{"id":175709,"date":"1994-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-10-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994"},"modified":"2015-11-26T04:09:17","modified_gmt":"2015-11-25T22:39:17","slug":"sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994","title":{"rendered":"Sarat Kumar Dash & Ors vs Biswajit Patnaik & Ors on 27 October, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sarat Kumar Dash & Ors vs Biswajit Patnaik & Ors on 27 October, 1994<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC, Supl. (1) 434 JT 1995 (2)\t 69<\/div>\n
Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n
Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSARAT KUMAR DASH & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBISWAJIT PATNAIK & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/10\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 SCC  Supl.  (1) 434 JT 1995 (2)\t 69\n 1994 SCALE  (5)81\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORDER\n<\/p>\n
1.   Delay condoned.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
3.Heard\t the  learned  counsel.\t While\tthe  appellants\t and
\nrespondents-Biswajit  Patnalk  and Jagannath  Prasad  Mishra
\nwere  continuing as Drug Inspectors, four vacancies for\t the
\npost  of  Asstt.  Drugs Controller,  (junior  Class-I)\thave
\narisen.\t  Preceding  regular  appointment,  the\t  Government
\nconstituted  a\tDepartmental Promotion Committee  which\t had
\nconsidered  and recommended the cases of respondents for  ad
\nhoc  promotion to the posts and the Govt. had appointed\t the
\nrespondents  and referred the matter to the  Public  Service
\nCommission  for\t recommendation\t for  regular  appointments.
\nBefore\trecommending  to  the PSC, since  no  rules  or\t the
\ncriteria  for consideration was prescribed,  the  Government
\nhad decided to adopt ‘merit-cum’-suitability with due regard
\nto seniority” as principle to consider the case of the\tper-
\nsons  for promotion.  The names of 12 candidates,  including
\nad hoc promoters were sent to the P.S.C. for  consideration.
\nWe are informed that since two of them were already promoted
\nto  the\t higher posts of Grade-I  Deputy  Drug\tControllers,
\ntheir cases were not considered.  Two of them were found  to
\nbe unfit.  The PSC had thought over the feasibility to apply
\nthe  principle of ‘merit-cum-suitability with due regard  to
\nseniority; secured the statutory rules applicable to similar
\nselection  posts in other deportments and after\t due  delib-
\neration\t adopted the aforesaid principle.   Thereafter,\t the
\nPSC  has evolved the procedure, as stated in  the  affidavit
\nfiled by the PSC pursuant to our order dated 4.8.1994, thus:
\n“He  (Chaimian the OPSC) explained the system of  evaluation
\nof  C.\tC.  R. s. adopted by the  PSC.\t The  Commission  is
\nconsidering the reports of 6 years immediately preceding the
\ntime  of  selection.  While evaluating the C.S.R.  they\t are
\ngraded and awarded marks as follows:\n<\/p>\n
(i)  Outstanding: 10 marks\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Very good: 9\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Good:\t 8\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Satisfactory: 7\n<\/p>\n
(v) Average:\t 6
\nAdverse\t remarks are not given any marks and no minus  marks
\nare given.  However, when the assessment contains a critical
\nobservation   alongwith\t  other\t  favorable   comments\t the
\nCommission  takes  an  overall view of\tthe  assessment\t and
\ngrades\t the  C.R.  as\tAverage,  Satisfactory,\t Good\tetc.
\nHowever, when there is an adverse remark indicating that the
\n 71<\/span>
\nintegrity  is  doubtful,  the  officer\tis  not\t  considered
\nsuitable  for  promotion.  Similarly if\t there\tare  adverse
\nremarks\t  for  two  years  the\tofficer\t is  not   generally
\nconsidered suitable.\n<\/p>\n
The  final grading is decided by taking the average  of\t the
\nmarks awarded for six years.  For final grading categories:
\nA,  B, C, D, E, are adopted.  This is done in the  following
\nmanner.\n<\/p>\n
9.8 marks and above Outstanding – Category A
\n7.8 to 9,79:  Good and very good- Category B
\n6.8 to 7.79 Satisfactory – Category B
\n6 to 6.79 Average – Category B
\nLess than 6: unsuitable
\nIt  the final placement\t those who come within Category\t ‘A’
\nare  placed in the top followed by those in category  B.C.D.
\nin  each  category the inter se seniority as  per  gradation
\nlist  will  be maintained. Those graded as ‘Good’  and\tvery
\nGood’  are  both  placed in the same  category\t‘B’  as\t the
\nCommission  follows the principle  that an  officer   graded
\n‘very good’ should not supersede another graded\t as ‘Good’.
\nIn  the case of the highest posts immediately below it\t(for
\nexample the post of Director an Joint Director, Level-I\t and
\nLevel-II)  the Commission consider an officer  suitable\t for
\npromotion  only\t if  he is in category ‘B’  i.e.  his  final
\ngrading\t must  at  least   be  good.  Following\t the   above
\nprinciple the Commission has evaluated\tthe C.c Rolls of the
\nofficers  within the zone of consideration for the  post  of
\nAsstt.\tController  as in the Statement placed at  Flag\t ‘X’
\nFour  officers Sri B.C. Panda, Sri S.K. Das. Sri  R.N.\tSahu
\nand  Sri G.S. Mohapatra come within ‘B’ category  and  hence
\nthey have been recommended against the four vacancies”.\n<\/p>\n
4.  Adhering to the evolved criteria considering  the  cases
\nof  the\t candidates, the names of the appellants   and\tB.C.
\nPanda  the 5th respondent in these appeals  are\t recommended
\nfor regular  promotion. The government\thad a doubt  whether
\nJ.P.   Misra and S.K. Das do not  stand on the same  footing
\nand requested  the PSC\tfor reconsideration  of the case  of
\nJ.p.  Misra.  the  PSC\treaffirmed  its\t recommendation\t  of
\nS.K.Das.  Accordingly\tthey came  to be  appointed  by\t the
\nGovernment. The respondents challenged their appointments in
\nthe Tribunal in its order, dated June 18, 1993 set aside the
\nappointments   on  the\tfindings  that\tthere  is  no\trule
\nprohibiting  the  PSC to give reasons in  support  of  their
\nrecommendations;  reasons are necessary for   evaluation  of
\nthe  relative  merits  of  the\tcandidates  the\t  Government
\nindependently had not applied its mind of the merits of\t the
\ncandidates;   no  speaking  order  was\tpassed\t in   making
\npromotions;  and  the  seniority   was\tnot  given  any\t due
\nconsideration.\t At different places the PSC has  stated  in
\ntheir\tcounter\t  affidavit   of   the\t respondents   being
\nunsuitable’  and  ‘less\t suitable’.  There  is\ta  world  of
\ndifference  between ‘unsuitable’  and ‘less suitable’  which
\nwould  show  their non application of mind to  the  relevant
\nfacts.\t Under those circumstances, neither the\t PSC  itself
\nnor  the  Govt. are clear in their view, as to\tthe  correct
\ncriteria  to  be applied in recommending the  candidates  or
\nmaking appointments to the posts of Asstt.  Drug  Controller
\n(Junior Class-1).\n<\/p>\n
5. It is contended  by\tShri P.P. Rao,
\n72<\/span>
\nthe  learned  senior  counsel for the  appellants  that\t the
\nTribunal has committed grievous error in placing reliance on
\nthe  decision  of  this Court in Union of  India  vs.\tM.L.
\nCooper & Ors.<\/a> (19741 SCR 797).\tTherein, unamended Rule 5(2)
\nof the statutory rules provides that in case of supersession
\nof  the officer of the police service of the State, the\t PSC
\nwas required to record reasons.\t Under those  circumstances,
\nthis  Court  has  directed that\t recording  of\treasons\t was
\nnecessary.  He further contends that in the judgment itself,
\nthis Court held that in case of ‘merit-cum-suitability’ with
\ndue  regard to seniority, the principle of seniority has  no
\nrole  to  play\tand  the  ratio\t therein  was  not  properly
\nunderstood   by\t the  Tribunal.\t  We  find  force   in\t the
\ncontention.\n<\/p>\n
6.   It\t is  seen  that the Government\tin  the\t absence  of
\nstatutory rules, have applied, by administrative order,\t the
\nprinciple  of  ‘merit-cum-suitability  with  due  regard  to
\nseniority.   It is settled law that in case of promotion  to
\nthe  posts of higher cadre, it has always been\tthe  settled
\ncriteria  applied  by the Govts.  is  ‘merit-cum-suitability
\nwith due regard to seniority’ or merit and ability’ but\t not
\n‘seniority’  or seniority-cum-suitability’.  In\t fact,\tthis
\nquestion  was considered by PSC, as stated  earlier,  before
\nits  evaluation of the respective merits.  They secured\t the
\nrules  in  the comparable services of the  State  where\t !he
\nprinciple  of  ‘merit-cum-suitability with  clue  regard  to
\nseniority’  is the statutory rule and thereby, the  PSC\t had
\naccepted  the recommendation of the Government to apply\t the
\nabove rule to adjudge the relative merits of the  candidates
\nand in fact they did so apply.\n<\/p>\n
7.   In\t Cooper’s case this Court has stated with regard  to
\nthe principle thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “When Regulation 5(2) says that the  selection
\n\t      for  inclusion in the list shall be  based  on
\n\t      merit and suitability in all respects with due
\n\t      regard to seniority, what it means is that for
\n\t      inclusion\t in the list, merit and\t suitability
\n\t      in  all  respects\t should\t be  the   governing
\n\t      consideration  and that seniority should\tplay
\n\t      only a secondary role.  It is only when  merit
\n\t      and   suitability\t are  roughly\tequal\tthat
\n\t      seniority will be a determining factor, or  if
\n\t      it   is  not  fairly  possible  to   make\t  an
\n\t      assessment   inter   se  of  the\t merit\t and
\n\t      suitability  of  two eligible  candidates\t and
\n\t      come  to\ta firm conclusion,  seniority  would
\n\t      tilt  the\t scale.\t But, to say,  as  the\tHigh
\n\t      Court   has   done  that\tseniority   is\t the
\n\t      determining factor and that it is only if\t the
\n\t      senior  is found unfit that the junior can  be
\n\t      thought of for inclusion in the list is,\twith
\n\t      respect,\tnot a correct reading of  Regulation
\n\t      5(2).1  do not know what the High Court  would
\n\t      have said had Regulation 5(2) said: “Selection
\n\t      for  inclusion  in the select  list  shall  be
\n\t      based  on seniority with due regard  to  merit
\n\t      and suitability”.\t Would it have said that the
\n\t      interpretation to be put upon the hypothetical
\n\t      Sub-regulation (2) is the same as it put\tupon
\n\t      the actual Sub-regulation?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.  In case of merit-cum-suitability, the  seniority  should
\nhave  no role to play when the candidates were found  to  be
\nmeritorious  and suitable for higher posts.  Even  a  junior
\nmost  man  may steal a march over his seniors and  jump\t the
\nqueue for accelerated promotion.  This principle  inculcates
\ndedicated  service,  and accelerates ability  and  encourage
\nmerit  to  excel merit.\t The seniority would  have  its\t due
\nplace  only  where the merit and ability  are  approximately
\nequal  or where it is not possible to assess inter-se  merit
\nand  the  suitability  of  two\tequally\t eligible  competing
\ncandidates who come very close in the order of merit
\n73<\/span>
\nand ability.  Under those circumstances, the seniority\twill
\nplay  its  due role and calls it in aid\t for  consideration.
\nBut  in\t case where the relative merit\tand  suitability  or
\nability\t has been considered and evaluated, and found to  be
\nsuperior,  then the seniority has no role to play.   In\t our
\nview  the PSC has evolved correct procedure in\tgrading\t the
\nofficers  and the marks have been awarded according  to\t the
\ngrading.  It is seen that the four officers have come in the
\ngrading\t of  ‘B’.  In consequence, the PSC had\tadopted\t the
\nseniority of the appellants and Panda in the lower cadre  in
\nrecommending  their  cases for appointment in the  order  of
\nmerit.\n<\/p>\n
9.   Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent- J.P.
\nMishra contended that the PSC itself has evolved grading  of
\noutstanding,  very  good, good, satisfactory,  average\tetc.
\nfrom  C.Rs. which is not open to the PSC to evolve  grading.
\nWe  cannot accept that contention to be\t correct.   Firstly,
\nthis contention was not raised in the Tribunal and secondly,
\nfrom  the  file produced before us by the PSC, it  is  clear
\nthat they have seen the grading was given by the  Government
\nand  they evolved the criteria of giving marks on the  basis
\nof the grading given by the Government.\t With regard to\t the
\nmerit and ability this Court has consistently been following
\nthe  view  as extracted herein from Cooper’s case  in  other
\ndecisions  vide R.S. Das v. U.O.I & Ors. (1986\tSuppl.\t SCC\n<\/p>\n
617),  National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro  Sciences
\nv. Dr K. Kalyana Raman & Ors. (AIR<\/a> 1992 SC 1906, para 7) and
\nSyed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. UO.L & Ors. (1993 suppl. (3) SCC
\n575, paras 8 & 9 at pages 584 to 586).\n<\/p>\n
10.  Accordingly, we hold that the principle of\t ‘merit-cum-
\nsuitability with due regard to seniority’ has been correctly
\napplied\t on the facts in this case.  We have also seen\tthat
\nthe PSC has objectively evolved the criteria and  determined
\nthe  merit and suitability of the candidates.  In S.R.\tDass
\ncase,  the  amended  Rule  5(2) of  the\t Regulation  of\t IAS
\n(Appointment  by  Promotion) Regulations,  1955,  Rule\t5(4)
\nevolved\t the  principle\t to classify  eligible\tofficer\t as,
\noutstanding,  very good, good or unfit, as the case may\t be,
\non  an overall relative assessment of their service  record,
\nRule   5(5)  directed  to  prepare  list  and  include\t the
\ncandidates  for\t appointment  to  the  required\t number\t  of
\nvacancies.   Considering  the Rule at p.631 in para  16\t and
\nfollowing  the ratio in Cooper’s case, this Court held\tthat
\nthe  grading  was  for the purpose of being  placed  in\t the
\nselect\tlist to ensure that select list is drawn up  on\t the
\nbasis of merit and suitability and to obviate the  necessity
\nof giving reasons for the super-session of any officer.\t  In
\npara  18  at p.632, it was further held that  there  was  no
\nnecessity  to  record  any reason, in view  of\tthe  amended
\nstatutory  provisions.\t Therefore,  the  criticism  of\t the
\nTribunal  that due regard to the seniority was not given  is
\nnot correct.\n<\/p>\n
11.  The next question is whether omission   to\t      record
\nreasons amounts to violation  of  the principles of  natural
\njustice.  The  principle of audi alterim partem is  a  basic
\nconcept\t  of   the  principle  of  natural   justice.\t The
\nomnipotency  inherent in the doctrine is that no one  should
\nbe condemned without being heard or given an opportunity  to
\nthe  person effected to present his case before\t taking\t the
\ndecision or action.  In the field of administrative  action,
\nthis  principle\t has been applied to ensure  fair  play\t and
\njustice to the effected
\n74<\/span>
\nperson.\t  However,  the doctrine is not’ a cure to  all\t the
\nills  in  the  process.\t Its application  depends  upon\t the
\nfactual\t matrix\t to improve  administrative  efficiency\t and
\nexpediency  and to meet out justice.  The procedure  adopted
\nwould  be just and fair The reasons are links between  maker
\nof  ‘ the order or the author of the decision and the  order
\nitself The record is called to consider whether he has given
\ndue  consideration to the facts placed before him before  he
\narrives\t at  the decision.  Therefore, the  reasons  in\t the
\norder or found from the record bridges the link between\t the
\nmaker  of  the\torder  and the\torder  itself  or  decision.
\nTherefore  the\tnatural\t justice  is  not  a  rigid  nor  an
\ninflexible  rule.   It\tshould be applied to  a\t given\tfact
\nsituation,  depending upon the background of  the  statutory
\nprovisions,  nature of the right which may be  effected\t and
\nthe  consequences that\t\t may entail.  It is  already
\nseen  that  the tribunal evolved the objective\tcriteria  in
\nawarding marks to the given grading of the candidates and on
\nits  basis recommended their cases for promotion.   In\tR.S.
\nDass  case,  this Court held that the grading  itself  is  a
\nreason\tand no separate reasons in that behalf in  arranging
\nthe order of merit need be given.  The grading is to obviate
\nthe  need  to record reasons.  The finding of  the  Tribunal
\nthat the selection by PSC without recording reasons or\tneed
\nto  record separately the reasons for evolving the  criteria
\nfor selection is also clearly illegal.\n<\/p>\n
12.It  is  incumbent  upon  the\t appointing  authority\t the
\nGovernment  to have the opinion of the PSC and\tto  consider
\nthe   same.    Since  the  Government\thad   accepted\t the
\nrecommendations made by the PSC as found from the note file,
\nthere is no need for the Government again to record  reasons
\nin  accepting  the  recommendations made by  the  PSC.\t The
\nfinding of the Tribunal that the bald and vague order of ap-
\npointment is arbitrary, therefore, is illegal.\tThus we\t are
\nof  the considered opinion that the Tribunal has  grievously
\nerred  in directing the Government to reconsider the  matter
\nafresh.\n<\/p>\n
13. The appeals are accordingly allowed.  The orders of\t the
\nTribunal  are set aside and the O.As. filed in the  Tribunal
\nstand dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
76<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sarat Kumar Dash & Ors vs Biswajit Patnaik & Ors on 27 October, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC, Supl. (1) 434 JT 1995 (2) 69 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: SARAT KUMAR DASH & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: BISWAJIT PATNAIK & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/10\/1994 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, […]<\/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-175709","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSarat Kumar Dash & Ors vs Biswajit Patnaik & Ors on 27 October, 1994 - 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\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sarat Kumar Dash & Ors vs Biswajit Patnaik & Ors on 27 October, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-25T22:39:17+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sarat Kumar Dash & Ors vs Biswajit Patnaik & Ors on 27 October, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-25T22:39:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994\"},\"wordCount\":2462,\"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\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994\",\"name\":\"Sarat Kumar Dash & Ors vs Biswajit Patnaik & Ors on 27 October, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-25T22:39:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sarat Kumar Dash & Ors vs Biswajit Patnaik & Ors on 27 October, 1994\"}]},{\"@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":"Sarat Kumar Dash & Ors vs Biswajit Patnaik & Ors on 27 October, 1994 - 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\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sarat Kumar Dash & Ors vs Biswajit Patnaik & Ors on 27 October, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-25T22:39:17+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sarat Kumar Dash & Ors vs Biswajit Patnaik & Ors on 27 October, 1994","datePublished":"1994-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-25T22:39:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994"},"wordCount":2462,"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\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994","name":"Sarat Kumar Dash & Ors vs Biswajit Patnaik & Ors on 27 October, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-25T22:39:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarat-kumar-dash-ors-vs-biswajit-patnaik-ors-on-27-october-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sarat Kumar Dash & Ors vs Biswajit Patnaik & Ors on 27 October, 1994"}]},{"@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\/175709","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=175709"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175709\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175709"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175709"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175709"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}