{"id":140391,"date":"1972-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-10-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972"},"modified":"2017-11-22T04:15:14","modified_gmt":"2017-11-21T22:45:14","slug":"state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972","title":{"rendered":"State Of Mysore vs M. N. Krishna Murthy & Ors on 5 October, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Mysore vs M. N. Krishna Murthy & Ors on 5 October, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 1146, \t\t 1973 SCR (2) 575<\/div>\n
Author: M H Beg<\/div>\n
Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MYSORE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM.   N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT05\/10\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nBENCH:\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nDWIVEDI, S.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR 1146\t\t  1973 SCR  (2) 575\n 1973 SCC  (3) 559\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1974 SC2077\t (5,9)\n E\t    1975 SC2112\t (4)\n E&R\t    1978 SC 515\t (7)\n D\t    1978 SC 747\t (5,10)\n R\t    1981 SC1829\t (121)\n F\t    1987 SC 415\t (16)\n R\t    1987 SC1858\t (18)\n\n\nACT:\nMysore State Accounts Services (Recruitment) Rules 1959--(As\namended\t retrospectively by State  Government  Notifications\nNos.   GSR 384 dated 30th August, 1967)--Division  into\t two\nclasses\t of  members of the same service, belonging  to\t the\nsame  cadres,  for purposes of a difference to\tbe  made  in\ntheir promotion chances--Rule-making power under proviso  to\nArticle 309 of the Constitution--Scope of--Cannot be used to\nvalidate  unconstitutional  discrimination  in\t promotional\nchances.\nPractice--Points not raised or argued before High Court--Not\nallowed to be raised for first time before Supreme Court.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  two respondents, who were petitioners before  the\tHigh\nCourt  had joined the Accounts Service in  the\tController's\nOffice\tof  the\t former Mysore State  as  first\t and  second\ndivision  clerks.   Consequent\tupon the  abolition  of\t the\nController's   Office,\tthe  petitioner\t began\tworking\t  as\nDivisional  Accounts Cadre was created by the  Mysore  Govt.\nunder the administrative control of the Chief Engineer. Both\nthe petitioners passed the prescribed examinations and\twere\nabsorbed  in the Divisional Accounts Cadre. In April,  1959,\nthe PWD Reorganisation Committee recommended the transfer of\nthe PWD Accounts Branch into the newly set-up Controller  of\nState Accounts. Accordingly, the petitioners came under\t the\nadministrative control of the Controller and the designation\nof   their   office  was  changed  to  that   of   \"Accounts\nSuperintendent\"\t On  15-5-1959, the  two  formerly  separate\nunits  of  the Accounts service, namely\t PWD  Accounts\tUnit\nunder  the  Chief Engineer, PWD and the\t Local\tFunds  Audit\nUnit,  known  also as \"the said\t Accounts  Department\"\tcame\nunder the common administrative control of the Controller of\nState  Accounts.  On  26-5-59,\tthe  Mysore  State  Accounts\nService\t Cadre Recruitment Rules were issued   and  combined\ncadre  strengths  were fixed. On 30-8-67,  the\tState  Govt.\nissued\tthree  Notifications amending the  1959\t Rules\twith\nretrospective\teffect.\t The  petitioners   challenged\t the\nNotifications  an  the\tHigh Court  as\tbeing  violative  of\nArticles  14  and 16 (1) of the Constitution of\t India.\t The\nHigh   Court  quashed  the  three  notifications   and\t the\npromotions of the respondents in the Writ Petition.\n     Dismissing the appeal.\nHELD  :\t (i) The High Court rightly declared  the  purported\namendments   in\t the  rules  of\t 1959,\twhich sought   to\ndisintegrate  a\t service which had been integrated,  to\t  be\nultra  vires.  Such  amendments\t made  for  the\t purpose  of\njustifying  the illegal promotion made, in the teeth of\t the\nprotection  conferred  by  Articles  14\t and  16(1)  of\t the\nConstitution  of  India upon Indian citizens  in  Government\nservice,  could\t not be upheld. The power  of  making  rules\nrelating to recruitment and conditions of service under\t the\nproviso\t to  Article  309  could not  be  used\tto  validate\nunconstitutional  discrimination in promotional\t chances  of\nGovernment servants who belong to the same category. [579C]\n2-L499Sup.  Cl\/73\n576\nInequality   of\t  opportunity  of  promotion,\tthough\t not\nunconstitutional  per se, must be justified On the  strength\nof  rational  criteria co-related to the object\t of  such  a\ndifference  must  be presumed to be selection  of  the\tmost\ncompetent  from amongst those possessing qualifications\t and\nbackgrounds  entitling _them to be considered as members  of\none class.  Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution  must\nbe held to be violated when member of one class are not even\nconsidered for promotion. [580G]\nState of Mysore V. Padmanabhacharya AIR<\/a> 1966 S.C. 602  State\nof  Punjab  v. Joginder Singh, AIR<\/a> 1963 S.C. 913 and  K.  M.\nBakshi\tv. Union of India [1965] Supp. 2 S.C.R.\t 169  relied\non.\nRam  Lal Wadhwa v. The State of Haryana AIR 1972  S.C.\t1982\nand S.\t  G.  Jatsinghani v. Union of India [1967] 2  S.C.R.\n703 distinguished.\n(ii) It\t is a well recognised practice of the Supreme  Court\nnot  to allow new points to be raised for the first time  in\nthe  Supreme  Court  when  they\t involve  investigation\t  of\nquestions of fact. [577G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals No, 193 &\t 194
\nof 1971.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by special leave from the judgment and order  dated
\nApril 11, 1969 of the Mysore High Court at Bangalore in Writ
\nPetitions Nos. 1416 and 2918 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
A.   R.\t Som Nath Iyer, and M. Veerappa, for  the  appellant
\n(in both the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
R.   B. Datar and S. N. Prasad for respondent No. 1 (in both
\nthe appeals).\n<\/p>\n
M.   Ramajois  S. S. Khanduja and Lalita Kohli, for  respon-
\ndents  Nos.  2 & 4-8 & Interveners (in M.  Choudhajah  &  14
\nothers in C.A. No. 193\/71).\n<\/p>\n
A.   G.\t Ratnaparkhi  for Interveners (C.  Y. Shastri  &  19
\nOrs. in C.A. No. 193\/71.).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBEG, J. The State of Mysore has come to this Court with\t two
\nappeals\t now before us by Special Leave against\t the  common
\njudgment on two Writ Petitions which were allowed.  The High
\nCourt\tof  Mysore  had\t quashed  three\t  State\t  Government
\nNotifications  Nos.  GSRS. 384, and 392 and 303, dated\t30th
\nAugust,\t 1967, amending the Mysore State  Accounts  Services
\n(Recruitment) Rules, 1959, and the promotions of Respondents
\n3 to 8 of in Writ Petition No. 1416\/67.\t It had directed the
\nState  of  Mysore to consider the cases of  the\t petitioners
\nwith  those  of Respondents 3 to 8 for promotion  before  it
\nunder the Mysore State Accounts Services (Recruitment) Rules
\n1959,  made under Article 309 of the Constitution of  India.
\nnotified on 26-5-1959.\n<\/p>\n
577<\/span><\/p>\n
The  two petitioners before the High Court, who are  respon-
\ndents  before us, had joined the Accounts’ services  in\t the
\nComptroller’s office of the former Mysore State as first and
\nsecond\tDivision Clerks.  Consequent upon the  abolition  of
\nthe  Comptroller’s office the petitioners began\t working  as
\nAccounts  Clerks  under the Chief Engineer, P.W.D.  On\t31st
\nOctober, 1953, a Divisional Accounts’ Cadre, in the scale of
\nRs.  130-335 was created by the Mysore Government under\t the
\nadministrative\tcontrol\t of the Chief  Engineer.   Both\t the
\npetitioners  passed  the prescribed  examinations  and\twere
\nabsorbed in the Divisional Accounts’ Cadre.  It appears that
\nin  April,  1959, the P.W.D.  Reorganisation  Committee\t had
\nrecommended  the transfer of the P.W.D. Accounts’ Branch  in
\ntoto  to the newly set up Controller of State  Accounts.  in
\naccordance  with this recommendation, the  petitioners\tcame
\nunder  the administrative control of the Controller and\t the
\ndesignation   of  their\t office\t was  changed  to  that\t  of
\n“Accounts’  Superintendent”.   On 15th May,  1959,  the\t two
\nformerly separate units of the Accounts service, namely\t the
\nP.W.D.\tAccounts unit, under the Chief Engineer\t of  P.W.D.,
\nand  the.  Local Fund Audit unit, known also as\t “the  State
\nAccounts’ Department”, came under the common  administrative
\ncontrol\t of the Controller of State Accounts.  On  26h\tMay,
\n1959,\tthe  Mysore  State  Accounts  Services’\t Cadre\t and
\nRecruitment  Rules were issued and combined  cadre  strength
\nwere fixed.\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court after examining the rules of 1959,  in\t the
\ncontext\t of  all the orders, proceeding\t and  following\t the
\npromulgation  of these Rules, concluded : “There  cannot  be
\nthe  slightest\tdoubt  from these rules\t that  a  clear\t and
\ncomplete  integration  was  brought about  between  the\t two
\nunits”.\t  It pointed out that the qualifications and  status
\nof  the\t officers  of  the  formerly  separate\tunits\twere
\nidentical, their work was of the same nature, the recruiting
\nauthorities were the same, the standards observed and  tests
\nprescribed  for entry into the formerly separate units\twere
\nidentical.   The  result of the Rules of 1959  was  that  an
\nartificial  distinction based on mere separate\tcontrol\t had
\nbeen  abolished\t so that both units came under\tthe  legally
\nsingle\tadministrative Control of the  Accounts’  Department
\nincharge   of  the  Controller\tof  State   Accounts.\t The
\npetitioners  became  absorbed in what was legally  a  single
\npermanent service regulated by uniform
\nAfter  examining the cases of the petitioners that,  in\t the
\nmatter of promotions, they were discriminated against simply
\nbecause\t they had worked in the P.W.D. Accounts Unit,  which
\nhad   ceased  to  exist,  the  High  Court  held  that\t the
\npetitioners’  grievances  were\tjustified.   It\t found\tthat
\nfigures showing the number of appointments of members of the
\nsame  service  derived.\t from the  formerly  separate  units
\nindicated  “a striking disparity in the\t promotional  oppor-
\ntunities  between the officers of the two wings in the\tsame
\ncadres”.\n<\/p>\n
578<\/span><\/p>\n
It  said: “While the rules of 1959 integrated the two  wings
\ninto one service and provided for promotion on the basis  of
\nseniority-cum-merit,  the impugned Notifications  fixing  up
\nthe  cadre strength reduce the number of  promotional  posts
\navailable  to the Public Works Accounts Unit to a  very\t low
\nfigure\tas compared with the promotional opportunities\topen
\nto  the\t officers in the other wing”.\tIt  had,  therefore,
\nstruck down the impugned Notifications as violations of\t the
\nConstitutional\tguarantees given by Article 14 and 16(1)  of
\nthe Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned Counsel for the State of Mysore has  contended:
\nfirsly,\t that  the petitioners, now respondents\t before\t us,
\nwere  never  promoted or appointed to offices held  by\tthem
\nunder  the rules of 1959 so that they could not complain  of
\ndenial\tof equality of promotional chances;  and,  secondly,
\nthat  the  amendments made retrospectively in the  rules  in
\n1967,  justifying  the differences  of\tpromotional  chances
\nbetween\t the two wings of the same service,  were  perfectly
\nlegal  and  bore  a  rational nexus to\tthe  object  of\t the
\ndifferences made.\n<\/p>\n
So  far as the first contention is concerned, we are  unable
\nto entertain it for the first time in this Court.  We do not
\nfind any indication that the point, even if such a  position
\nwas  taken on behalf of the State, was argued at all  before
\nthe  Mysore High Court.\t The submission that the High  Court
\nhad wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the petitioners
\nwere   promoted\t and  appointed\t under\tthe  rules  of\t the
\nintegrated service although the point was ,argued before the
\nMysore High Court, is not borne out even by any assertion in
\nthe  application made by the appellant under Article 1\t3  2
\nand 1 3 3 ( 1 ) (c) of the Constitution of India before\t the
\nMysore High Court.  Our attention was invited to a paragraph
\nin  that application where it was submitted that  the  “High
\nCourt should have held” that the answering respondents\twere
\nplaced\t“in  independent charge of the duties  of  Assistant
\nCommissioner  without  conferring any right  of\t benefit  of
\npromotion”  But,  this submission does not appear to  us  to
\nmeet  the objection that the point was not urged,  when\t the
\npetitions  were\t argued\t before\t the  High  Court,  and\t the
\npetitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the Rules of
\n1959 on the ground that they were not promoted to the  posts
\nheld  by  them\tin the service.\t It  is\t a  well  recognised
\npractice of this Court not to allow new points to be  raised
\nfor  the  first lime ‘in this Court particularly  when\tthey
\ninvolve investigation of questions of fact We, therefore, do
\nnot propose to deal with a controversy which does not  arise
\nfor consideration before us.\n<\/p>\n
The  question which remains for consideration by us  is\t the
\none relating to the validity of a division into two  classes
\nof  ,members  of  the same service, belonging  to  the\tsame
\ncadres, for
\n579<\/span>
\npurposes  of  a difference to be made in  their\t promotional
\nchances. Learned Counsel for the State has sought to justify
\nthis  difference  in promotional chances by a  reference  to
\ndifferences  in\t the  historical  backgrounds  and  to\t the
\npractice  of making the distinction in promotional  chances.
\nThe Mysore High Court had very rightly observed that neither
\na  fortuitous  artificial  division  in\t the  past  nor\t the
\nunconstitutional   practice  of\t making\t  an   unjustifiable
\ndiscrimination in promotional chances of Government servants
\nbelonging to what was really a single category, without any
\nreference  either  to  merit or\t seniority,  or\t educational
\nqualifications, could justify the differences in promotional
\nchances.   We  think  that  it\thad  rightly  declared\t the
\npurported  amendments in the rules of 1959, which sought  to
\ndisintegrate  a\t service which had been\t integrated,  to  be
\nultra  vires.\tSuch  amendments made  for  the\t purpose  of
\njustifying the illegal promotions made, in the teeth of\t the
\nprotection  conferred  by  Articles  14\t and  16(1)  of\t the
\nConstitution  of  India upon Indian citizens  in  Government
\nservice, could not be upheld. ,
\nThe High Court rightly relied on State of Mysore v. Padmana-
\nbhacharya(1) to hold that the power of making rules relating
\nto  recruitment and conditions of service under the  proviso
\nto   Article   309   could   not   be\tused   to   validate
\nunconstitutional  discrimination in promotional\t chances  of
\nGovernment  servants  who belong to the same  category.\t  It
\nmust  be understood that a Government servant whose case  is
\nconsidered for promotion but who fails to be selected on  an
\napplication  of just and reasonable criteria, such  as\tthat
\nfound in the merit-cum-seniority rule found in the Rules  of
\n1959,  cannot  complain of discrimination.   But,  what\t the
\npetitioners had complained of and established was that their
\ncases  for promotion were not considered at all under  these
\nRules on the false premise that they belong to a class which
\ndisables   them\t from  obtaining  equal\t consideration\t for
\npromotion to the offices to which they considered themselves
\nentitled.  The effect of the order of the Mysore High  Court
\nwas  only  that cases of the  petitioners,  now\t respondents
\nbefore\tus, will be considered, in accordance with Rules  of
\n1959, in preparing the seniority list on merit-cum-seniority
\nbasis.\tAll that the order of the High Court enjoins is that
\nthe petitioners before it must not be ignored simply on\t the
\nassumption  that  the source of\t their\tinitial\t recruitment
\ndebars the consideration of their merits for promotion.
\nLearned\t Counsel  for the State of Mysore had  attempted  to
\nrely  strongly\ton  Ram Lal Wadhwa & Anr. v.  The  State  of
\nHaryana\t & Ors. (2) and S. C. Jaisinghani v. Union of  India
\n(3).  In  Ram  lal Wadhwa’s case (supra),  the\tmajority  of
\nlearned Judges of this
\n(1) A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 602.    (2) A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1982.
\n(3)  (1967) 2 S.C.R. 703.\n<\/p>\n
580<\/span><\/p>\n
Court  had reached the, conclusion that the  historical\t and
\nother  special\treasons\t existing,  on\tthe  facts  of\tthat
\nparticular   case,   justified\tthe   difference   made\t  in
\npromotional   chances  of  the\tteachers  coming  from\t two
\ndifferent sources.  We think that Wadhwa’s case was  decided
\non  its\t own facts, the most important of  which  was  that,
\nafter  full  consideration of the pros and cons\t of  various
\nalternatives before it, the Government concerned had come to
\nthe  conclusion\t that  the  provincialised  cadre  must\t  be
\ngradually and not suddenly eliminated.\tIn that case,  there
\nwas no actual formal decision to integrate the two  branches\n<\/p>\n
-as  is\t the case before us.  The rules before\tus  levy  no
\ndoubt  whatsoever,  as we have already pointed out,  that  a
\ncomplete  integration  of  the service\twhose  members\tcame
\noriginally from two sources had been actually  accomplished.
\nThat was not the position in Wadhwa’s case which could\tnot,
\ntherefore, help the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Similarly,    Jaisinghani’s    case   (supra)\t was\talso
\ndistinguishable, as it has been rightly distinguished by the
\nMysore High Court, on facts of that particular case.   There
\nquotas\tfor  promotion had been fixed by the  Government  in
\nexercise  of  a statutory power on rational  and  reasonable
\ncriteria.  In the case before us, the amendments in existing
\nrules  were sought to be made for the purpose of  validating
\nwhat,  as  the\tMysore High Court  had\trightly\t held,\twere
\nviolations of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
\nOther cases mentioned by the Mysore High Court i.e. State of
\nPunjab\tv.  Joginder Singh<\/a>(1) and K. M. Bakshi v.  Union  of
\nIndia  (2  )  also show that inequality\t of  opportunity  of
\npromotion,  though  not\t unconstitutional per  se,  must  be
\n_justified  on the strength of rational criteria  co-related
\nto the object for which the difference is made.\t In the case
\nof Government servants, the object of such a difference must
\nbe  presumed  to be a selection of the most  competent\tfrom
\namongst\t those\tpossessing  qualifications  and\t backgrounds
\nentitling them to be considered as members of one class.  In
\nsome  cases, quotas may have to be fixed ‘between  what\t are
\ndifferent  classes  or sources for promotion on\t grounds  of
\npublic\tpolicy.\t If, on the facts of a particular case,\t the
\nclasses\t to be considered are reality different,  inequality
\nof  opportunity in promotional chances may  be\tjustifiable.
\nOn the contrary, if the facts of a particular case  disclose
\nno  such  rational distinction between members\tof  what  is
\nfound to be really a single class no class distinctions\t can
\nbe  made in selecting the best.\t Articles 14 and 16  (1)  of
\nthe Constitution must be held to be violated when members of
\none class ire not even considered for promotion.  The  case
\nbefore us falls, in our opinion, in the latter type of cases
\nwhere the, difference in promotional opportunities of  those
\nwho were wrongly divided into
\n(1) A.I.R. 1963 S. C. 913.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1965] SUPP. 2 S. C. R. 169.\n<\/p>\n
581<\/span><\/p>\n
two classes for this purpose only could not be justified  on
\nany  rational  grounds.\t Learned Counsel for the  State\t was
\nunable\tto indicate any such ground to us.   We,  therefore,
\nthink  that  the  Mysore High Court rightly  held  that\t the
\nimpugned notifications were unconstitutional.
\nConsequently,  we  dismiss  these appeals with\tone  set  of
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
S.B.W.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
582<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Mysore vs M. N. Krishna Murthy & Ors on 5 October, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 1146, 1973 SCR (2) 575 Author: M H Beg Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah PETITIONER: STATE OF MYSORE Vs. RESPONDENT: M. N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT05\/10\/1972 BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BENCH: […]<\/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-140391","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Mysore vs M. N. Krishna Murthy & Ors on 5 October, 1972 - 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-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Mysore vs M. N. Krishna Murthy & Ors on 5 October, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972\" \/>\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=\"1972-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-21T22:45:14+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=\"14 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-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Mysore vs M. N. Krishna Murthy & Ors on 5 October, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-21T22:45:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972\"},\"wordCount\":2179,\"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-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972\",\"name\":\"State Of Mysore vs M. N. Krishna Murthy & Ors on 5 October, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-21T22:45:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Mysore vs M. N. Krishna Murthy & Ors on 5 October, 1972\"}]},{\"@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 Mysore vs M. N. Krishna Murthy & Ors on 5 October, 1972 - 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-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Mysore vs M. N. Krishna Murthy & Ors on 5 October, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-21T22:45:14+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Mysore vs M. N. Krishna Murthy & Ors on 5 October, 1972","datePublished":"1972-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-21T22:45:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972"},"wordCount":2179,"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-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972","name":"State Of Mysore vs M. N. Krishna Murthy & Ors on 5 October, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-21T22:45:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-m-n-krishna-murthy-ors-on-5-october-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Mysore vs M. N. Krishna Murthy & Ors on 5 October, 1972"}]},{"@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\/140391","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=140391"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140391\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140391"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140391"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140391"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}