{"id":109517,"date":"2003-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003"},"modified":"2014-09-15T03:31:26","modified_gmt":"2014-09-14T22:01:26","slug":"mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003","title":{"rendered":"Mr. K. Sridhar vs Mr. R.N. Amarnath (R2) on 29 January, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr. K. Sridhar vs Mr. R.N. Amarnath (R2) on 29 January, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  JUDICATURE  AT  MADRAS\n\nDated: 29\/01\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.  Justice V.S.  SIRPURKAR\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\n\nW.P. No.11777 OF 2000\n\n1.  Union of India\n    rep. by its Secretary\n    Ministry of Water Resources\n    New Delhi 110 001\n\n2.  The Chairman\n    Central Ground Water Board\n    Faridabad (Haryana)\n\n3.  The Chairman\n    Union Public Service Commission\n    New Delhi\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.  The Central Administrative Tribunal\n    Madras Bench, Madras\n\n2.  Shobh Nath Ram\n    Superintending Engineering\n    Central Ground Water Board\n    South Eastern Coastal Region\n    Rajaji Bhavan\n    Chennai 600 090                     ::       Respondents\n\n\nPetition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for a Writ of Certiorari as stated in the petition\n\nFor Petitioners        ::  Mr.  K.  Sridhar\n                Addl.C.G.S.C.\n\nFor Respondents ::  Mr.  R.N.  Amarnath (R2)\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by V.S.  SIRPURKAR, J.)<\/p>\n<p>                        Central  Government  comes  before  us  by  way  of  a<br \/>\nchallenge  to  the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the<br \/>\nTribunal) only in so far as it pertains  to  the  observations  made  by  the<br \/>\nTribunal  in paragraphs 5 and 6 of it observations, the Tribunal has held that<br \/>\nthe method of recruitment for the two posts of  Regional  Director,  earmarked<br \/>\nfor  the  officers  from  the  Engineering  stream,  was  discriminatory  and,<br \/>\ntherefore, struck down the method of recruitment for the two  posts  with  the<br \/>\nfurther direction that the recruitment to the posts of Regional Director meant<br \/>\nfor  the  Engineering  stream should be done only by promotion from the feeder<br \/>\ncategory of Superintending Engineers posted  in  Central  Ground  Water  Board<br \/>\n(CGWB).\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   The original applicant\/second respondent herein had filed<br \/>\nthe aforementioned original application before the Tribunal and had  contended<br \/>\ntherein  that  he was working as a Superintending Engineer since July 1987 and<br \/>\nhe was the senior-most S ng Engineer in the respondent Board.  He pointed  out<br \/>\nthat  there was a Flexible Complementing Scheme with the aid of which, persons<br \/>\nwho had held the post of Scientists D  could  go  to  the  next  higher  grade<br \/>\nirrespective  of  the availability of the vacancy in the next higher grade and<br \/>\nthey would keep on discharging the duties meant for the  posts  in  the  lower<br \/>\ngrade.   However, they were to be benefited with the salary in the next higher<br \/>\ngrade.  The further contention was that this benefit  of  Flexible  Complement<br \/>\ning Scheme was denied to the persons like the respondent herein, who were from<br \/>\nthe   Engineering  stream  in  contradistinction  to  the  officers  from  the<br \/>\nScientific stream.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  It was pointed out that the Scientific stream was  created<br \/>\nfor  the  first  time  by  the Central Ground Water Board (Regional Directors)<br \/>\nRecruitment Rules (in short the Rules)  by  the  respondent  Board  and  the<br \/>\nofficers from the Scientific str osen for a favourable treatment in the matter<br \/>\nof promotion.    It  was  further alleged that the said rules were ultra vires<br \/>\nArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.  In the original  application<br \/>\nbefore the Tribunal, the applicant sought the following prayers:<br \/>\n(a) the Honble Tribunal be pleased to declare the Central Ground Water Board<br \/>\n(Regional  Director) Recruitment Rules, 1996 ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) the Honble Tribunal be pleased to award costs of this application to  the<br \/>\napplicant.\n<\/p>\n<p>In so far as the interim relief was concerned, the following was the prayer:<br \/>\nthe   Honble   Tribunal  be  pleased  to  stay  the  operation  and  further<br \/>\nimplementation  of  the  Central  Ground  Water  Board   (Regional   Director)<br \/>\nRecruitment Rules, 1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   It  is  an  admitted  position  that  after  the original<br \/>\napplication was entertained by the Tribunal, there was no stay order  granted.<br \/>\nThe basis of the applicants contention, which appears from ground (a) to (f),<br \/>\nwas  that  he  was denied the n on from the post of Superintending Engineer to<br \/>\nthe post of Regional Director.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  We have scanned the grounds to  find  that  no  particular<br \/>\nrule was  in  any manner challenged before the Tribunal.  What was tried to be<br \/>\nhighlighted was that the officers from the Scientific stream and the  officers<br \/>\nfrom  the  Engineers  stream  w  reated differently inasmuch as while the said<br \/>\nscheme was made applicable to the officers from the Scientific stream  and  in<br \/>\nthe  process  they  were  benefited,  the scheme was not made available to the<br \/>\nofficers who came from the Engineering stream like the  or  iginal  applicant.<br \/>\nIn  ground  (e),  it  was stated that though the employees in the pay scale of<br \/>\nRs.4100-5300  were  made  eligible  under  the  rules  for  consideration  for<br \/>\npromotion  to  the post of Regional Director, no engineers were working in the<br \/>\nBoard in the said pay-scale and, therefore, it would be only the outsiders who<br \/>\nwould be considered for the said promotion leaving aside the officers from the<br \/>\nEngineering stream in the respondent Board and thereby their promotion chances<br \/>\nwere completely wiped out.  Th is, according to the original  applicant,  also<br \/>\nresulted  in  hundred  per  cent promotional avenues becoming available to the<br \/>\nofficers from the Scientist stream but no promotional avenues being  available<br \/>\nto the  officers from the Engineering stream.  In short, the whole dispute was<br \/>\nabout the promotion of the respondent to the post of Regional Director.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  During the pendency of the original application,  however,<br \/>\nthe  original  applicant  was  selected  to  the  promotional post of Regional<br \/>\nDirector, which is reflected from paragraph 16 of the counter.  This promotion<br \/>\nwas on the basis of the adve loated by the Union Public Service Commission for<br \/>\nwhich the respondent applied and was ultimately selected in the general  post.<br \/>\nIn  fact,  the  selection  of  the  original applicant to the post of Regional<br \/>\nDirector should have been the end of the matter beca use by that selection his<br \/>\nall the prayers were answered favourably.  Under the circumstances, there  was<br \/>\nno  reason  for the Tribunal to proceed with the application or to examine the<br \/>\nconstitutionality of the rules.  However, the Tribunal, by its order,  whi  ch<br \/>\nis  impugned  before  us,  struck  down  a  particular  provision in the rules<br \/>\nregarding the promotion whereby it was provided that the two posts of Regional<br \/>\nDirector earmarked for the officers  from  the  Engineering  stream  could  be<br \/>\nfilled   in   by  promotion\/trans  fer  on  deputation  (including  short-term<br \/>\ncontract).  The Tribunal has made an observation that the rule which pertained<br \/>\nto the filling up of the two posts of  Regional  Director  earmarked  for  the<br \/>\nEngineering stream was bad in so far as it provided for the appointment of the<br \/>\nconcerned  officer  by  transfer  on  deputation  (including  the  short  term<br \/>\ncontract).  According to the Tribunal, this could have resulted in the loss of<br \/>\nopportunities to the officers from the Engineering stream for  whom  only  two<br \/>\nposts were  earmarked  out  of sixteen posts.  It is an admitted position that<br \/>\nunder the rules fourteen posts  were  earmarked  for  the  officers  from  the<br \/>\nScientific  stream  and they could be filled in only by the officers with five<br \/>\nyears of regular service in the Scienti sts D grade whereas in so far  as  the<br \/>\ntwo  posts  earmarked  for  the  Engineering stream was concerned, it could be<br \/>\nfilled in only by  promotion\/transfer  on  deputation  (including  short  term<br \/>\ncontract).  The Tribunal found fault with this.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  The Central Government and the Central Ground Water Board,<br \/>\nfeeling  aggrieved  by these observations of the Tribunal made in paragraphs 5<br \/>\nand 6 of this order, come up before us by way of this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  Learned Central Government  Standing  Counsel  points  out<br \/>\nthat it was wholly unnecessary for the Tribunal to have entered into the arena<br \/>\nof  constitutionality  of  the  concerned  rule particularly when there was no<br \/>\noccasion or a cause of action so.   We  have  been  taken  through  the  whole<br \/>\napplication  and  we find that the only prayer made is for declaring the whole<br \/>\nrules unconstitutional, without  there  being  any  consequential  prayer  for<br \/>\npromotion.  It is for this purpose that we have quoted the pra yer completely.<br \/>\nThis  is  apart  from  the  fact  that  during  the  pendency  of the original<br \/>\napplication, the second respondent herein was actually promoted to the post of<br \/>\nRegional Director.  Once he  was  promoted,  there  was  no  question  of  any<br \/>\nchallenge  remaining  because it is a trite position in law that the courts do<br \/>\nnot go into the question of constitutionality of the rules or any enactment in<br \/>\nvacuum.  The whole original application had become infructuous because of  the<br \/>\npromotion of the second respondent here in because that was the sole objective<br \/>\nwith which  the application was filed.  Once that promotion was granted, there<br \/>\nwas no question of entertaining the challenge to the constitutionality of  the<br \/>\nsaid rules.    There  was  no  question  of deemed date becaus e obviously a<br \/>\npromotion cannot be a matter of right and unless the posts by way of promotion<br \/>\nbecame available, there could not have been appointments of either the  second<br \/>\nrespondent herein  or  any  one  else.    It  is  not  the  case of the second<br \/>\nrespondent bef ore the Tribunal that he was  side-stepped  by  some  one  else<br \/>\nbrought  by  way of transfer on deputation on the basis of the challenged rule<br \/>\nto occupy the post of Regional Director.  The  Tribunal  had  found  that  the<br \/>\nchallenge  in  so far as the discriminatory at titude to the officers from the<br \/>\nScientific stream was concerned, it could not be upheld and  that  there  were<br \/>\ntwo clear  categories  of  officers, i.e.  officers from the Scientific stream<br \/>\nand officers from the Engineering stream.  The Tribunal,  therefore,  uph  eld<br \/>\nthe  constitutional validity of the rules but while doing so, the Tribunal has<br \/>\ngone into the question of validity of the particular provision  in  the  rules<br \/>\npertaining to the promotion of the officers from the Engineering stream to the<br \/>\npost of   Regional   Director,   i.e.    filling  up  of  the  said  posts  by<br \/>\nPromotion\/Transfer on Deputation (including short  term  contract).    In  our<br \/>\nview,  the  Tribunal  could not have gone into that question more particularly<br \/>\nbecause the respondent was already promoted.  It was, the refore, an  academic<br \/>\nfinding  and such academic finding in the matter of constitutional validity of<br \/>\nany rules or enactment has always to be avoided and that is the trite law.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  Even  otherwise,  we  cannot  agree  with  the  Tribunals<br \/>\nrationale in  finding  fault  with  the rules.  After all, these rules had the<br \/>\nsanction of Art.309 of the Constitution of India.  If it was the policy of the<br \/>\nGovernment to fill up  the  posts  l  Directors  by  promoting  the  concerned<br \/>\nofficers or by bringing them from outside by way of transfer on deputation, no<br \/>\nfault could be found with it.  For that reason alone, the rules could not have<br \/>\nbeen found   to   be   unconstitutional.     There  was  no  question  of  any<br \/>\ndiscrimination or arbitrariness shown in  framing  of  these  rules;  nor  was<br \/>\nanything  contended  to  suggest that the concerned authority did not have the<br \/>\nlegislative competence to frame the rules.  We do  not  know  as  to  how  the<\/p>\n<p>concerned  provision  in t he rules was found fault with on the ground that it<br \/>\nwould jeopardise the promotional prospects of the  officers  like  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   Learned  Central  Government  Standing Counsel points out<br \/>\nthat at that time enough number of officers were not available  for  promotion<br \/>\nat  all  because  even  for  the purposes of promotion, the authorities had to<br \/>\nconsider the cases of at least s per post.  According to the learned  standing<br \/>\ncounsel,  at  that time there were only four persons available and, therefore,<br \/>\nthere could not have been a process of promotion.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  We entirely agree with  the  contention  of  the  learned<br \/>\nCentral  Government  Standing Counsel and in that view, we would set aside the<br \/>\norder of the Tribunal to the extent it has been assailed.   The  Tribunal  has<br \/>\nnot  given  any  good  reason  for  he  part  of  the  particular  rule  to be<br \/>\nunconstitutional.  Merely because the rule enables the Government to  fill  up<br \/>\nthe  two  posts  of  Regional  Director  earmarked  for  the officers from the<br \/>\nEngineering stream by bringing the officers on transfer on  deputation  ,  the<br \/>\nrule cannot  be  viewed as an arbitrary or discriminatory rule.  In that view,<br \/>\nwe set aside the order of  the  Tribunal  to  the  extent  that  it  has  been<br \/>\nassailed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.   The  writ  petition  succeeds to the extent that we have<br \/>\nindicated above.  Rule is made absolute.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nWebsite:Yes<\/p>\n<p>Jai<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Registrar<br \/>\nCentral Administrative Tribunal<br \/>\nMadras Bench<br \/>\nMadras<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Mr. K. Sridhar vs Mr. R.N. Amarnath (R2) on 29 January, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 29\/01\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR and The Honourable Mr. Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA W.P. No.11777 OF 2000 1. Union of India rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Water [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-109517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr. K. Sridhar vs Mr. R.N. Amarnath (R2) on 29 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. K. Sridhar vs Mr. R.N. Amarnath (R2) on 29 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-14T22:01:26+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. K. Sridhar vs Mr. R.N. Amarnath (R2) on 29 January, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-14T22:01:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1916,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003\",\"name\":\"Mr. K. Sridhar vs Mr. R.N. Amarnath (R2) on 29 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-14T22:01:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. K. Sridhar vs Mr. R.N. Amarnath (R2) on 29 January, 2003\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Mr. K. Sridhar vs Mr. R.N. Amarnath (R2) on 29 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. K. Sridhar vs Mr. R.N. Amarnath (R2) on 29 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-14T22:01:26+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. K. Sridhar vs Mr. R.N. Amarnath (R2) on 29 January, 2003","datePublished":"2003-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-14T22:01:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003"},"wordCount":1916,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003","name":"Mr. K. Sridhar vs Mr. R.N. Amarnath (R2) on 29 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-14T22:01:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-k-sridhar-vs-mr-r-n-amarnath-r2-on-29-january-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. K. Sridhar vs Mr. R.N. Amarnath (R2) on 29 January, 2003"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/109517","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=109517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}