{"id":176617,"date":"1975-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975"},"modified":"2018-05-07T20:28:53","modified_gmt":"2018-05-07T14:58:53","slug":"n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975","title":{"rendered":"N. Lakshmana Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
N. Lakshmana Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1646, \t\t 1975 SCR 328<\/div>\n
Author: A Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nN.   LAKSHMANA RAO & ORS.  ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.  ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/04\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nGUPTA, A.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR 1646\t\t  1975 SCR  328\n 1976 SCC  (2) 502\n\n\nACT:\nKarnataka State Civil Service (Age of Compulsory Retirement)\nRules, 1974 and Constitution of India, 1950, Article 309 and\n311-Reduction\tof the age of compulsory retirement from  58\nto 55 years- prescribing age of superannuation if amounts to\nremoval or termination.\nMysore\tCompulsory  primary  Education\tAct,  1969,  Section\n14(b)-Teachers\tof  primary schools  becoming  employees  of\nState  Government Conditions of service to  continue  \"until\nother  provision  is made\"-Section 14(b), if  temporary\t and\ntransitional-Conditions, if can be altered by the Governor.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  new State of Mysore came into existence on 1  November,\n1956,  consequent upon the reorganization of States  brought\nabout\tby  the\t states\t Reorganization\t Act,\t1956.\t The\nreorganized  new  State\t consisted of the  former  Suite  of\nMysore,\t part  of the former State of Bombay,  part  of\t the\nformer Stat of Hyderabad, part of the former State of Madras\nand  the centrally administered territory of  Coorg.   There\nare  three categories of teachers \"who are parties to  these\nappeals.  One group consists of primary and secondary school\nteachers  in  Government  schools of  the  former  State  of\nMysore.\t  The  second  group consists  of  teachers  in\t the\nschools\t belonging to various local authorities situated  in\nthe area of the former State of Mysore.\t These teachers were\nabsorbed  in Government service of the new State  of  Mysore\nwhen  the  said schools were taken over by  the\t Government.\n'The third group consists of teachers in the schools of\t the\nSchool Boards in the Bombay area and Madras area of the\t new\nState.\t They were absorbed in Government service under\t the\nmysore Compulsory Primary  Education Act, 1969.\nOn 24 February, 1974, the Karnataka State Civil Service (Age\nof  Compulsorily Retirement Rules, 1974 came into  existence\nin exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution.\nThese  rules  provided that nowithstanding anything  to\t the\ncontrary contained in any law, rule, notification, order  or\n,agreement every Government servant referred to in  sub-rule\n(4)  who,@ t,,e of compulsory retirement is 58\tyears  shall\nretire\ton  attaining  the age of 55  years.   It  was\talso\nprovided by those Rules that those who continued in  service\nafter  attaining the age of 55 years on the date of the\t pi-\npromulgation of the Rules would retire on the date on  which\nthey  attained\tthe  age of or 1 April,\t 1974  whichever  is\nearlier.   It  is also stated that those  who  continued  in\nservices  after\t   attain  the age of  55  years  after\t the\ncommencement of these Rules. but on or before 1 April,\t1974\nwould  retire  on 1 April, 1974.  Those who will  attain  55\nyears after 1 April, 1974 shall retire on ,attaining the age\nof  55 years,.\tThe Government servant was defined  in\t1974\nAge  of Compulsory Retirement Rules to mean six\t classes  of\nGovernment  servants.  The three categories of teachers\t who\nare parties to these appeals are all covered by The rules.\nIt  was\t contended on behalf of the  Ex-Mysore\tPrimary\t and\nSecondary  School  teachers  that  they\t had  their  age  of\nretirement  at\t58 years and they were protected  under\t the\nproviso\t to  sub-section (7) of section 115  of\t the  States\nReorganisation\tAct.   It  was contended on  behalf  of\t the\nteachers  of  Ex-Municipal High Schools that  their  age  of\nretirement  which  was applicable to  the  Municipal  Blight\nSchool\tTeachers  before  the (late of take  over  N@@is  58\nyears,\tand  therefore,\t they  were  protected\tLinder\t the\nagreements dated 30th April, 1971.  The contention on behalf\nof the teachers of elementary ,schools which were under\t the\nmanagement of local bodies and which were\n329\ntaken  over  by\t the  State Government\tthat  their  age  of\nretirement  was 58 years before the schools were taken\tover\nby  the State Government under the provisions  of  Karnataka\nCompulsory  Primary Education (Amendment  and  Miscellaneous\nProvisions)  Act, 1969 and their conditions  would  continue\nuntil other condition was made.\t The principal contention of\nthe  teachers of the Municipal and Taluk  Development  Board\nHigh  Schools which were taken over by the State  Government\nunder written agreements made by the relevant local body was\nthat  the condition which was offered by the Government\t and\naccepted  by these teachers \"shall not be altered  to  their\ndisadvantage\"  by'  virtue of section 14(b)  of\t the  Mysore\nCompulsory  Primary  Education\tAct,  1969.   One  of  their\nconditions of service before the schools were taken over  by\nthe  State Government was the age of retirement of  teachers\nat 58 years.\nRejecting the contentions and dismissing the appeals\nHELD  : (i) This Court has held that prescribing an  age  of\nsuperannuation\tdoes not amount to an action  under  Article\n311  of the Constitution.  Article 309\tconfers\t legislative\npower to provide conditions of service.\t The legislature can\nregulate  conditions  of  service by law  which\t can  impair\nconditions or terms of service.\t It, therefore, follows that\nteachers  who exercised the form of option were\t subject  to\nchange in the conditions of service under Rules framed under\nArticle\t 309.\tThere  is no  constitutional  limitation  to\nreduce\tthe age of retirement.\tA Government servant  enjoys\nthe  status of a Government servant.  He cannot\t be  removed\nand  his services cannot be terminated except in  accordance\nwith the provisions of the Constitution.  Fixing ,in age  of\nretirement does not amount to removal of termination. [333H,\n334 & 335A]\nRoshan\tLal Tandon v. Union of India<\/a> [1968]1 S.C.R. 185;  B.\nS.  Vadera v. Union of India & Ors.<\/a> [1968] 3 S.C.R. 575\t and\nBishun\tNarain\tMishra v. State of Uttar  Pradesh  &  Others<\/a>\n[1965] 1 S.C.R. 693, relied on\nGurdev\tSinqh  Sidhu v. State of Punjab &  Others  [1964]  7\nS.C.R. 587 and State of Mysore v. Padmanabhacharya<\/a> [1966]  1\nS.C.R. 994, referred to,\n(ii) The 1969 Act provided in section 14 transfer of primary\nschools managed\t    by the municipal councils and panchayats\nin the Madras area and Bellary\t   District    before\t the\nappointed  day.\t Teachers of those schools became  employees\nof the State Government.  The provision contained in section\n14(b)  of  the\t1969 Act is  a\ttemporary  and\ttransitional\nprovision  which  continues until other provision  is  made.\nThe  Legislature does not say until other provision is\tmade\nbecause\t the legislature is always free to  legislate.\t The\nwords  \"until other provision is made\" mean provision  which\ncan  be\t made by the legislature or by the Governor  or\t the\nexecutive.  The words \"until other provision is made\" do not\nexclusively  limit  to legislate.  If  the  legislature\t has\noccupied  the  field the Governor has co-equal\tpower.\t The\npower  of the Governor is co-extensive with the\t legislative\npower. [335 BCDH]\nB.   S. Vadera v. Union of India & Ors.<\/a> [1968] 3 S.C.R. 575,\nreferred to.\nSection\t 14(b)\tof  the 1969 Act is  not  a  law  regulating\nrecruitment  and  conditions of service under  Article\t309.\nAssuming   it  is,  Article  309  does\tnot   preclude\t the\nlegislature from making provision prescribing conditions  or\nrecruitment  and  conditions  of service by  Rules.   It  is\nequally\t open to the legislature to provide that in  certain\nconditions  the Governor acting under the proviso  may\tmake\nappropriate  rules.   The  power under the  proviso  is\t co-\nextensive with the power under the main part. [335F-H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos. 1919,  1931,
\n1932-34,  1959-84, 1985, 1986, 1987-89, 1991-2007 & 2043  of
\n1974.\n<\/p>\n
From  the  judgment dated 18-10-1974 of the  High  Court  of
\nBangalore  in  Writ Petitions Nos. 1019,  865,\t1118,  1157,
\n1197, 2522,
\n\t\t\t    330<\/span>
\n2584, 2904, 3576, 4029, 5662, 1170 & 3204 of 1974.
\nA. K. Sen (In C. A. No. 1919 of 1974) Rama Jois, (In C. As.
\n1919-31) & (W.P. No. 249\/74), P. R. Ramasesh (In C.As. Nos.
\n1919-31) and R. B. Datat, for the appellants (In C.As. Nos
\n1919-31, 1987, 1988, 1991-2007, 2043) & petitioner (In W.P’
\nNo. 249 of 1974).\n<\/p>\n
S.  Lakshminarasu, for the petitioners (In C.As. Nos.  1932-\n<\/p>\n
34).’
\nRama  Joie and S. S. Khanduja, for the appellants (In  C.As.
\nNos. 1959-84\/74).\n<\/p>\n
Narayan Nettar, for the appellants (In C. As.  Nos. 1985-86\/
\n1974).\n<\/p>\n
V.   J.\t Francis,  for respondents Nos. 4-8 &  10  (In\tC.A.
\n1983).\n<\/p>\n
F.   S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor General, (In C.A.\t No.
\n1919)
\nK.   S.\t Puttaswamy, (In  C.A. No. 1919\/74)  &\t(W.P.  No.
\n249\/74)
\nand  M. Veerappa, for State of Karnataka in all the matters.
\nA. R. Sommnath Iyer, N. D. Kurlarni (In W.P. No. 21\/75) and
\nRama  Jois  and R. B. Datar,  for  applicant\/Intervener\/Writ
\nPetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRAY, C.J.-These appeals by certificate turn on the  question
\nas  to\twhether the Karnataka State Civil Services  (Age  of
\nCompulsory Retirement) Rules, 1974 are valid.
\nThese cases may be broadly classified into three categories.
\nOne group consists of primary and secondary school  teachers
\nin  Government schools of the former State of  Mysore.\t The
\nsecond\tgroup consists of teachers in the schools  belonging
\nto  various  local authorities situate in the  area  of\t the
\nformer\tState  of Mysore.  These teachers were\tabsorbed  in
\nGovernment service of the new State of Mysore when the\tsaid
\nschools were taken over by the Government.  The third  group
\nconsists of teachers in the schools of the School Boards  in
\nthe Bombay area and the Madras- area of the new State.\tThey
\nwere  absorbed\tin  Government\tservice\t under\tthe   Mysore
\nCompulsory Primary Education Act, 1969.\n<\/p>\n
The  new State of Mysore came into existence on 1  November,
\n1956  consequent upon the reor-anisation of  States  brought
\nabout\tby  the\t States\t Reorganisation\t Act,\t1956.\t The
\nreorganised  new  State\t consisted of the  former  State  of
\nMysore\tpart  of  the former State of Bombay,  part  of\t the
\nformer\tState  of  Hyderabad, part of the  former  State  of
\nMadras and the centrally administered territory of Coorg.
\nSections  114 and 115 of the States Reorganisation Act\tdeal
\nwith
\nallotment and transfer of State Services of the merged parts
\nof the new State.\n<\/p>\n
331<\/span><\/p>\n
The  School  teachers  of the former State  of\tMysore\twere
\nallotted  to  the  new State of Mysore with  effect  from  1
\nJanuary,  1956.\t  Their age of retirement under\t the  Mysore
\nServices  Regulations was, 58 years.  Some time in the\tyear
\n1957 the State Government reduced their age of retirement to
\n55  years.   The  teachers challenged  the  reduced  age  of
\nretirement.    This   Court   in   State   of\tMysore\t  v.
\nPadmnabhacharya (1966) 1 S.C.R. 994 upheld the contention of
\nthe  teachers  that the age of retirement as  fixed  by\t the
\nState was illegal.  It may be stated here that the State did
\nnot  obtain  the prior approval of  the\t Central  Government
\nunder  section\t115(7) of the States Reorganisation  Act  in
\nregard to the reduction of the age of compulsory retirement.
\nBy notification dated 14 April,’ 1966 the age of  retirement
\nof  primary and secondary school teachers in the  new  State
\nwas  fixed at 58 years with effect from 5 April, 1966.\t The
\nage  of retirement of teachers who were allotted from  other
\nintegrated  areas  was 55 years.  By notification  dated  15
\nApril, 1966 a uniform treatment was given to all the Primary
\nand Secondary School Teachers of the new State of Mysore  by
\nfixing their age of retirement at 58 years.
\nBy notification dated 10 July, 1970 the age of retirement of
\nteachers   in\tthe  Collegiate\t and   Technical   Education
\nDepartment was raised to 5 8 years.\n<\/p>\n
By  notification  dated 6 May, 1971 the\t retirement  age  of
\nteaching staff of the Medical and Dental Colleges and  other
\ncolleges under’ the Department of Health and Family Planning
\nServices was, raised to 58 years.\n<\/p>\n
By  another  notification  dated 24 June, 1971\tthe  age  of
\nretirement  of the members of the teaching stain of the\t Law
\nColleges was raised to 58 years.\n<\/p>\n
By  another  notification dated 5 August, 1972\tthe  age  of
\nretirement of the members of the Judicial Service was raised
\nto 58 years.\n<\/p>\n
The  Karnataka\tCivil  Services\t (Twenty-Second\t  Amendment)
\nRules,\t1973 provided the age of retirement of all  teachers
\nin   all  the  Departments  except  Ex-Mysore  Primary\t and
\nSecondary School Teachers at 55 years.\n<\/p>\n
The  teachers  of the erstwhile local authorities  were\t not
\ncovered\t by  the  Karnataka  Civil  Services  (Twenty-Second
\nAmendment)  Rules,  1973  as they were\tgoverned  either  by
\ncontract or by special laws.  Their age of retirement was 58
\nyears.\t They  were asked to retire on attaining  55  years.
\nThey filed writ petition challenging the reduction in age of
\nretirement.\n<\/p>\n
The  Mysore Service. (Amendment) Regulations 1974 were\tpro-
\nmulgated on 21 January, 1974 reducing the age of  retirement
\nof Ex-Mysore teachers from 58 to 55 years.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    332<\/span><\/p>\n
The  Mysore  Civil  Service Regulations 1974  were  made  in
\nexercise of the powers conferred by the, proviso to  Article
\n309  of the Constitution and with the previous\tapproval  of
\nthe  Central Government under the proviso to subjection\t (7)
\nof  section  115 of the States\tReorganisation\tAct.   These
\nMysore\tCivil Service Regulations 1974 provided\t that  every
\nGovernment  servant  governed by the provisions, of  note  4
\nbelow clause (c). of Article 294 of the Mysore Civil Service
\nRegulations  would retire on attaining the age of  55  years
\nand those who were continued in service after attaining\t the
\nage of 55 years on the date of the Regulations would  retire
\non attaining the age of 58 years or 1 March, 1974  whichever
\nis earlier.\n<\/p>\n
The  Mysore  Civil Service- (Amendment),  Regulations,\t1974
\nthus  reduced  the age of retirement of\t Ex-Mysore  teachers
\nalso to 55 years.\n<\/p>\n
On 24 February, 1974 the Karnataka State Civil Services.(Age
\nof Compulsory Retirement) Rules, 1974 came into existence in
\nexercise  of powers under Article 309 of  the  Constitution.
\nThe  Karnataka\tState  Civil  Services\t(Age  of  Compulsory
\nRetirement)   Rules,  1974  provided  that   notwithstanding
\nanything  to  the  contrary  contained\tin  any\t law,  rule,
\nnotification,  order or agreement, every Government  servant
\nreferred to in sub-rule (4) whose age of compulsory  retire-
\nment  is  58 years shall retire on attaining the age  of  55
\nyears.\t It was also provided by those Rules that those\t who
\ncontinued in service after attaining the age of 55 years  oh
\nthe  date of the promulgation of the Rules would  retire  on
\nthe  date  on which they attained the age of 58 years  or  1
\nApril,\t1974 whichever is earlier.  It is also\tstated\tthat
\nthose  who  will  attain  the age  of  55  years  after\t the
\ncommencement of these Rules, but on or before 1 April,\t1974
\nwould  retire  on 1 April, 1974.  Those who will  attain  55
\nyears after 1 April, 1974 shall retire on attaining the\t age
\nof 55 years.  The Government servant was defined in 1974 Age
\nof  Compulsory\tRetirement  Rules to  mean  six\t classes  of
\nGovernment  servants.  The three categories of teachers\t who
\nare  parties  to  these,  appeals are  all  covered  by\t the
\nKarnataka State Civil Service (Age of.Compulsory Retirement)
\nRules., 1974 which are referred to as the impugned Rules.
\nThe Ex-Mysore primary and secondary school teachers  contend
\nthat  they had their age of retirement at 58 years and\tthey
\nwere  protected\t under\tthe proviso to\tsub-section  (7)  of
\nsection 115 of the States Reorganisation Act.  The  teachers
\nof  Ex-Municipal High School taken over under orders of\t the
\nGovernment  and agreements made by the Government  dated  30
\nApril, 1971 contended that their age of retirement which was
\napplicable to the Municipal High School teachers before\t the
\ndate  of take over was 58 years, and, therefore,  they\twere
\nprotected under the agreements.\t The teachers of  elementary
\nschools which were under the management of local bodies\t and
\nwhich were taken over by the State Government contended that
\ntheir age of retirement was 58 years before the schools were
\ntaken  over by the State Government under the provisions  of
\nKarnataka   Compulsory\tPrimary\t Education  (Amendment\t and
\nMiscellaneous  Provisions)  Art, 1969 and  their  conditions
\nwould continue until other condition was made.\n<\/p>\n
333<\/span><\/p>\n
The  teachers of the Municipal and Taluk  Development  Board
\nHigh  Schools which were taken over by the State  Government
\nunder  written\tagreements made by the relevant\t local\tbody
\ncontended  that\t they  &came  Government  servants  by\t the
\nexercise  of option form accepting the terms and  conditions
\noffered\t by the Government in their order. dated  30  April,
\n1971.\tThese  teachers also contended that the\t option\t was
\nincorporated  in the agreement between the State  Government
\nand the relevant local body under whom they were,  employed.
\nThe  principal\tcontention of these teachers  was  that\t the
\ncondition  which was offered by the Government and  accepted
\nby  these teachers of the relevant local body was  that\t the
\nconditions  of\tservice\t of these teachers ”  shall  not  be
\naltered to their disadvantage”.\t One of their conditions  of
\nservice\t before\t the schools were taken over  by  the  State
\nGovernment  was\t the  age of retirement of  teachers  at  58
\nyears.\t Under\tthe  impugned  Rules  these  teachers\twere
\nrequited to retire at, the age of 55 years,  notwithstanding
\nthe  fact that their age of retirement under  the  agreement
\nwas 58 years.\n<\/p>\n
The  Government Order dated 30 April, 1971’stated  that\t all
\nemployees  of the Local Authorities would become  Government
\nservants  with\teffect from the date of transfer  and  their
\nconditions   of\t service  would\t not  be  varied  to   their
\ndisadvantage.  consequent  on their transfer  to  Government
\ncontrol.  The Government order dated 30 April, 1971  further
\nprovided  that the employees of local bodies  and  Secondary
\nschools would be absorbed in Government service only if they
\nagreed\tin writing to the forms.  By the form is meant\tthe,
\nform  of option.  The, form of option contained\t two  forms.
\nOne  was  whereby  the teachers agreed\tto  be\tabsorbed  in
\nGovernment service and the other where the teachers did\t not
\nagree  to  be  absorbed in Government  service.\t  Those\t who
\nagreed to be absorbed in Government service stated that\t the
\nterms  and  conditions\tlaid down  by  Government  regarding
\nabsorption  of\tthe members of the staff of  local  body  in
\nGovernment service consequent on the take over of the  local
\nbody to the control of Government were gone through and they
\nagreed to be absorbed in Government service.  The  agreement
\nbetween the Government and the relevant school of the  local
\nbody  provided that the service condition,, of teaching\t and
\nnon-teaching  employees\t of the local bodies  shall  not  be
\nvaried to their disadvantage consequent on their transfer to
\nGovernment control.\n<\/p>\n
As a result of the exercise of option by the teachers of the
\nlocal bodies they became Government servants.  The term that
\nthe  service  conditions  would\t not  be  varied  to   their
\ndisadvantage  would mean that they would be like  all  other
\nGovernment  servants  subject  to  Article  310(1)  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tThis  could mean that under  the  law  these
\nteachers would be entitled to continue in service up to\t the
\nage of superannuation.\tThe exercise of option does not mean
\nthat  there was a contract whereby a limitation was  put  on
\nprescribing  an age of superannuation.\tIt has been held  by
\nthis  Court that prescribing an age of\tsuperannuation\tdoes
\nnot   amount  to  an  action  under  Article  311   of\t the
\nConstitution.\tArticle\t 309 ‘confers legislative  power  to
\nprovide conditions of service.\tThe Legislature can regulate
\nconditions of service by law which can impair conditions  or
\nterms of service.\n<\/p>\n
334<\/span><\/p>\n
This  Court in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India<\/a> (1968)  1
\nS.C.R. 185 said that there is no vested contractual right in
\nregard\tto  the terms of service.  The legal position  of  a
\nGovernment  servant is one of status than of contract.\t The
\nduties of status are fixed by law.  The terms of service are
\ngoverned  by  statute  or  statutory  rules  which  may\t  be
\nunilaterally  altered by the Government without the  consent
\nof the employee.\n<\/p>\n
 The  form  of\toption is the contract.\t  This\texercise  of
\noption is itself the contract.\tThe option is to be absorbed
\nor  not\t to be absorbed.  The contractual term is  that\t the
\nteacher will be absorbed as a Government servant.  The\tterm
\nin the, agreement between the Government and the Local\tBody
\nthat  the  conditions of service will not be varied  to\t the
\ndisadvantage  of the teachers has been read by all  teachers
\nwho exercised the option to be absorbed.  The conditions  of
\nservice referred to therein are the conditions of service of
\nthe State of Mysore.\n<\/p>\n
In B. S. Vadera v. Union of India & Ors. (1968) 3 S.C.R. 575
\nthis  Court  held  that if an  appropriate  legislature\t has
\npassed\tan Act under Article 309 the Rules framed under\t the
\nproviso\t to  Article 309 would have effect subject  to\tthat
\nAct.   In  the\tabsence\t of  any  Act  of  the\t appropriate
\nlegislature the Rules made. by the President or such  person
\nas he may direct, are to have full effect.\n<\/p>\n
There  is  legislative\tpower under Entry  41,\tList  11  to
\nlegislate for State public services.  There is no fetter  on
\nthe legislative power to legislate with regard to service or
\nwith regard to any other matter mentioned in the Legislative
\nList.\tIn  Gurdev  Singh Sidhu v. State of  Punjab  &\tAnr.<\/a>
\n(1964)\t7 S.C.R. 587 this Court stated that there  were\t two
\nexceptions  to the protection afforded by Article 311.\t One
\nis  where a permanent public servant is asked to  retire  on
\nthe  ground  that be has reached the age  of  superannuation
\nwhich  is  reasonably fixed.  The other is  where  a  public
\nservant\t is  compulsorily  retired  under  the\tRules  which
\nprescribe  the\tnormal\tage of\tsuperannuation\tand  provide
\nreasonably  long  period of qualified  service\tafter  which
\ncompulsory  retirement\tcould be valid.\t It is only  when  a
\nrule  is framed prescribing a proper age  of  superannuation
\nand  another  rule is framed giving power to  the  State  to
\nretire a permanent public servant compulsorily at the end of
\n10 years of his service that this Court has apprehended such
\ncases to be not within the protection of Article 311.
\nThe question of retirement- age was considered by this Court
\nin  Bishun  Narain Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh  &\tOrs.<\/a>
\n(1965)\t1  S.C.R. 693.\tThe State Government  in  that\tcase
\nraised\tthe  age of superannuation from 55 to 58  years\t and
\nagain  reduced the age to 55 years.  It was held that  there
\nis no provision which takes away power of the Government  to
\nincrease or reduce the age of superannuation.  When the rule
\nonly deals  with  the  age  of\tsuperannuation\tand   the
\nGovernment servant had to retire because of the reduction in
\nthe  age  of  superannuation  it cannot\t be  said  that\t the
\ntermination  of\t the service amounts to removal\t within\t the
\nmeaning of Article 311.\n<\/p>\n
It, therefore, follows that teachers who exercised the\tform
\nof  option  were  subject to change  in\t the  conditions  of
\nservice under Rules framed
\n335<\/span>
\nunder Article 309.  There is no constitutional limitation to
\nreduce\tthe age of retirement.\tA Government servant  enjoys
\nthe  status of a Government servant.  He cannot\t be  removed
\nand  his services cannot be terminated except in  accordance
\nwith  the provisions of the Constitution.  Fixing an age  of
\nretirement does not amount to removal or termination.
\nThe  teachers of primary schools contended that their  terms
\nof  service  were  continued by\t Mysore\t Compulsory  Primary
\nEducation Act, 1969, and, therefore, their age of retirement
\ncould  not  be altered by rules made by the  Governor  under
\nArticle\t 309.  The 1969 Act provided in section 14  transfer
\nof  primary  schools managed by the municipal  councils\t and
\npanchayats  in the Madras area and Bellary  District  before
\nthe  appointed\tday.   Teachers\t of  those  schools   became
\nemployees  of the State ‘Government.  The crucial  words  in
\nsection\t 14(b) of the 1969 Act on which the teachers  relied
\nare  these : “AR primary  school  teachers………………
\nshall, until other provision is made, receive the salary and
\nallowances  and\t be subject to the condition of\t service  to
\nwhich  they were entitled immediately before  the  appointed
\nday”.  The words “other provision is made” were construed by
\nthe teachers to mean an act of legislature.
\nThe provision contained in section 14(b) of the 1969 Act  is
\na temporary and transitional provision which continues until
\nother  pro-vision  is made.  The Legislature  does  not\t say
\nuntil  other  provision is made because the  Legislature  is
\nalways free to legislate.  The words ” until other provision
\nis made” mean provision which can be made by the legislature
\nor by the Governor or the executive.  The words “until other
\nprovision  is made” do not exclusively limit  to  legislate.
\nIf  the legislature has occupied the field the Governor\t has
\nco-equal  power.  The power of the Governor is\tco-extensive
\nwith the legislative power (See B. S. Vadera’s case  (supra)
\nat page 583).\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 14(b)\tof  the 1969 Act is  not  a  law  regulating
\nrecruitment  and  conditions of service under  Article\t309.
\nAssuming   it  is,  Article  309  does\tnot   preclude\t the
\nlegislature from making provision for prescribing conditions
\nof  recruitment\t and conditions of service  by\tRules.\t The
\nproviso\t to Article 309 contemplates that  Rules  regulating
\nconditions of service may be made under aft enactment.\tJust
\nas it is open to the appropriate legislature to provide\t for
\nrules to be framed for regulating recruitment and conditions
\nof  service  under Article 309, it is equally  open  to\t the
\nlegislature  to\t provide  that\tin  certain  conditions\t the
\nGovernor  acting  under\t the proviso  may  make\t appropriate
\nrules.\tThe power under the proviso is co-extensive with the
\npower under the main part. (See B. S. Vadera’s case  (supra)
\nat pp. 585586).\n<\/p>\n
For  these  reasons, the contentions of the  teachers  fail.
\nThe  impugned  legislation is constitutionally\tvalid.\t The
\nappeals are dismissed.\tParties will pay and bear their\t own
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
V.M.K.\n<\/p>\n
336<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India N. Lakshmana Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1646, 1975 SCR 328 Author: A Ray Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj) PETITIONER: N. LAKSHMANA RAO & ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/04\/1975 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-176617","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nN. Lakshmana Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1975 - 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\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N. Lakshmana Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-07T14:58:53+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N. Lakshmana Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-07T14:58:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2890,\"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\\\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975\",\"name\":\"N. Lakshmana Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-07T14:58:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N. Lakshmana Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"N. Lakshmana Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1975 - 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\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N. Lakshmana Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-07T14:58:53+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N. Lakshmana Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1975","datePublished":"1975-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-07T14:58:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975"},"wordCount":2890,"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\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975","name":"N. Lakshmana Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-07T14:58:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-lakshmana-rao-ors-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-etc-on-29-april-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N. Lakshmana Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1975"}]},{"@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\/176617","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=176617"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176617\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176617"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176617"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176617"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}