{"id":227517,"date":"2000-06-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-06-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000"},"modified":"2015-05-14T19:05:53","modified_gmt":"2015-05-14T13:35:53","slug":"ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa &amp; &#8230; on 26 June, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa &amp; &#8230; on 26 June, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Shah<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M.B.Shah, K.T.Thomas<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nRAMESH CHANDRA ACHARYA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nREGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF ORISSA &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t26\/06\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nM.B.Shah, K.T.Thomas\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>      Shah, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Question\tinvolved in this petition is  Can, for\tany<br \/>\nreason,\t it be held that Service Rule which provides that an<br \/>\nofficer\t who  has no potential for continued useful  service<br \/>\nbeyond\ta  particular  age, is invalid?\t  Nowill  be  the<br \/>\nobvious\t answer for various reasons.  Further, there can  be<br \/>\nno  right  of  an employee to continue in  service  de\thors<br \/>\nstatutory  or administrative rule prescribing superannuation<br \/>\nage and continuation in service could be only subject to the<br \/>\nconditions   provided.\t  The\t question   which   requires<br \/>\nconsideration  by the authorities is  Have we not reached a<br \/>\nstage  where  services\tof   government\t or  semi-government<br \/>\nemployees  should be regulated in such a way that only\tsuch<br \/>\npersons\t who can render useful service be continued and\t not<br \/>\nthe  indolent,\tinfirm\tand  those  of\tdoubtful  integrity,<br \/>\nreputation  or utility?\t Periodical exercise of reviewing or<br \/>\nevaluating the utility is required for better administration<br \/>\nand  for  removal  of dead wood or persons  having  doubtful<br \/>\nintegrity and reputation.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Petitioners  case\t is that he was appointed  on  14th<br \/>\nJanuary,  1981\tby the High Court of Orissa as\ta  temporary<br \/>\nMunsif\tand  he\t was  confirmed in the\tsaid  post  on\t21st<br \/>\nDecember,  1985;   he was promoted as a Civil Judge  (Senior<br \/>\nDivision)  in 1993 and was in service since then.  It is his<br \/>\nfurther\t case  that in 1998 High Court of  Orissa  conducted<br \/>\nreview in respect of the petitioner as per Rule 71(a) of the<br \/>\nOrissa\tService Code and allowed him to remain in service up<br \/>\nto  the date of completion of the age of 58 years.  On\t28th<br \/>\nJanuary, 2000, he received a copy of the confidential letter<br \/>\nfrom  the  Registrar (Administration), High Court of  Orissa<br \/>\naddressed  to  the Secretary, Law Department, Government  of<br \/>\nOrissa\tconveying  the decision of the High Court of  Orissa<br \/>\nthat  as  per  Rule  71(a-1) of\t the  Orissa  Service  Code,<br \/>\npetitioner  should  be\tretired from Government\t service  on<br \/>\nattaining  the age of 58 years i.e.  on 30th June, 2000.  It<br \/>\nis  his say that on receipt of the said confidential letter,<br \/>\nhe  submitted  a representation by letter dated 3.4.2000  to<br \/>\nthe  High  Court  seeking  reconsideration of  his  case  by<br \/>\npointing  out  that  this  Court has  enhanced\tthe  age  of<br \/>\nsuperannuation\tof judicial officers to 60 years and pointed<br \/>\nout the decision of this Court in Rajat Baran Roy and others<br \/>\nv.   State of W.B and others, [(1999) 4 SCC 235].  But there<br \/>\nwas  no response.  It is his contention that he has a  clean<br \/>\nrecord\tqua integrity and efficiency and there is no adverse<br \/>\nentry  or  remark  ever\t made in  his  confidential  record.<br \/>\nThereafter,  the  petitioner received a\t notification  dated<br \/>\n11.5.2000  from\t the Law Department of Government of  Orissa<br \/>\nnotifying the State Governments decision to retire him from<br \/>\nthe  Government\t service on attaining the age of  58  years.<br \/>\nHence,\the has approached this Court by filing writ petition<br \/>\nunder Article 32 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>      At  the  time  of\t hearing this  petition,  Mr.\tA.S.<br \/>\nNambiar,  learned  senior  counsel submitted that  the\tRule<br \/>\n71(a-1)\t is  against the decision rendered by this Court  in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1394975\/\">All India Judges Association v.\t Union of India and others<\/a>,<br \/>\n[(1992)\t 1 SCC 119] and a subsequent clarification given  by<br \/>\nthis  Court  in\t review\t application in\t <a href=\"\/doc\/1394975\/\">All  India  Judges<br \/>\nAssociation  and  others  v.   Union of\t India\tand  others<\/a>,<br \/>\n[(1993) 4 SCC 288].\n<\/p>\n<p>      For  appreciating the contention raised by the learned<br \/>\nsenior\tcounsel,  we would first refer to relevant  part  of<br \/>\nRule  71(a)  of the Orissa Service Code.  71.(a) Except\t as<br \/>\notherwise  provided  in the other clauses of this  rule\t the<br \/>\ndate  of  compulsory  retirement of  a\tGovernment  servant,<br \/>\nexcept\ta ministerial servant who was in Government  service<br \/>\non  the 31st March, 1939 and Class IV Government servant, is<br \/>\nthe  date  on  which he or she attains the age of  58  years<br \/>\nsubject to the condition that a review shall be conducted in<br \/>\nrespect of the Government servant in the 55th year of age in<br \/>\norder  to  determine  whether he\/she should  be\t allowed  to<br \/>\nremain in service up to the date of completion of the age of<br \/>\n58  years  or retired on completing the age of 55  years  in<br \/>\npublic interest:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Provided.\t (a-1).\t Notwithstanding anything contained<br \/>\nin  sub-rule  (a) of rule 71, Judicial Officer belonging  to<br \/>\nState  Judicial\t Services, who, in the opinion of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  of  Orissa,  have a potential  for  continued  useful<br \/>\nservice,  shall\t be retained in service up to the age of  60<br \/>\nyears.\n<\/p>\n<p>      [NoteThe\tpotential  for continued utility  shall\t be<br \/>\nassessed and evaluated by appropriate Committee of Judges of<br \/>\nthe  High Court, constituted and headed by the Chief Justice<br \/>\nand  the  valuation  shall  be\tmade on\t the  basis  of\t the<br \/>\nOfficers past record of service, Character Roll, quality of<br \/>\njudgments and other relevant matters.  The High Court should<br \/>\nundertake  and\tcomplete the exercise in case of an  officer<br \/>\nabout  to  attain  the age of 58 years well within  time  by<br \/>\nfollowing  the procedure for compulsory retirement under the<br \/>\nservice\t rules applicable to him and give him the benefit of<br \/>\nthe extended superannuation age from 58 to 60 years only, if<br \/>\nhe  is\tfound fit and eligible to continue in  service.\t  In<br \/>\ncase  he  is  not  found  fit  and  eligible,  he  shall  be<br \/>\ncompulsorily  retired on his attaining the age of 58  years.<br \/>\nThis exercise should be undertaken well in advance before an<br \/>\nofficer attains the age of 58 years.]<\/p>\n<p>      (b).  .\n<\/p>\n<p>      (c).  .  .\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  our  view,  the  aforesaid rule  is  not  only  in<br \/>\nconformity  with the decision rendered by this Court in\t the<br \/>\naforesaid  case but also in conformity with the\t requirement<br \/>\nof  service  jurisprudence.  The purpose of  increasing\t the<br \/>\nsuperannuation\tage  for the judicial officers was  with  an<br \/>\nintention  to  raise  the tone and morale  of  the  judicial<br \/>\nservices  as  a whole but not to continue the  officers\t who<br \/>\nhave lost their utility in rendering service to the society.<br \/>\nIt  needs  no emphasis as it is accepted that  the  judicial<br \/>\nofficer\t  is  required\tto   discharge\tmuch  more   greater<br \/>\nresponsibility\tto  the Society.  As observed in  All  India<br \/>\nJudges\tAssociation  case (Review) [Para 7], the  judicial<br \/>\nservice\t is  not service in the sense of employment.   The<br \/>\nJudges are not employees.  As members of the judiciary, they<br \/>\nexercise  the sovereign judicial power of the State. Hence,<br \/>\njudicial  officers must be fit in all respects for discharge<br \/>\nof  such  onerous duties.  In All India Judges\tAssociation<br \/>\ncase,\tthe  Court  quoted   the  following  observation  of<br \/>\nProfessor  Pannick from his book entitled Judges:  Judges<br \/>\ndo  not have an easy job.  They repeatedly do what the\trest<br \/>\nof  us\tseek  to  avoid;  make\tdecisions.  After  detailed<br \/>\ndiscussions,  the Court finally observed [in Para 61] thus:-<br \/>\nThe  conduct  of  every judicial officer  should  be  above<br \/>\nreproach.   He should be conscientious, studious,  thorough,<br \/>\ncourteous,  patient, punctual, just, impartial, fearless  of<br \/>\npublic clamour, regardless of public praise, and indifferent<br \/>\nto  private,  political or partisan influences;\t  he  should<br \/>\nadminister  justice  according\tto law, and  deal  with\t his<br \/>\nappointment  as\t a public trust;  he should not allow  other<br \/>\naffairs\t or  his  private interests to\tinterfere  with\t the<br \/>\nprompt\tand  proper performance of his judicial duties,\t nor<br \/>\nshould he administer the office for the purpose of advancing<br \/>\nhis personal ambitions or increasing his popularity.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Hence,  for decidingwhether the judicial officer\thas<br \/>\npotential  for continued useful service, the authority\t(the<br \/>\nHigh Court) has to take into consideration all the aforesaid<br \/>\naspects and has to make overall evaluation.\n<\/p>\n<p>      This  Court in the aforesaid case emphasised that\t the<br \/>\nbenefit\t of the increase of the retirement age to 60  years,<br \/>\nshall  not  be\tavailable   automatically  to  all  judicial<br \/>\nofficers  irrespective\tof their past record of service\t and<br \/>\nevidence  of their continued utility to the judicial  system<br \/>\nand,  therefore,  directed  thus:-   The  benefit  will\t be<br \/>\navailable  to  those who, in the opinion of  the  respective<br \/>\nHigh  Courts, have a potential for continued useful service.<br \/>\nIt  is\tnot  intended as a windfall for\t the  indolent,\t the<br \/>\ninfirm\tand  those  of doubtful\t integrity,  reputation\t and<br \/>\nutility.   The\tpotential  for continued  utility  shall  be<br \/>\nassessed  and evaluated by appropriate committees of  Judges<br \/>\nof  the respective High Courts constituted and headed by the<br \/>\nChief  Justices of the High Courts and the evaluation  shall<br \/>\nbe  made on the basis of the judicial officers past  record<br \/>\nof  service, character rolls, quality of judgments and other<br \/>\nrelevant matters.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  Court thereafter clarified that the assessment at<br \/>\nthe  age  of  58  years is for the purpose  of\tfinding\t out<br \/>\nsuitability of the concerned officers for the entitlement of<br \/>\nthe  benefit of the increased age of superannuation from  58<br \/>\nyears  to 60 years;  it is in addition to the assessment  to<br \/>\nbe  undertaken for compulsory retirement and the  compulsory<br \/>\nretirement  at\tthe  earlier stage\/s  under  the  respective<br \/>\nService Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It is apparent that aforesaid directions of this Court<br \/>\nare  faithfully\t incorporated  in   the\t aforequoted   rule.<br \/>\nTherefore,  the High Court was fully justified in  following<br \/>\nthe  aforesaid\trules  in  evaluating\tthe  record  of\t the<br \/>\npetitioner  for\t his  continued\t  utility  in  the  judicial<br \/>\nservice.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Further,\tthe  aforequoted rule does  not\t straightway<br \/>\nextend\tthe age of superannuation at the age of 58 years but<br \/>\nit  only  enables  the\tHigh Court to retain  in  service  a<br \/>\njudicial officer belonging to the State Judicial Services up<br \/>\nto  the\t age of 60 years, if it is in the opinion that\tsuch<br \/>\njudicial  officer  has\tpotential  to  continue\t in   useful<br \/>\nservice.   For\tfinding\t out whether he\t has  potential\t for<br \/>\ncontinue  in useful service, assessment is to be made on the<br \/>\nbasis of past record of service, character rolls, quality of<br \/>\nthe  judgments and other relevant matters, which may include<br \/>\nover all assessment with regard to integrity, reputation and<br \/>\nutility.\n<\/p>\n<p>      However,\tthe  learned  counsel\tfor  the  petitioner<br \/>\nreferred  to  the decision rendered by this Court  in  Rajat<br \/>\nBaran  Roy and others v.  State of W.B.\t and others, [(1999)<br \/>\n4 SCC 235] and submitted that once the superannuation age is<br \/>\nextended  to 60 years, there is no question of reviewing  it<br \/>\nat  the\t age of 58 years.  In our view, this  submission  is<br \/>\nwithout\t any  substance because it is open to the  competent<br \/>\nauthority to frame appropriate rules permitting it to assess<br \/>\nthe  overall performance of the officer periodically to find<br \/>\nout whether such officer has potential for continued utility<br \/>\nin service.  The aforesaid judgment only deals with the rule<br \/>\nwhere  there was no such specific provision of review at the<br \/>\nage  of\t 58  years  and\t the Court referred  to\t a  Memo  of<br \/>\nGovernment   of\t  W.B.\t dated\t 15.5.1998   extending\t the<br \/>\nsuperannuation\tage to 60 years and held that officers\thave<br \/>\nright  to  continue till the age of 60 years.  Further,\t the<br \/>\nCourt  found that power vested under rule 75(aa) of the West<br \/>\nBengal\tService Rules (Part I) were not exercised and in any<br \/>\ncase  from  the\t record\t it appeared  that  there  was\tnon-<br \/>\napplication  of mind to the material particulars which\twere<br \/>\nmandatory for invoking the said rule.  The Court, therefore,<br \/>\nheld that there was no question of referring to the decision<br \/>\nin  case  of All India Judges Association (Supra).  In\tour<br \/>\nview, the said decision in Rajat Baran Roy has no bearing in<br \/>\nthe present case because of specific Rule 71(a).\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  this view of the matter, there is no substance  in<br \/>\nthe  contention that Rule 71(a-1) is ultra-virus, invalid or<br \/>\nagainst\t the  judgment rendered by this Court in  All  India<br \/>\nJudges\tAssociation case.  We reiterate that in the absence<br \/>\nof specific rule made by the State no judicial officer has a<br \/>\nright  as such to continue beyond the age of 58.  It is only<br \/>\nwhen  the High Court, after reviewing all aspects of service<br \/>\nincluding   the\t past  record  of  the\tofficer\t  concerned,<br \/>\nspecifically orders that in the interest of judicial service<br \/>\nof  the\t State\tit  is necessary to  retain  the  particular<br \/>\nofficer\t beyond that age limit and allow him to superannuate<br \/>\nat  the\t age of 60.  In other words, continuation beyond  58<br \/>\nyears  is  permissible\tonly  when the High  Court  makes  a<br \/>\npositive  recommendation in favour of that officer for\tsuch<br \/>\ncontinuation.\tOtherwise the judicial officer has to retire<br \/>\nat  the age of 58.  This can be departed from only when\t the<br \/>\nState makes specific rule otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  learned  counsel  for   the\tpetitioner   further<br \/>\nreferred  to the decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/303418\/\">M.S.  Bindra v.  Union of India<br \/>\nand  others<\/a> [(1998) 7 SCC 310] and Madan Mohan Choudhary  v.<br \/>\nState  of  Bihar and others [(1999) 3 SCC 396].\t  These\t two<br \/>\ncases  pertain to compulsory retirement of the officers on a<br \/>\npre-mature  stage and considering facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthe  case, this Court observed that judicial scrutiny of any<br \/>\norder\timposing   pre-mature\tcompulsory   retirement\t  is<br \/>\npermissible if the order is either arbitrary or mala fide or<br \/>\nit  is based on no evidence.  However, in this writ petition<br \/>\nunder  Article\t32  it is not necessary for  us\t to  examine<br \/>\nwhether\t the  recommendations made by the High Court on\t the<br \/>\nbasis  of Rule 71(a-1) of the Orissa Service Code is in\t any<br \/>\nway  arbitrary or mala fide as it is open to the  petitioner<br \/>\nto approach the High Court for his grievances.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Hence,  this petition under Article 32 is not required<br \/>\nto be entertained and is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa &amp; &#8230; on 26 June, 2000 Author: Shah Bench: M.B.Shah, K.T.Thomas PETITIONER: RAMESH CHANDRA ACHARYA Vs. RESPONDENT: REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF ORISSA &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/06\/2000 BENCH: M.B.Shah, K.T.Thomas JUDGMENT: Shah, J. Question involved in this petition is Can, for [&hellip;]<\/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-227517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa &amp; ... on 26 June, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa &amp; ... on 26 June, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-06-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-14T13:35:53+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa &amp; &#8230; on 26 June, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-06-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-14T13:35:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2160,\"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\\\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa &amp; ... on 26 June, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-06-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-14T13:35:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa &amp; &#8230; on 26 June, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa &amp; ... on 26 June, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa &amp; ... on 26 June, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-06-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-14T13:35:53+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa &amp; &#8230; on 26 June, 2000","datePublished":"2000-06-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-14T13:35:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000"},"wordCount":2160,"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\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000","name":"Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa &amp; ... on 26 June, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-06-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-14T13:35:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-acharya-vs-registrar-high-court-of-orissa-on-26-june-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa &amp; &#8230; on 26 June, 2000"}]},{"@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\/227517","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=227517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}