\nwherein with reference to the aforesaid case, similar views have been
\nexpressed.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior advocate, who appeared for the respondent No.
\n1 in both the matters, on the other hand, strongly supported the view
\nexpressed by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Rao submitted that having held that the Government Orders granting
\nweightage of 5% marks to Telugu Medium candidates was violative of Articles
\n14 and 16 of the Constitution, it could never have been the intention of
\nthis Court to perpetuate such arbitrariness and all that was protected by
\nthis Court’s order were the appointments which had been made in favour of
\nsuch Telugu Medium candidates who had been given the benefit of weightage
\nin terms of the concerned Government Orders. According to Mr. Rao, to hold
\notherwise would be to negate the very decision of this Hon’ble Court in the
\nearlier matter.\n<\/p>\n
It was further urged that the revision of the seniority list could always
\nbe done at any stage since all the required particulars were available in
\nthe office of the concerned authorities.\n<\/p>\n
Referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Ajit Singh and
\nOrs.(II) v. State of Punjab and Ors., [1999] 7 SCC 209, Mr. Rao submitted
\nthat while discussing “the catch up role”, it was observed that there
\nshould not be any difficulty in amending the seniority list since the
\nseniority list at a particular level would have to be amended only when the
\nsenior general candidates reach the said level.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Rao urged that this Court had held that such weightage was arbitrary
\nand that the addition of 40 marks which represented 5 % of the total
\naggregate marks would give the Telugu Medium candidates, a strong advantage
\nover candidates from other mediums, particularly when competition was
\nfierce and even one mark could tilt the decision in favour of a candidate.\n<\/p>\n
Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the
\nrespective parties, we are unable to agree with the submissions advanced by
\nMr. Rao since in our view, after having held the impugned Government Order
\nto be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, it was the
\nintention of this Court to maintain the status quo as it existed with
\nregard to the appointments already made where certain candidates had
\nalready been given the benefit of weightage. We are inclined to agree with
\nMr. Ranjit Kumar that the Court intended to protect not only the
\nappointment of such candidates but also all their service conditions, which
\nincluded their right to seniority as had accrued to them at the time of
\ntheir initial appointment. In our view, the said intention of this Court
\nwas quite clear from the language used. If this Court had intended that the
\nweightage given to the concerned candidates was not to count towards their
\nposition in the merit list, it would have said so explicitly. On the other
\nhand, while mentioning the fact of their appointment on the strength of
\nsuch weightage this Court went on to say that such candidates would not be
\nadversely affected by the judgment. In other words, the decision rendered
\nin the judgment would not adversely affect their existing service
\nconditions.\n<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the question of seniority was never in question prior to the
\ndecision of this Court in Civil Appeal No.2914\/1981 decided on 25th
\nJanuary, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
Apart from the above, the other submission of Mr. Ranjit Kumar regarding
\nthe difficulty of unsettling the settled position after all these years
\ncannot also be lightly brushed aside.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals must succeed and are allowed. The
\njudgment and orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court appealed against are
\nhereby set aside along with the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2001
\npassed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal passed in
\nO.A.Nos.6141\/1995 and 2470\/2001.\n<\/p>\n
There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India A.P. Public Service Commission vs K. Sudharshan Reddy And Ors on 4 July, 2006 Author: A Kabir Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4202 of 2003 PETITIONER: A.P. Public Service Commission RESPONDENT: K. Sudharshan Reddy and Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/07\/2006 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-109110","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nA.P. Public Service Commission vs K. Sudharshan Reddy And Ors on 4 July, 2006 - 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\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.P. Public Service Commission vs K. Sudharshan Reddy And Ors on 4 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-21T12:48:06+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.P. Public Service Commission vs K. Sudharshan Reddy And Ors on 4 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-21T12:48:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2497,\"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\\\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006\",\"name\":\"A.P. Public Service Commission vs K. Sudharshan Reddy And Ors on 4 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-21T12:48:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.P. Public Service Commission vs K. Sudharshan Reddy And Ors on 4 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"A.P. Public Service Commission vs K. Sudharshan Reddy And Ors on 4 July, 2006 - 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\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.P. Public Service Commission vs K. Sudharshan Reddy And Ors on 4 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-21T12:48:06+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.P. Public Service Commission vs K. Sudharshan Reddy And Ors on 4 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-21T12:48:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006"},"wordCount":2497,"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\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006","name":"A.P. Public Service Commission vs K. Sudharshan Reddy And Ors on 4 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-21T12:48:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-p-public-service-commission-vs-k-sudharshan-reddy-and-ors-on-4-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.P. Public Service Commission vs K. Sudharshan Reddy And Ors on 4 July, 2006"}]},{"@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\/109110","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=109110"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109110\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}