{"id":152601,"date":"1976-03-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-03-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976"},"modified":"2015-01-25T18:05:27","modified_gmt":"2015-01-25T12:35:27","slug":"maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976","title":{"rendered":"Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava & Anr vs Suresh Singh And Ors on 22 March, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava & Anr vs Suresh Singh And Ors on 22 March, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1404, \t\t 1976 SCR (3) 769<\/div>\n
Author: Y Chandrachud<\/div>\n
Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMAHESHWAR PRASAD SRIVASTAVA & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSURESH SINGH AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/03\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 1404\t\t  1976 SCR  (3) 769\n 1977 SCC  (1) 627\n\n\nACT:\n     Drugs (and Cosmetics) Rules 1945-Section 49-Prescribing\nqualifications of  Inspectors-\"has atleast  one Year's\tpost\ngraduate training in a laboratory under a Government Analyst\nappointed under\t the Act  or a\tChemical Examiner-Meaning of\n\"Post graduate\ttraining\" occurring in Rule 49(c)-Difference\nbetween \"post  graduate training\"  and post  graduate course\nqualification.\"\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellants,  all science  graduates with laboratory\ntraining were the successful candidates for twelve vacancies\nof Drug\t Inspectors advertised\tby the\tBihar Public Service\nCommission.  Respondent\t  No.  1,  Pharmacy  graduate  whose\napplication was\t rejected on the ground of his unsuitability\nfor being  appointed to the post challenged the selection by\na writ\ton the\tground that  the appellants were unqualified\nunder Rule  49(c) of the Drugs (and Cosmetics) Rules 1945 in\nas much as they did not have a systematic training in a post\ngraduate institution. The High Court accepted the contention\nand set aside the selection.\n     On appeal by special leave he Court,\n^\n     HELD: (1)\tThe expression\t\"post graduate\ttraining\" is\nused in\t Rule 49(c)  in the  sense of training received by a\nperson holding\ta degree  in medicine  or science and not in\nthe sense  that such  training ought  to be  received in  or\nthrough a post graduate institution imparting instruction or\neducation in the particular discipline. The object of clause\n(c) is to ensure that to be eligible for the post of a Drugs\nInspector the  person concerned\t must have received training\nunder  any   of\t the  authorities  mentioned  therein  after\ngraduation in medicine or science. Pregraduation training is\noften not  as efficacious  as post  graduate training, for a\nperson holding\ta higher  educational qualifications is in a\nbetter position\t to imbibe  the training  which he receives.\nThe expression\t\"post graduate training\" is used in order to\nsignify the  point of time after which the training ought to\nbe received  and not  to limit\tthe eligibility to those who\nhave received  training after  enrolment in  an\t institution\nimparting post graduate training. [772D-F]\n     (ii) Clause  (c) of Rule 49 specifies that the training\nhas to\tbe received  in\t a  laboratory\tunder  a  Government\nAnalyst\t or  a\tChemical  Examiner  amongst  others.  It  is\ndifficult to conceive in the present educational set up that\na student  who\thas  enrolled  himself\tin  a  post-graduate\ninstitution would  receive training  in a laboratory under a\nGovernment Analyst or a Chemical Examiner. A fair indication\nof the\ttrue intendment\t of Rule  49(c) is also furnished by\nthe requirement\t that one  year's post\tgraduate training is\nenough to confer eligibility on a candidate applying for the\npost of\t a Drugs  Inspector. It could not have been intended\nthat it would be enough to make a candidate eligible for the\npost of\t a Drugs  Inspector if, after graduation in medicine\nor science  he enrolled\t himself for  a post graduate course\nand just took one years' training as part of that course. If\nenrolment  in\tan   institution   imparting   post-graduate\ninstruction  was   the\tobject\tof  rule  (c),\tthe  minimum\nqualification  prescribed  would  at  least  have  been\t the\nsuccessful completion of the post graduate course. [772F-H]\n     Rule 44(a)\t throws useful,\t light on the interpretation\nof Rule\t 49. Post  graduate experience\tstipulated  in\tRule\n44(a) and  \"post graduate training\" cannot basically and for\npractical purposes identical qualifications. For both posts,\nwhat  is   required  in\t addition  to  other  qualifications\nmentioned  in\tthe  respective\t  rules\t is   post  graduate\nexperience  or\ttraining  in  the  sense,  namely  that\t the\nexperience or  training has  to be  gained or received after\nobtaining graduation. [773-B-C]\n770\n     In\t matters   involving  considerations   of  questions\nregarding adequacy  or sufficiency  of \"training\" the Public\nService Commission  having the benefit of expert opinion, is\nbetter situated to judge whether the particular candidate is\nqualified for  a particular  post and courts should hesitate\nto interfere with the discretion of the appointing authority\nso long as it is exercised bona fide. [773 G-H]\n     [Their  Lordships\tconsidered  that,  in  view  of\t the\nconclusion that\t the appellants\t were duly  qualified it was\nunnecessary to\tgo into\t the question  of \"Locus  Standi\" of\nrespondent No.\t1 a  rejected candidate on the ground of his\nunsuitability to file the writ petition.]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeals Nos.\t 602
\nand 603 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal  by\t  Special  Leave   from\t the   Judgment\t and
\nOrder\/decree dated  the 30-1-1975 of the Patna High Court in
\nC. W. J. C. No. 502 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
     V. S.  Desai and  S. N.  Prasad for  Appellants in C.A.
\n602\/75.\n<\/p>\n
     Bishan Narain,  S. N.  Misra, S.  S. Jauhar  and A.  K.
\nSinha for Appellants in C. A. 603\/75.\n<\/p>\n
     S. C.  Misra and  U. S. Prasad for respondent No. 1 (In
\nboth appeals).\n<\/p>\n
     B. P. Singh and U. P. Singh for Respondent No. 2 (In C.
\nA. 603) and Respondents 2 and 3 (In C. A. 602).\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHANDRACHUD, J.-These  appeals by\tspecial leave  arise
\nout of a judgment of the Patna High Court in a writ petition
\nfiled by  the 1st  respondent under  articles 226 and 227 of
\nthe  Constitution   challenging\t the   appointment  of\t the
\nappellants as Drugs Inspectors. Civil Appeal No. 602 of 1975
\nis filed  by original respondent 7 while Civil Appeal 603 of
\n1975 is\t filed by  original respondents\t 4 to  6 to the Writ
\nPetition. The  High Court  allowed  the\t writ  petition\t and
\nquashed the  appointments of  the appellants  on the  ground
\nthat they  did not  have  the  requisite  qualification\t for
\nappointment as Drugs Inspectors.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Government  of  Bihar\t in  its  Health  Department
\nadvertised through  the Bihar  Public Service  Commission 12
\nvacancies of  Inspectors of Drugs. Twenty candidates applied
\nfor the\t posts out  of whom 13, including respondent 1, were
\nPharmacy Graduates  while 7  including the  appellants, were
\nScience\t Graduates.   The  Public  Service  Commission\theld
\ninterviews  in\tApril,\t1972  and  selected  the  appellants
\namongst others. Respondent 1 was rejected on the ground that
\nhe was not suitable for the post.\n<\/p>\n
     The appointments  of the  appellants were challenged by
\nrespondent 1 on the sole ground that they were not qualified
\nto be  appointed as  Drugs Inspectors.\tRule 49 of the Drugs
\n(and Cosmetics)\t Rules, 1945  framed by\t the  Government  of
\nIndia in  the Ministry\tof Health, prescribes qualifications
\nfor the post of a Drugs Inspector. It reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “49. Qualifications of Inspectors.-A person who is
\n771<\/span>
\n     appointed an  Inspector under the Act shall be a person
\n     who-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  has a  degree in\t Pharmacy or  Pharmaceutical
\n\t       Chemistry  or   a  post-graduate\t  degree  in
\n\t       Chemistry with  Pharmaceutics  as  a  special
\n\t       subject of  a University\t recognised for this
\n\t       purpose by  the appointing  authority or\t the
\n\t       associateship Diploma  of the  Institution of
\n\t       Chemists\t (India)  obtained  by\tpassing\t the
\n\t       examination  with   `Analysis  of  Drugs\t and
\n\t       Pharmaceuticals’ as one of the subjects; or
\n\t  (aa) holds  the  Pharmaceutical  Chemists  Diploma
\n\t       granted\tby  the\t Pharmaceutical\t Society  of
\n\t       Great Britain; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  x    x\t x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  is a  graduate in  medicine or  science of  a
\n\t       University recognised for this purpose by the
\n\t       appointing authority  and has  at  least\t one
\n\t       year’s post-graduate training in a laboratory
\n\t       under  (i)  a  Government  Analyst  appointed
\n\t       under the Act or (ii) a Chemical Examiner, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (iii) a\tFellow of  the\tRoyal  Institute  of
\n\t       Chemistry of  Great Britain  (Branch  E),  or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (iv) the\t head of  an  institution  specially
\n\t       approved for  the purpose  by the  appointing
\n\t       authority;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t only those  inspectors who have not
\n     less than\tthree years’  experience in  the manufacture
\n     and testing  of substances\t specified in  Schedule in a
\n     laboratory approved  for this  purpose by the licensing
\n     authority,\t shall\t be  authorised\t  to   inspect\t the
\n     manufacture of items mentioned in Schedule C;
\n\t  Provided further  that  only\tInspectors  who\t are
\n     graduates in  veterinary science or medicine or general
\n     science or\t pharmacy and  have had\t not less than three
\n     years’ experience\tin the\tmanufacture  or\t testing  of
\n     biological products  shall be authorised to inspect the
\n     manufacture of veterinary biological products;
\n\t  Provided further  that for  a period of four years
\n     from the  date on\twhich Chapter  IV of  the Act  takes
\n     effect in\tthe States,  persons  whose  qualifications,
\n     training and  experience are regarded by the appointing
\n     authority\tas   affording\tsubject\t  to  such   further
\n     training, if  any, as  may be  considered necessary,  a
\n     reasonable\t guarantee   of\t  adequate   knowledge\t and
\n     competence\t may   be  appointed   as   Inspectors\t and
\n     authorised under the preceding proviso:
\n\t  Provided  further   that  for\t  the  purposes\t  of
\n     inspection of  shops in  any specified area any officer
\n     of the  medical or\t Public Health\tDepartment who\tis a
\n     registered\t medical   practitioner\t or  a\tgraduate  in
\n     science may be appointed as an ex officio Inspector.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
772<\/span><\/p>\n
Appellants do  not fall within the class described in clause\n<\/p>\n
(a) above  but respondent 1 who is a Pharmacy Graduate does.
\nThe fact that respondent 1 is qualified to hold the post of’
\na Drugs\t Inspector is  undisputed and  his  application\t was
\nrejected by  the Public Service Commission not on the ground
\nthat he\t did not  hold the  necessary qualification  for the
\npost but  on the  ground that  he was  unsuitable for  being
\nappointed  to\tthe  post.   The  appellants  being  Science
\ngraduates fall within clause (c) of Rule 49 and there can be
\nno doubt  that in  addition to\tbeing Science graduates of a
\nrecognised University,\tthey have  to possess  at least “one
\nyear’s post-graduate  training” in  a laboratory  under\t the
\nauthorities mentioned in clause (c). It is not disputed that
\nthe appellants and worked for a fairly large number of years
\nin laboratories under one or the other authorities mentioned
\nin clause (c). but the question for decision is whether they
\nhad received  any “training”  and if  so, the training which
\nthey had  received was\t“post-graduate training”  within the
\nmeaning of clause (c).\n<\/p>\n
     The contention  of respondent 1 which found favour with
\nthe  High  Court  is  that  “post-graduate  training”  means
\nsystematic training in a post-graduate institution and since
\nthe appellants\thad not\t received such\ttraining through any
\npost-graduate institution,  they were  not qualified to hold
\nthe particular\tpost. The  High Court, in our opinion, erred
\nin accepting  this contention. The expression “post-graduate
\ntraining” is  used in  rule 49(c)  in the  sense of training
\nreceived by a person holding a degree in medicine or science
\nand not in the sense that such training ought to be received
\nin  or\t through  a   post-graduate  institution   imparting
\ninstruction or\teducation in  the particular discipline. The
\nobject of  clause (c)  is to  ensure that to be eligible for
\nthe post of a Drugs Inspector the person concerned must have
\nreceived training  under any  of the  authorities  mentioned
\ntherein\t after\tgraduation  in\tmedicine  or  science.\tPre-
\ngraduation training  is often  not as  efficacious as  post-
\ngraduate training, for a person holding a higher educational
\nqualification is in a better position to imbibe the training
\nwhich  he  receives.  Thus,  the  expression  “post-graduate
\ntraining  ought\t  to  be  received  and\t not  to  limit\t the
\neligibility  to\t those\twho  have  received  training  after
\nenrolment  in\tan   institution   imparting   post-graduate
\ntraining. Clause  (c) specifies\t that the training has to be
\nreceived in  a laboratory  under a  Government Analyst\tor a
\nChemical  Examiner   amongst  others.  It  is  difficult  to
\nconceive in  the present  educational set-up  that a student
\nwho has\t enrolled himself  in  a  post-graduate\t institution
\nwould receive  training in  a laboratory  under a Government
\nAnalyst or  a Chemical\tExaminer. A  fair indication  of the
\ntrue intendment\t of Rule  49(c) is  also  furnished  by\t the
\nrequirement that one year’s post-graduate training is enough
\nto confer  eligibility on  a candidate applying for the post
\nof a  Drugs Inspector. Post-graduate courses normally extend
\nover a\tperiod exceeding one year after graduation. It could
\nnot have  been intended\t that it  would be  enough to make a
\ncandidate eligible  for the  post of  a Drugs  Inspector if,
\nafter graduation  in medicine or science he enrolled himself
\nfor a post-graduate course and just took one year’s training
\nas part\t of that  course. If  enrolment\t in  an\t institution
\nimparting post-graduate\t instruction was  the object of rule\n<\/p>\n
(c), the  minimum qualification\t prescribed would  at  least
\nhave been  the successful  completion of  the  post-graduate
\ncourse.\n<\/p>\n
773<\/span><\/p>\n
     Rule 44 which prescribed qualifications for the post of
\nGovernment Analyst throws useful light on the interpretation
\nof rule\t 49. Rule 44 provides that only those persons can be
\nappointed  as  Government  Analysts  who  are  Graduates  in
\nmedicine or  science or pharmacy or pharmaceutical chemistry
\nand who\t have had  “not less than three years’ post-graduate
\nexperience” in\tthe analysis  of drugs in a laboratory under
\nthe control  of designated  authorities. If  a post-graduate
\ncourse extends over a period of 2 years only, as it normally
\ndoes, it  is odd  that in order that in order to qualify for
\nthe post of a Government Analyst a graduate in the specified
\ndiscipline should  be required\tto spend  3 years as a post-
\ngraduate student.  Post-graduate  experience  stipulated  in
\nrule 44(a)  and post-graduate  training stipulated  in\trule
\n49(c)  connote\tbasically  and\tfor  practical\tpurposes  an
\nidentical qualification. For both posts” what is required in
\naddition to other qualifications mentioned in the respective
\nrules is  post-graduate experience  or training in the sense
\ndescribed above, namely, that the experience or training has
\nto be gained or received after obtaining graduation.\n<\/p>\n
     Maheshwar Prasad  Srivastava  the\tappellant  in  Civil
\nAppeal No. 602 of 1975, passed his B.Sc. examination in 1960
\nand worked  as a  Demonstrator in the Pharmacy School, Patna
\nunder  the  Health  Department,\t Government  of\t Bihar\tfrom
\nOctober, 1961  to December,  1966. He  was  appointed  as  a
\nSenior Scientific  Assistant  in  the  Bihar  Drugs  Control
\nLaboratory on  December 23,  1966 where\t he worked under Dr.
\nSheo Bihari Lal, who was the Government Analyst in charge of
\nthe Bihar  Drugs Control  Laboratory. It  appears  that\t the
\nGovernment of  Bihar through  the Health  Department used to
\nsend science  graduates for  training under  the  Government
\nAnalyst. The  certificate issued by Dr. S. B. Lal shows that
\nSrivastava worked  under him and had been “trained” for more
\nthan three  years in  the Bihar\t Drugs Control Laboratory. A
\nletter written\tby Dr.\tLal to\tthe Deputy  Director of\t the
\nHealth Services,  Bihar on  December  22,  1970\t shows\tthat
\nduring his  absence on\tleave, Srivastava was to hold charge
\nof the\tBihar Drugs  Control Laboratory. These facts make it
\nimpossible to  accept the  contention that the appellant had
\nnot  received  any  systematic\ttraining.  In  the  ultimate
\nanalysis, the  usefulness of any training depends as much on
\nthe ability  and willingness of the student or trainee as on
\nthe academic  specifications of\t the  training\titself.\t The
\nappellants in  Civil Appeal  No. 603  of 1975  had worked as
\nDemonstrators in  Pharmacy School,  Patna for a large number
\nof years  and in  regard to  them also\tit is  difficult  to
\naccept the  contention that  the training  which,  they\t had
\nreceived was not systematic. Dr. J. K. P. Sinha who was then
\nthe Deputy  Director  of  Health  Services,  Bihar  and\t who
\nassisted the Public Service Commission as a Technical Expert
\nwhen the  interviews for  the particular  posts\t were  held,
\nobviously took the view that the appellants who were science
\ngraduates  satisfied   the  further  test  of  post-graduate
\ntraining for  not less\tthan one  year. In matters involving
\nconsideration of questions regarding adequacy or sufficiency
\nof “training”,\tthe Public  Service Commission,\t having\t the
\nbenefit of  expert opinion,  is\t better\t situated  to  judge
\nwhether\t the   Particular  candidate   is  qualified  for  a
\nparticular post\t and courts  should hesitated  to  interfere
\nwith the  direction of\tthe appointing authority, so long as
\nit is exercised bona fide.\n<\/p>\n
774<\/span><\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for the  appellant in Civil Appeal No.
\n602 of\t1975 contended\tthat respondent\t No. 1\thad no locus
\nstandi to  challenge the  appointment of the appellant since
\nhe himself,  as disclosed  by the affidavit filed. On behalf
\nof the\tPublic Service\tCommission in  the High\t Court,\t was
\nrejected on  the ground\t that he “was not found suitable for
\nappointment to\tthe post” of Drugs Inspector. In view of our
\nconclusion that\t the appellants\t were duly qualified for the
\npost, it is unnecessary to go into this question.\n<\/p>\n
     For these\treasons we  allow the appeals, set aside the
\njudgment of the High Court and hold that the appointments of
\nthe appellants as Drugs Inspectors were lawful and valid.\n<\/p>\n
     The State\tof Bihar will pay the costs of these appeals
\nto the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
SR\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal allowed\n775<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava & Anr vs Suresh Singh And Ors on 22 March, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1404, 1976 SCR (3) 769 Author: Y Chandrachud Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. PETITIONER: MAHESHWAR PRASAD SRIVASTAVA & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: SURESH SINGH AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT22\/03\/1976 BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. KRISHNAIYER, […]<\/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-152601","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMaheshwar Prasad Srivastava & Anr vs Suresh Singh And Ors on 22 March, 1976 - 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\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava & Anr vs Suresh Singh And Ors on 22 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976\" \/>\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=\"1976-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-25T12:35:27+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\\\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava & Anr vs Suresh Singh And Ors on 22 March, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-25T12:35:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976\"},\"wordCount\":1992,\"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\\\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976\",\"name\":\"Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava & Anr vs Suresh Singh And Ors on 22 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-25T12:35:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava & Anr vs Suresh Singh And Ors on 22 March, 1976\"}]},{\"@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":"Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava & Anr vs Suresh Singh And Ors on 22 March, 1976 - 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\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava & Anr vs Suresh Singh And Ors on 22 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-25T12:35:27+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\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava & Anr vs Suresh Singh And Ors on 22 March, 1976","datePublished":"1976-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-25T12:35:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976"},"wordCount":1992,"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\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976","name":"Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava & Anr vs Suresh Singh And Ors on 22 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-25T12:35:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-vs-suresh-singh-and-ors-on-22-march-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava & Anr vs Suresh Singh And Ors on 22 March, 1976"}]},{"@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\/152601","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=152601"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152601\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152601"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152601"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152601"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}