{"id":192470,"date":"1971-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971"},"modified":"2018-04-18T11:44:22","modified_gmt":"2018-04-18T06:14:22","slug":"md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971","title":{"rendered":"Md. Usman & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Md. Usman & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1801, \t\t 1971 SCR 549<\/div>\n
Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMD.  USMAN & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/04\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 1801\t\t  1971 SCR  549\n 1971 SCC  (2) 188\n\n\nACT:\nAndhra\tPradesh\t Registration  Subordinate  Service  Special\nRules,\t r.   5--U.D.Cs.  and  L.D.Cs.\tput   together\t for\nrecruitment to post of Grade-II Sub-registrars-If  violative\nof Art. 14 of Constitution.\nRecruitment   on  seniority--cum--merit\t  basis-Preferential\nqualifications considered-Validity of recruitment.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe validity of the recruitment of the appellants as  Grade-\nII Sub-registrars as well as the vires of r. 5 of the Andhra\nPradesh Registration Subordinate Service Special Rules under\nwhich  the recruitment was made, were challenged by some  of\nthe respondents.  The rule deals with the qualifications for\nbeing recruited as Grade II sub-registrars.  It put' in\t one\nclass  for the purpose of recruitment, both U.D.Cs. as\twell\nas L.D.Cs. It was therefore contended that the rule violated\nArt. 14 of the Constitution by treating unequals as  equals.\nThe  High Court held that the recruitment was in  accordance\nwith the rule, but struck down the rule as violative of Art.\n14.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD:\t  (1)\t(a)   U.D.Cs.  and  L.D.Cs.  belong   to   a\ndistrict  wise\tcadre,\tthat is, promotion  from  L.D.C.  to\nU.D.C.\t is  made  district-wise.   Since  the\tchances\t  of\npromotion  from\t L.D.C.\t to U.D.C. in  one  district  differ\nmaterially  from that of another, a L.D.C. in  one  district\nmay  be promoted as a U.D.C. much earlier than a  L.D.C.  in\nanother\t district who may be his senior, more  efficient  or\nmay possess the same or better qualifications.\tBut Grade-II\nsub-registrars\tare  in\t a  statewise  cadre.\tThough\t the\nposition  of a U.D.C. is superior to a L.D.C, if  the  State\ntreated U.D.Cs. as superior to L.D.Cs. while recruiting\t for\na  statewise cadre, it would result in great injustice to  a\nlarge  section\tof  the clerks, because\t of  the  fortuitous\ncircumstance of a L.D.C. in a particular district becoming a\nU.D.C. in that district.  Therefore, the State was justified\nin not Classifying the U.D.Cs. and L.D.Cs. separately.\n(b)  Though there was an anomaly in the case of L.D.Cs.\t and\nU.D.Cs. serving in the same district, the anomaly could\t not\nhave  been avoided.  The validity of the rule  has  to\tbe\njudged by assessing its overall effect and not by picking up\nexceptional  cases.  Further, the rule provides for giving\npreference to the U.D.Cs. who had put in service of 5  years\nor more. [552H-553F]\n(2)  The selection in the present case was made on the basis\nof  seniority-cum-merit.  A list of all the clerks,  U.D.Cs.\nas  well as L.D.Cs., was prepared in the order of  seniority\nas L.D.Cs. and fitness of each person was considered.  Also,\nthose persons who were entitled to be given preference under\nthe  rules were considered separately and recruited  in\t the\nfirst instance.\t The method adopted was the most  reasonable\none and was in accordance with the rule. [553H-554B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 153 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
550<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 21, 1970 of
\nthe  Andhra  Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal\tNo.  240  of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
B.   V.\t  Subrahamanyam\t and  G.  Narayana  Rao,   for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
P.   Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
\nM.   Natesan, Venkataramhiah and K. Jayaram, for respondents
\nNos. 3 to 21.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHegde, J.-The principal question that arises for decision in
\nthis  appeal by certificate is as to the vires of Rule 5  of
\nthe Andhra Pradesh Registration Subordinate Service  Special
\nRules, to be hereinafter referred as “the rules”.  The\tHigh
\nCourt  has  struck down this rule on the ground that  it  is
\nviolative  of Art. 14 of the Constitution.  As a  result  of
\nthat conclusion, it has also quashed the recruitment of some
\nof  the respondents made in March, 1965 for being posted  as
\nSub-Registrars Grade-11.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioners as well as respondents No. 3 onwards in\t the
\nWrit  Petition were serving as clerks, either in  the  upper
\ndivision  or in the lower division, in the Registration\t and
\nStamps\tDepartment  including the office  of  the  Registrar
\nGeneral\t of Births, Deaths and Marriages and the  Office  of
\nthe  Registrar\tof the Firms.  Some of the  respondents\t had
\nbeen recruited by the Inspector General of Registration\t and
\nStamps,\t  Andhra  Pradesh  for\tbeing  appointed   as\tSub-
\nRegistrars.   The  petitioners challenged  the\tvalidity  of
\ntheir  recruitment  on various grounds, by means of  a\tWrit
\nPetition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.  But that peti-
\ntion was summarily dismissed by a single Judge of the Andhra
\nPradesh High Court.  Thereafter, the matter was taken up  in
\nappeal\tto  a Division Bench of that  Court.   The  Division
\nBench rejected all the contentions of the petitioners except
\none viz. that rule 5 of the rules is ultra vires Art. 14  of
\nthe Constitution.  As a result. of that conclusion it struck
\ndown  the  impugned recruitments.  Only two  questions\twere
\npresented before us for decision viz :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)   whether  rule  5 of the rules  is  ultra
\n\t      vires Art. 14 of the Constitution; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  whether the recruitments made are not in
\n\t      accordance with the rules.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
At  this stage, it may be mentioned that the High Court\t has
\nheld that the impugned recruitments were made in  accordance
\nwith
\n551<\/span>
\nthe rules.  In other words, the second question was  decided
\nagainst the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
We shall first take up the question as to the vires of\trule\n<\/p>\n
5. The rules provide for the promotion to the posts of\tSub-
\nRegistrar as well as for recruitment to those posts.  Rule 2
\nprovides  that\ta post of Grade-I  Sub-Registrar  should  be
\nfilled by promotion from Grade-11 Sub-Registrar.  So far  as
\nGrade  II  Sub-Registrars  are concerned,  they\t are  to  be
\nappointed either by promotion from reserve Sub-Registrars or
\nby   “recruitment  by  transfer\t from  the  clerks  of\t the
\nRegistration  and Stamps Department including the Office  of
\nthe  Registrar General of Births, Deaths and  Marriages\t and
\nthe Office of the Registrar of the Firms.” Rule 5 deals with
\nqualifications\t for  being  recruited\tas   Grade-11\tSub-
\nRegistrars.  That rule reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Qualifications\t: -No  person\tshall\tbe
\n\t      eligible\tfor  appointment  to  the   category
\n\t      mentioned\t  below\t unless\t he  possesses\t the
\n\t      qualification shown.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Category and qualifications\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1.    Sub-Registrars, II Grade :-(i) Must be a
\n\t      permanent\t clerk\tand must have served  for  a
\n\t      period of not less than seven years on duty as
\n\t      clerk   in   the\t Registration\tand   Stamps
\n\t      Department  including the office of the  Regi-
\n\t      strar-General of Births, Deaths and  Marriages
\n\t      and the Office of the Registrar of Firms;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  Must have passed the Registration  Test;
\n\t      and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii)(1)\t Must  have  taken  at\t the   final
\n\t      examination  at  the  end\t of  his  school  or
\n\t      college\tcourse,\t  one\tof   the   following
\n\t      languages, namely :–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Telugu, Hindi, Oriya, Kannada, Tamil, Urdu  or
\n\t      Marathi, or
\n\t      (2)   Must   have\t  passed   the\t  Government
\n\t      Translation Test or the Second Class  Language
\n\t      Test-Full Test.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “(iv)  Must  have\t passed\t the  second   class
\n\t      language\tTest-Full Test-in a  language  other
\n\t      than that taken for S.S. L. C. or University.”
\n\t      Preference  shall be given to persons who,  in
\n\t      addition\tto the qualifications  specified  in
\n\t      items (i) to (iii) possess a degree in Law  of
\n\t      University   in\tthe  State  or\t any   other
\n\t      equivalent  qualification\t or  a\tPleader-ship
\n\t      Certificate in the First Grade or who have put
\n\t      in five years service in
\n\t      552<\/span>
\n\t      the  category of Upper Division Clerks in\t the
\n\t      Registration Department.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  was\t urged that this rule is violative Art.\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution  because  though  among the  clerks  there\t are
\nU.D.Cs., as well as L.D.Cs., yet all of them had been put in
\none  class  for\t the purpose of\t recruitment.\tAs  per\t the
\nMinisterial  Service  Rules the U.D.Cs. had to\tbe  selected
\nfrom  the L. D. Cs. after the L. D. Cs. had put\t in  certain
\nnumber\tof  years of service and after they had\t passed\t the
\nAccounts Test as well as the Registration Test.\t A U. D.  C.
\nholds  superior\t post to that of a L. D. C.  His  salary  is
\nhigher and his conditions of service are better than that of
\na  L. D. C. Hence it was urged that as rule 5 treats  U.  D.
\nCs.  as\t well  as  L. D. Cs. as equal  for  the\t purpose  of
\nrecruitment  for the post of a Grade II\t Sub-Registrar,\t the
\nrule  violates the doctrine of equality.  According  to\t the
\npetitioners the equality doctrine is attracted not only when
\nequals\tare treated as unequals but also where unequals\t are
\ntreated\t as  equals.   It was contended\t on  behalf  of\t the
\npetitioners that a statutory provision may offend Art. 14 of
\nthe Constitution both by finding differences where there are
\nnone  and by making no difference where there is  one.\t The
\nproposition of lam( advanced on behalf of the petitioners is
\nunexceptionable.   This Court ruled in\tKunnathat  Thathunni
\nMoopil Nair v. The State of Kerala<\/a> another(1) that when\t the
\nstatute obliged every person who held land to pay tax at the
\nflat rate prescribed, whether or not he made any income\t out
\nof the property, or whether or not the property was  capable
\nof   yielding  any  income,  there  being  no\tattempt\t  at
\nclassification in the provisions of the statute, the Statute
\ndenied\t equality   before   law   because   of\t  lack\t  of
\nclassification.\t  Similar views have been expressed by\tthis
\nCourt  in other decisions.  It is not necessary to refer  to
\nthose decisions.\n<\/p>\n
On the other hand it was argued on behalf of the  contesting
\nrespondents that before considering the vires of rule 5,  we
\nmust first ascertain the reason behind the rule to find\t out
\nwhether\t in  fact there is discrimination.   The  contesting
\nrespondents do not ‘deny that the position of a U. D. C.  is
\nsuperior  to  that of a L. D. C. But according\tto  them  it
\nbecame\tnecessary for the State to pool together the  U.  D.
\nCs. as well as the L. D. Cs. for the purpose of\t recruitment
\nin question for the following reasons:-\n<\/p>\n
The  Grade  II\tSub-Registrars are  in\ta  state-wise  cadre
\nwhereas\t the U. D. Cs. and L. D. Cs. belong to\ta  district-
\nwise  cadre.   Promotion from L. D. C to U. D.\tC.  is\tmade
\ndistrict-wise.\tThe chances of promotion from L. D. C. to U.
\nD. C. in one district
\n(1) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 77.\n<\/p>\n
553<\/span><\/p>\n
materially differs from another district.  It depends on the
\nnumber of posts available in a particular district.  In\t one
\ndistrict a L. D. C. may be promoted as a U. D. C. as soon as
\nhe puts in a service of 5 years, whereas in another district
\na  L. D. C. possessing the same or better qualifications  as
\nwell as efficiency may not be promoted as a U. D. C. for  15
\nyears or more.\tThat being so while making recruitment to  a
\nstate-wise  cadre it was not possible for the State to\tmake
\ndistinction  between  the L. D. Cs. and the U. D.  Cs.\t The
\nonly  reasonable basis that could have been adopted  was  to
\ntreat  the  U.\tD. Cs. and L. D. Cs. as one  class  for\t the
\npurpose\t of  recruitment.   But at the same  time  the\trule
\nprovides for giving preference to the U. D. Cs. who had\t put
\nin  a service of 5 years or more.  There is force  in  these
\ncontentions though there may be some anomaly in the case  of
\nL.  D. Cs. and U. D. Cs. serving in the same district.\t But
\nthat anomaly cannot be avoided.\t The validity of a rule\t has
\nto  be\tjudged by assessing its over-all effect and  not  by
\npicking up exceptional cases.  What the court has to see  is
\nwhether\t the  classification made is a just one\t taking\t all
\naspects into consideration.\n<\/p>\n
 On the facts before us we are unable to agree that for\t the
\npurpose\t of recruitment with which we are  concerned  herein
\nthe State should have classified the U. D. Cs. and L. D. Cs.
\nseparately.  If the State had treated the U. D. Cs. as being
\nsuperior  to  the  L.  D.  Cs.\tfor  the  purpose  of\tthat
\nrecruitment  it\t would\thave resulted in  a  great  deal  of
\ninjustice to a large section of the clerks.  The  fortuitous
\ncircumstance of an officer in a particular district becoming
\na U. D. C. would have given him an undue advantage over\t his
\nseniors\t who  might  have been as  efficient  or  even\tmore
\nefficient than himself, merely because they chanced to serve
\nin some other district.\t For the reasons mentioned above, we
\ndo not think that in the present case the State can be\tsaid
\nto have treated unequals as equals.  The rule of equality is
\nintended to advance justice by avoiding discrimination.\t  In
\nour opinion the High Court by overlooking the reason  behind
\nRule  5 came to the erroneous conclusion that the said\trule
\nviolated Art. 14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
We  agree with the High Court that there is no substance  in
\nthe  petitioners’ contention that the impugned\trecruitments
\nwere  not made in accordance with Rule 5. It is\t clear\tfrom
\nthe affidavit filed on behalf of the State and the Registrar
\nthat  the  Registrar  had considered the  case\tof  all\t the
\nqualified  clerks, but the Registrar thought that  the\tbest
\nbasis  for  recruitment\t was to prepare a list\tof  all\t the
\nclerks,\t U. D. Cs. as well as L. D. Cs. arranging the  names
\nin  the\t order\tof seniority as L.  D.\tCs.  and  thereafter
\nconsider each name and reject the unfit.  In other
\n454<\/span>
\nwords, the selection was made on the basis of seniority-cum-
\nmerit -the seniors among the clerks were selected  subject
\nto suitability.\t Those persons who were entitled to be given
\npreference  under the rules were considered  separately\t and
\nrecruited at the first instance.  Only thereafter the  other
\nrecruitments were made.\t The rules do not prescribe that the
\nrecruitment  should be made on the basis of merit and  merit
\nalone.\t Bearing in mind the fact that the recruitment\twith
\nwhich  we  are concerned in this case is  a  recruitment  by
\ntransfer which means recruitment from among, the ministerial
\nofficials, the method adopted by the Registrar appears to us
\nto be the most reasonable one.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t result\t this appeal is allowed, the  order  of\t the
\nDivision  Bench of the High Court is set aside and  that  of
\nthe  single  judge restored.  In the  circumstances  of\t the
\ncase, we direct the parties to bear their own costs in.\t all
\nthe courts.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed..\n<\/p>\n
555<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Md. Usman & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1801, 1971 SCR 549 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: MD. USMAN & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/04\/1971 BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. […]<\/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-192470","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMd. Usman & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 1971 - 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\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Md. Usman & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971\" \/>\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=\"1971-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-18T06:14:22+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\\\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Md. Usman & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-18T06:14:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971\"},\"wordCount\":1924,\"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\\\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971\",\"name\":\"Md. Usman & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-18T06:14:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Md. Usman & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 1971\"}]},{\"@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":"Md. Usman & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 1971 - 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\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Md. Usman & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-18T06:14:22+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\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Md. Usman & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 1971","datePublished":"1971-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-18T06:14:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971"},"wordCount":1924,"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\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971","name":"Md. Usman & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-18T06:14:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-usman-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-29-april-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Md. Usman & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 1971"}]},{"@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\/192470","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=192470"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192470\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192470"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192470"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192470"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}