{"id":200521,"date":"2007-10-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007"},"modified":"2018-11-15T20:42:38","modified_gmt":"2018-11-15T15:12:38","slug":"marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & … on 12 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & … on 12 October, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4868 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nMarripati Nagaraja & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nThe Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/10\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No.7222 of 2004)
\n[With CA Nos.4869-4873\/07 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.15032-15036 of
\n2004]<\/p>\n
S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tAndhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, on the advice of the
\nState of Andhra Pradesh, issued a notification on or about 1.10.1992 inviting
\napplications for recruitment to various posts including 34 posts in the
\ncategory of Assistant Director of Agriculture in the Andhra Pradesh
\nAgricultural Service.  Although in the said notification stipulations were
\nmade in respect of grant of reservation for women to the extent of 30%, no
\nsuch stipulation was made in respect of the vacancies in the category of
\nAssistant Director of Agriculture. This appeal involves the question of
\nreservation of women in the said category.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tAppellants herein had been working as Agricultural Officer in Andhra
\nPradesh Agricultural Service.  They, in terms of the said notification, applied
\nfor the said posts.  A screening test was to be held therefor.  About 510
\ncandidates appeared for the screening test on 27.12.1992.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tSeveral original applications were filed before the Andhra Pradesh
\nAdministrative Tribunals claiming different reliefs and on different grounds.
\nAppellant herein filed an original application which was registered as OA
\nNo.6451 of 1992 questioning the carry forward of vacancies from the year
\n1976; the omission to make zonal reservation; prescription of minimum and
\nmaximum age limits by way of eligibility criteria as a result whereof,
\nallegedly, some of the agricultural officers were deprived of their right to
\napply for the posts.  Indisputably, interim orders were passed in January
\n1993 by the Tribunal which remained in force till the disposal of the said
\noriginal applications.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe State of Andhra Pradesh issued GOMs No.928 G.A.D. on or
\nabout 6.10.1995 providing for reservations of women candidates to the
\nextent of 30% in the matter of direct recruitment with retrospective effect
\nfrom 2.1.1984.  By reason of another Notification issued on 28.5.1996, the
\npercentage of reservation for women was increased to 331\/3%.  Original
\nApplications filed by the petitioners as also those of other employees were
\ndismissed by the Tribunal on 23.11.1998.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tAn application filed by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service
\nCommission to short-list the candidates was allowed by the Tribunal by an
\norder dated 14.11.2000 by holding a fresh screening test for the 510
\ncandidates who had appeared therein on 27.12.1992 and to finalise the
\nresult.  A Notification for conducting a fresh screening test was issued on
\n12.12.2000 pursuant whereto a second screening test was conducted on
\n7.1.2001.  Appellant, although appeared, did not pass the said test.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tInter alia, on the premise that a very limited time had been granted to
\nthem for appearing in the second screening test as also on the ground that no
\nreservation for women could be provided for in terms of the said
\nNotification dated 28.5.1996, an original application marked as OA No. 83
\nof 2001 was filed by the appellants before the Tribunal on 8.1.2001.  No
\norder of stay was passed therein.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe Public Service Commission interviewed the candidates on
\n8.1.2001 and 9.1.2001 who had been found suitable therefor.\n<\/p>\n
     An interim order was passed by the Tribunal only on 9.1.2001.
\nHowever, by order dated 1.8.2003, the original applications were dismissed
\nby the Tribunal holding that the selections made by the Commission did not
\ncall for any interference except to the extent that the selections have to be
\nrevised restricting the reservation in favour of women to the extent of 30%
\nand wherever vacancies which were reserved to be filled by women
\ncandidates could not be filled for want of women candidates, they should be
\nfilled up by men in terms of the rules existing at the time of notification.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tWrit petition filed by the appellants questioning the same was
\ndismissed.  A writ application was also filed by the Andhra Pradesh Public
\nService Commission challenging the decision of the Tribunal restricting
\nreservation for women to 30% instead of 331\/3%.  By reason of the
\nimpugned judgment both the writ petitions have been dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tNot only the original applicants but the Andhra Pradesh Public
\nService Commission also are, thus, before us.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tMr. Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,
\nwould submit that keeping in view the fact that for the purpose of giving an
\nopportunity to the appellants herein for appearance in the second test, only a
\nfew days time had been granted by the Commission, the same must be held
\nto be wholly arbitrary.  It was furthermore contended that by reason of any
\nnotification issued subsequent to the date of advertisement, a provision for
\nreservation of women could not have been made.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tLearned counsel appearing on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Public
\nService Commission, on the other hand, submitted that as on the date of
\npublication of the notification, selection process was not over, the Tribunal
\nand consequently the High Court committed an error in opining that
\nreservation for women should have been kept confined to 30% only.\n<\/p>\n
     The Notification being GOMs No.928 dated 6.10.1995 reads thus :
\nIn exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso
\nto Article 309 read with clause (4) of Article 16
\nand Article 335 of the Constitution of India, the
\nGovernor of Andhra Pradesh hereby makes the
\nfollowing amendment to the Andhra Pradesh State
\nand Subordinate Service Rules.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe amendments hereby made shall be
\ndeemed to have come into force in so far as it
\nrelates to the reservation to the extent of 30% of
\nposts:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\twith effect from the 2nd January, 1984 to
\neach category of O.C., S.C., S.T., and to the
\nunclassified B.Cs; and\n<\/p>\n
(b)\twith effect from the 17th October, 1990 to
\nthe categories of B.Cs as classified into
\ngroups the physically handicapped and Ex-\n<\/p>\n
servicemen quota.\n<\/p>\n
AMENDMENT
\n\tIn the Andhra Pradesh State and
\nSunbordinate Services Rules, for Sub-rule (2) of
\nRule 22-A, the following shall be substituted
\nnamely:-\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tIn the matter of direct recruitment to
\nposts for which women and men are
\nequally suited, there shall be
\nreservation to women to an extent of
\n30% of the posts in each category of
\nO.C., B.C-A, B.C.B., B.C.C., B.C.D.,
\nS.C., S.T. and physically handicapped
\nand Ex-Servicemen quota.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tProvided that if sufficient
\nnumber of women candidates are not
\navailable the vacancies shall be filled
\nin by men.
\nEXPLANATION:\tIt is hereby clarified that all
\nsections made in accordance with sub-rule (2)
\nprior to its amendment shall be and shall be
\ndeemed always to have been made in accordance
\nwith this rule; and shall not entitle any person to
\nenforce 30% reservation merely on the ground that
\nthis amendment is made with retrospective effect.
\n(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE
\nGOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)<\/p>\n
\tIt is now a well settled principle of law that the rules which would be
\napplicable for selecting the candidates would be the one which were
\nprevailing at the time of the notification.  It is also equally well settled that
\nthe State may, subject to constitutional limitations, amend the rule with
\nretrospective effect.  Rule 22-A which was applicable as on the date of the
\nsaid notification reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
Rule 22-A. Notwithstanding anything contained
\nin these Rules or Special or Ad hoc Rules,
\n(1) \tIn the matter of direct recruitment to posts
\nfor which women are better suited than men,
\npreference shall be given to women : (G.O.Ms.
\nNo.472, G.A., Dt.11.10.85)
\n\tProvided that such absolute preference to
\nwomen shall not result in total exclusion of men in
\nany category of posts.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tIn the matter of direct recruitment to posts
\nfor which women and men are equally suited,
\nother things being equal, preference shall be given
\nto women and they shall be selected to an extent of
\nat least 30% of the posts in each category of O.C.,
\nB.C., S.C. and S.T. quota.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tIn the matter of direct recruitment to posts
\nwhich are reserved exclusively for being filled by
\nwomen they shall be filled by women only (Vide
\nG.O.Ms. 691, G.A. (Ser-D), Dt.22.11.1984, w.e.f.
\n2.1.1984)<\/p>\n
11.\tThe women candidates, in terms thereof, were, therefore, only entitled
\nto preference.  By reason of the said notification merely, the percentage has
\nbeen increased from 30% to 331\/3%.  It has been given a retrospective effect;
\nas the existing sub-rule (2) of Rule 22-A was substituted.  By reason of the
\nsaid Notification, no existing right of any person has been taken away.  In
\nfact, as the selection process was not over, the question of applicability of
\nthe said notification would have fallen for consideration only when a final
\nselection list was to be made and not prior thereto.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe State, in exercise of its power conferred upon it under the proviso
\nappended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, is entitled to make rules
\nwith retrospective effect and retro-active operation.  Ordinarily, in absence
\nof any rule and that too a rule which was expressly given a retrospective
\neffect, the rules prevailing as on the date of the notification are to be applied.
\nBut if some rule has been given a retrospective effect which is within the
\ndomain of the State, unless the same is set aside as being unconstitutional,
\nthe consequences flowing therefrom shall ensure.  In such an event, the
\napplicable rule would not be the rule which was existing but the one which
\nhad been validly brought on the statute book from an anterior date.  The
\nTribunal and the High Court, therefore, in our opinion, committed an error in
\nopining otherwise, particularly when the constitutionality of the said rule
\nwas not in question.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIn N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission [(1990)
\n3 SCC 157], this Court categorically held :\n<\/p>\n
11. There is yet another aspect of the question.
\nWhere advertisement is issued inviting
\napplications for direct recruitment to a category of
\nposts, and the advertisement expressly states that
\nselection shall be made in accordance with the
\nexisting rules or government orders, and if it
\nfurther indicates the extent of reservations in
\nfavour of various categories, the selection of
\ncandidates in such a case must be made in
\naccordance with the then existing rules and
\ngovernment orders. Candidates who apply, and
\nundergo written or viva voce test acquire vested
\nright for being considered for selection in
\naccordance with the terms and conditions
\ncontained in the advertisement, unless the
\nadvertisement itself indicates a contrary intention.
\nGenerally, a candidate has right to be considered in
\naccordance with the terms and conditions set out in
\nthe advertisement as his right crystallises on the
\ndate of publication of advertisement, however he
\nhas no absolute right in the matter. If the
\nrecruitment Rules are amended retrospectively
\nduring the pendency of selection, in that event
\nselection must be held in accordance with the
\namended Rules. Whether the Rules have
\nretrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon
\nthe language of the Rules and its construction to
\nascertain the legislative intent. The legislative
\nintent is ascertained either by express provision or
\nby necessary implication; if the amended Rules are
\nnot retrospective in nature the selection must be
\nregulated in accordance with the rules and orders
\nwhich were in force on the date of advertisement.
\nDetermination of this question largely depends on
\nthe facts of each case having regard to the terms
\nand conditions set out in the advertisement and the
\nrelevant rules and orders. Lest there be any
\nconfusion, we would like to make it clear that a
\ncandidate on making application for a post
\npursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any
\nvested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is
\notherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant
\nrules and the terms contained in the advertisement,
\nhe does acquire a vested right of being considered
\nfor selection is accordance with the rules as they
\nexisted on the date of advertisement. He cannot be
\ndeprived of that limited right on the amendment of
\nrules during the pendency of selection unless the
\namended rules are retrospective in nature.
\n(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
14.\tIn this case, the qualification of a candidate is not in question.
\nNobody has been deprived of his right of being considered.  Only a
\npreferential right had been given to the women.  In that view of the matter,
\nthe High Court, in our opinion, was not correct in taking the said view.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThe other contention of Mr. Rao that the candidates had given only
\nseven days time for making preparation to appear in the second screening
\ntest, cannot, in our considered view, give rise to a ground for setting aside
\nthe entire selection process.  The Tribunal did not make any discrimination.
\nOne screening test had already been held.  The number of candidates
\nappeared in the first screening test was 510.  The Commission obtained the
\npermission of the Tribunal for holding the second screening test.  It issued a
\nnotification on 12.12.2000 stating that such a test would be conducted on
\n7.1.2001.  All the candidates were given the same time for preparation.
\nOnly because the appellants herein were employees at the relevant time, the
\nsame by itself could not confer on them any special privilege to ask for an
\nextended time.  They had no legal right in relation thereto.  Appellants had
\nappeared at the examination without any demur.  They did not question the
\nvalidity of the said question of fixing of the said date before the appropriate
\nauthority.  They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the
\nselection process.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tFor the reasons aforementioned, the appeals of the Andhra Pradesh
\nPublic Service Commission are allowed and that of Marripati Nagaraja is
\ndismissed with costs.  Counsels fee quantified at Rs.25,000\/- (Rupees
\ntwenty five thousand only).\n<\/p>\n
16.\tThe Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission is hereby directed to
\nfinalise the selection process in the light of the judgment of this Court as
\nexpeditiously as possible and not later than three months from the date of
\nreceipt of a copy of this judgment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & … on 12 October, 2007 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4868 of 2007 PETITIONER: Marripati Nagaraja & Ors RESPONDENT: The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/10\/2007 BENCH: S.B. […]<\/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-200521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMarripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & ... on 12 October, 2007 - 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\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & ... on 12 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-15T15:12:38+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\\\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & … on 12 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-15T15:12:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2303,\"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\\\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & ... on 12 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-15T15:12:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & … on 12 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & ... on 12 October, 2007 - 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\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & ... on 12 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-15T15:12:38+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\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & … on 12 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-15T15:12:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007"},"wordCount":2303,"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\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007","name":"Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & ... on 12 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-15T15:12:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marripati-nagaraja-ors-vs-the-government-of-andhra-pradesh-on-12-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & … on 12 October, 2007"}]},{"@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\/200521","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=200521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}