{"id":251508,"date":"1998-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998"},"modified":"2018-03-26T15:30:48","modified_gmt":"2018-03-26T10:00:48","slug":"dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Srinivasan.<\/div>\n
Bench: S.C.Agarwal, S. Saghir Ahmad, M Srinivasan.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDR. DURYODHAN SAHU AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t25\/08\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nS.C.AGARWAL, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, M SRINIVASAN.\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
 J U D G E M E N T
\nSRINIVASAN. J.\n<\/p>\n
\t Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.Two questions have arisen for decision  (1)  whether
\nan  Administrative Tribunal constituted under Administrative
\nTribunals Act<\/a>, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as\t the  ‘Act’)
\ncan  entertain a public interest litigation and (ii) whether
\non the facts of\t this  case  the  Tribunal  has\t exceed\t its
\njurisdication in passing the impugned order?\n<\/p>\n
3.The facts are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner\t in   S.L.P.\t 10472-10474\/95\t hereinafter
\nreferred to as the petitioner, a qualified surgeon with M.S.
\nDegree in General Surgery and been working in the Department
\nof Gastroenterology of S.C.B.  Medical Collage,\t Cuttack  as
\nan Assistant  Surgeon from 17.09.1987.\tEarlier he worked as
\nlecturer in General Surgery from 11.06.84 to 17.09.86.\tFrom
\n17.09.87, he was assisting the professor  and  Head  of\t the
\nDepartment of Surgical gastroenterology for about five years
\nduring\t  which\t   period    he\t   had\t acquired   ‘Special
\ntraining\/experience’ in the said subject.\n<\/p>\n
4.The  Orissa\tPublic\t Service   Commission\tcaused
\nadvertisement No.    27 of 1991\/92 inviting applications for
\nthe post of Junior Teacher (Lecturer) in several disciplines
\nincluding Surgical Gastroenterology.\tThe  last  date\t for
\nreceipt of   applications   was\t  15.05.92.\tThe  minimum
\neducational qualification was prescribed as under\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)   A candidate must have obtained a post Graduate
\n\tDegree in speciality or any other equivalent  degree
\n\tor  qualification  prescribed  by  the I.M.C.\/Dental
\n\tCouncil of India as the case  may  be  for  all\t the
\n\tabove posts.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)  For  the  post  of\t surgical  gastroenterology,
\n\tcandidates possessing\tM.S.\t (general  surgical)
\n\tDegree with 2 years  special  training\tin  surgical
\n\tgastroenterology  from the institution recognised by
\n\tthe M.C.I.  are eligible.\n<\/p>\n
5.  Even before the issue of advertisement  the\t Health\t and
\nFamily Welfare Department of the Government of Orissa sought
\nclarification regarding qualification for appointment to the
\npost  of lecturer in the Department of Gastroenterology vide
\nletter no.  43633\/Hd 26.12.90.\tThe Medical Council of India
\n(for short M.C.I.) in  Letter  No.    MCI-12(1)\/91-Med\/21954
\ndated 27.12.91 replied that the matter was considered by the
\ncouncil at its meeting and it was decided as under
\n\t“The  Postgraduate  Committee agreed for the
\n\tappointment  of\t teachers  as\tLecturers   in\t the
\n\tdepartment   of\t  Gastroenterology  possessing\tM.S.
\n\t(General Surgery) with 2 years special\ttraining  in
\n\tSurgical  Gastroenterology  which  should  be  in  a
\n\trecognized institution as prescribed by the  MCI  in
\n\trecommendations\t    on\t   Teachers’\t eligibility
\n\tqualifications for other similar departments.\tThis
\n\tarrangement   is   agreeable  for  five\t years\ttill
\n\tsufficient   people   are   available\t with\t the
\n\tpostgraduate\t  qualification\t     in\t    Surgical
\n\tGastroenterology.”\n<\/p>\n
It was only on that basis the minimum of two  years  special
\ntraining  in a recognized institution was prescribed as part
\nof the minimum qualification for the post of Lecturer in the
\ncase of\t candidates  possessing\t M.S.\t (General   Surgery)
\ndegree.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The institution in which  the  petitioner  was  working,
\nnamely S.C.B.\t   Medical   College  is  also\tone  of\t the
\ninstitutions recognized by the\tM.C.I  In  response  to\t the
\naforesaid advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post
\nof  Junior  Teacher (Lecturer) in the discipline of Surgical
\nGastroenterology.  Six other persons had  also\tapplied\t for
\nthe same  post.\t  The case of the petitioner and that of Dr.
\nP.K.  Dehata  were  referred  to  the  Director\t of  Medical
\nEducation  &  Training\tby the Public Service Commission for
\nhis opinion  on\t their\teligibility  for  selection.\t The
\nDirector expressed  his opinion in his letter no.  1387 MET.
\ndated 20.7.92  that  the  petitioner  was  qualified  to  be
\nconsidered  as\tper  MCI  ruler\t along\twith  other eligible
\ncandidates.  The petitioner and Dr.  M.K.    Mohapatra\twere
\ncalled for the\tviva  voce test.  The name of Dr.  Mohapatra
\nwas recommended to Government along with the advice that the
\nCommission  had\t maintained  a\treserve\t list  of   suitable
\ncandidates  for\t a  period  of\tone  year  from\t the date of
\nrecommendation.\t Dr.   Mohapatra  was  appointed  as  Junior
\nTeacher.\n<\/p>\n
7.The Government found that the department of Surgical
\nGastroenterology was  under  staffed  as  it  had  only\t one
\nProfessor and one Lecturer and it was not in accordance with
\nMCI pattern.   Hence the Government created one more post of
\nLecturer on 25.08.93.\tOn  the\t same  day,  the  Government
\nrequested  the\tPublic\tService\t Commission to recommend the
\nname of a suitable candidate from  the\treserve\t list.\t  On
\n30.08.93,   the\t Commission  recommended  the  name  of\t the
\npititioner for appointment.\n<\/p>\n
8.At that  stage  one  candi  charan  Routray  in  his
\ncapacity  as  General  Secretary, Cuttack Surakhya Committee
\nfiled O.A.   1439\/93  before  the  Principal  Bench  of\t the
\nCentral Administrative\tTribunal  at  Bhubaneswar.   Another
\napplication O.A.  1630\/93 was filed by the Cuttack  surakhya
\nCommittee  through  Jitendra  Kumar  Mishra  before the same
\nBench.\tA third application was\t filed\tbefore\tthe  Cuttack
\nBench in O.A.  No.  1614 (c)\/94 by one Nibas Chandra Mishra.
\nThe  prayers  in  all  the three applications are identical.
\nThey are for (i) quashing the order of the Government  dated
\n25.08.93  creating  one\t more  post  of Junior Teacher, (ii)
\ndebarring the petitioner  from\tbeing  appointed  as  Junior
\nTeacher\t and (iii) preventing the Government from appointing
\nany candidate as Lecturer  without  requisite  qualification
\nand training  in  the super speciality.\t The averment in all
\nthe three applications were almost identical.  The substance
\nof the allegations was that the petitioner did\tnot  possess
\nthe  qualifications  prescribed for the post of Lecturer and
\nthe Government in order to accommodate him  created  another
\npost which  was\t not  advertised.    It was alleged that the
\npetitioner  had\t exerted  influence   over   the   concerned
\nauthorities   and   managed   to   secure  the\tappointment.
\nAccording to the applicants the\t appointment  was  not\tonly
\nmalafide   and\tillegal\t but  it  was  also  against  public
\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n
9.The  applications were opposed by the Government and
\nthe  petitioner\t on  merits  as\t well  as  on\tgrounds\t  of
\nmaintainability.  The  Tribunal\t held  that the applications
\nwere maintainable at the  instance  of\tthe  applicants.  As
\nregards\t the  qualification  of\t the petitioner the Tribunal
\nobserved as follow:-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe most important question to be decided is
\n\twhether Dr.\t Sahoo\t possesses   the   requisite
\n\tqualification\tand  eligibility  for  the  post  of
\n\tLecturer in Surgical Gastroenterology.\tA perusal of
\n\tthe clarificatory letter issued by the\tIMC  to\t the
\n\tSecretary, Health & F.W.  Deptt.  (Annexure-I) would
\n\tindicate   that\t  the  prescribed  qualification  is
\n\tMaster’s degree in Surgical  Gastroenterology.\t  On
\n\taccount of non-availability of candidates possessing
\n\tthat   qualification,  a  temporary  relaxation\t was
\n\tallowed for a short period of 5 years  till  doctors
\n\twith M.S.  in Surgical Gastroenterology.  On account
\n\tof  non-availability  of  candidates possessing that
\n\tqualification, a temporary  relaxation\twas  allowed
\n\tfor a short period of 5 years till doctors with M.S.
\n\tin Surgical Gastroenterology are available.  In Lieu
\n\tof M.S.\t  in  Gastroenterology,\t M.S.\t in  general
\n\tSurgery with  two  years  special  training  in\t the
\n\tdiscipline, was\t  allowed.    For  interpreting\t the
\n\texpression  “special  training\t in   a\t  recognized
\n\tinstitution  as\t prescribed  by\t IMC”, we would have
\n\tvery much valued the views of IMC itself.   But\t the
\n\tviews  of  the\tIMC  who  are  also  parties  to the
\n\tlitigation, unfortunately are not  available  as  no
\n\tcounter\t or  submission\t has  been  filed  on  their
\n\tbehalf.\t But it stands to common sense that  special
\n\ttraining  in  a\t super\tspeciality  which  is  to be
\n\tsubstituted for a Master’s degree in that discipline
\n\tshould be in an apex-medical  institution  like\t the
\n\tAIIMS,\t specially  notified  by  the  IMC  for\t the
\n\tpurpose.  There is no indication to  show  that\t SCB
\n\tmedical\t  college   has\t  been\t recognized   as  an
\n\tinstitution  for  imparting  special   training\t  in
\n\tSurgical Gastroenterology.    The Government counter
\n\talso does not says so.\tOn the other  hand,  certain
\n\taverments  in  the  government counter that the said
\n\tdepartment in SCB Medical College  is  under-staffed
\n\tand  that it was manned only by a Professor till Dr.
\n\tMohapatra  joined  as  Lecturer,   points   to\t the
\n\tconclusion  that  it  was not equipped with adequate
\n\tfacilities for imparting special training.  No doubt
\n\tDr.   Sahoo  has   acquired   sufficient   practical
\n\texperience by  assisting  the  Head of Deptt.  for a
\n\tlong  period  of  six  years   and   the   list\t  of
\n\tpublications  he  has to his credit, as given in his
\n\tcounter, would support such a view.  But  it  cannot
\n\tbe  said  that\the has acquired the special training
\n\tindicated by the IMC in their letter since  the\t SCB
\n\tMedical\t College has not been notified by the IMC as
\n\ta recognized institution for imparting such training
\n\tin that super speciality.\n<\/p>\n
10.On  the  above  reasoning  the  Tribunal granted the
\nsecond\tprayer\tof  the\t applicants   and   restrained\t the
\nappointment of\tthe  petitioner\t as  lecturer.\tThe Tribunal
\nrefused to quash the Government order creating the post\t and
\nrejected the first prayer.  The Tribunal directed the Health
\nand  Family Welfare Department to take appropriate steps for
\nfilling up  the\t post  after  complying\t with  the  relevant
\nstatutory  provisions  and  issuing  a\tfresh  advertisement
\nthrough the Public Service Commission.\tThe  petitioner\t has
\nchallenged the said  order  in S.L.P.  Nos.  10472-10474\/95.
\nThe The\t State\t Government   has   filed   S.L.P.\tNos.
\n18714-18716\/95 against\tthe  same  order.    It\t is  in such
\ncircumstance the two questions set  out\t in  thee  beginning
\narise for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
11.These S.L.P.\t came up for hearing on 15.02.95 before
\na Bench\t of  two  Judges.    The  Bench passed the following
\norder:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Whether  a  public  interest  litigation   can\t  be
\n\tentertained  by\t the  Administrative  Tribunal under
\n\tSection 19<\/a> of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
\n\tis thee question raised by the\tappellantt-State  of
\n\tOrissa & Ors?  Section 19<\/a>, inter alia, provides that
\n\ta  person  aggrieved  by any order pertaining to any
\n\tmatter within the jurisdiction\tof  a  Tribunal\t may
\n\tmake an application to the Tribunal for redressal of
\n\this grievance.\t  Prima\t facie,\t it  appears  that a
\n\tpublic interest litigant is not a  person  aggrieved
\n\tin that\t  sense.    The\t State-appellant  relies  on
\n\tcertain observations made by K.\t Ramaswamy, J.\t  in
\n\tR.K.  Jain  Vs.\t   Union of India – (1993) 4 SCC 119
\n\twhich are to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Shri Harish  Chander,\tadmittedly  was\t the  Senior
\n\tVice-President at the relevant time.  The contention
\n\tof   Shri   Thakur  of\tthe  need  to  evaluate\t the
\n\tcomparative merits of Mr.  Harish  Chander  and\t Mr.
\n\tKalyasundaram a seniormost member for appointment as
\n\tPresident  would  not  be  goes\t into  in  a  public
\n\tinterest litigation.\t Only\tin   a\t proceedings
\n\tinitiated  by  an aggrieved person it may be open to
\n\tbe considered.\tThis writ petition  is\talso  not  a
\n\twrit of\t quo  warranto.\t In service jurisprudence it
\n\tis settled law that it is for the  aggrieved  person
\n\ti.e.   non-appointee  to  assail the legality of the
\n\toffending action.  Third party has no  locuc  standi
\n\tto  canvass  the  legality  or\tcorrectness  of\t the
\n\taction.\t Only public law declaration would  be\tmade
\n\tat  the\t behest of the petitioner, a public-spirited
\n\tperson.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThese  observations  were  not\tspecifically
\n\tconcurred  to  by the other two Members of the Bench
\n\t(one of\t us   being   one   such   member).\t The
\n\tAdministrative\t  Service    Tribunals\t have\tbeen
\n\trecognised by this Court to be\tsubstitutes  of\t the
\n\tHigh  Court and other Courts having had jurisdiction
\n\tin the matter.\tThe High Court under Article 226<\/a>  of
\n\tthe  Constitution  has\tpower to issue a writ of quo
\n\twarranto and that can undeniably be  sought  by\t any
\n\tperson; not  necessarily  a person aggrieved.  Would
\n\tit be otherwise and locus  standi  being  determined
\n\tpurely\ton  the\t axis  of Section 19<\/a>, the purpose of
\n\tcreating the Service  Tribunal\twould  seemingly  be
\n\tfrustrated.  It may therefore crop up that the above
\n\tobservations of\t K.    Ramaswamy,  J  may attract an
\n\texception.  In any case, the matter is important  in
\n\torder  to  define  jurisdiction\t of the tribunal and
\n\ttherefore in the fitness of things, should be placed
\n\tbefore a three Member Bench.   We  therefore  direct
\n\tthese  special\tleave  petitions  to  be  heard by a
\n\tthree-Member Bench.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12.   We have heard counsel on both sides at length.
\nSeveral rulings have been relied on by them though  in\tnone
\nof them, the questing arose directly for consideration.\t The
\nquestion   as\tto  maintainability  of\t a  public  interest
\nlitigation before the Tribunal depends for its answer on the
\nprovisions of the Act.\tThe Tribunal having been created  by
\nthe Act, the scope and extent of its jurisdiction have to be
\ndetermined by  interpreting the provisions thereof.  In S.P.
\nSampath Kumar versus State of A.P.  (1987) 1 S.C.C.  124  it
\nwas  held  that\t the Tribunal constituted under the Act were
\neffective substitutes to the High Courts in  the  scheme  of
\naministration  of  justice and they were entitle to exercise
\npowers thereof.\t   It  was  observed  that  they  were\treal
\nsubstitutes  not  only in form and dejure but in content and
\nde facto.  On that premise the Court held that the power  of
\njudicial  review exercised by High Courts in service matters
\nunder Articles 226 and 227 was completely excluded.  It\t may
\nbe  noticed  that  the\torder  of  reference  dated  15.2.96
\nextracted in the earlier paragraph makes a specific  mention
\nof this aspect of the matter.  If that view had continued to
\nprevail,  the  approach\t to  the  question  might  have been
\ndifferent.\n<\/p>\n
13.But the law has now been declared  differently
\nin chandra  kumar versus Union of India (1997) 3 S.C.C.\t 261
\nthat the Tribunals have to perform only, a ‘supplemental  as
\nopposed\t to  a\tsubstitutional\t–  role’  in discharging the
\npowers conferred by Articles 226\/227 are not taken  away  by
\nthe Act.      it   is  only  against  such  a  backdrop\t the
\njurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Act  to\tentertain  a
\npublic interest\t litigation has to be decided.\tNo doubt, it
\nis contended by learned counsel for the appellants that even
\nfrom the inception of the Act  public  interest\t litigations
\ncould  be entertained only by the high Courts in exercise of
\ntheir extraordinary jurisdiction and plenary powers  and  as
\nsuch  powers were not available to the Tribunals, the latter
\ncould never have entertained such litigations.\t It  is\t not
\nnecessary for us to consider that contention.  As the status
\nof  the\t Tribunals  has\t now  been  settled in Chandra Kumar
\n(supra), we will discuss the question in the  light  of\t the
\nsaid pronouncement.\n<\/p>\n
14.Section  14<\/a>\tof  the\t Act  provides\tthat  the
\ncentral\t Administrative\t Tribunal  shall  exercise  all\t the
\njurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable by all courts
\nexcept the Supreme Court immediately  before  the  appointed
\nday   in  relation  to\tmatters\t set  out  in  the  section.
\nSimilarly, section 15<\/a> provides for the jurisdiction,  powers
\nand  authority\tof  the\t State\tAdministrative\tTribunals in
\nrelation to matters set out therein.  Sections 19<\/a> to  27<\/a>  of
\nthe Act\t deal  with  the  procedure.  Section 19<\/a> strikes the
\nkey-note.  Sub-sections (1) and (4) of section 19<\/a> are in the
\nfollowing terms:\n<\/p>\n
\tS.19 (1) Subject to other provisions of this Act,  a
\n\tperson\taggrieved  by  any  order  pertaining to any
\n\tmatter within the jurisdiction\tof  a  Tribunal\t may
\n\tmake   an   application\t to  the  Tribunal  for\t the
\n\tredressal of his grievance.\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) by the Government or a  local  or  other
\n\tauthority within the territory of India or under the
\n\tcontrol\t of the Govt. of India or by any corporation
\n\t(or society) owned or controlled by the\t Government;
\n\tof\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)   by an officer, committee or other body
\n\tor  agency  of\tthe  Government\t or a local or other
\n\tauthority or corporation (or society) referred to in
\n\tclause (a)
\n\t\t\t *******************
\n\t\t\t *******************
\n\tS.19  (4)  Where  an  application  has\tbeen
\n\tadmitted  by a Tribunal under sup-section (3), every
\n\tproceeding under the relevant service  rules  as  to
\n\tredressal  of  grievances in relation to the subject
\n\tmatter\tof  such  application  pending\t immediately
\n\tbefore\tsuch  admission\t shall\tabate  and  save  as
\n\totherwise directed by the  Tribunal,  no  appeal  or
\n\trepresentation\tin  relation  to  such\tmatter shall
\n\tthereafter be entertained under such rules.\n<\/p>\n
15.   Section  20<\/a>  provides  that  the\tTribunal  shall\t not
\nordinarily  admit an application unless it is satisfied that
\nthe applicant had availed of all the remedies  available  to
\nhim under  the\trelevant  rules.   Section 21<\/a> provides for a
\nperiod of  limitation  for  approaching\t the  Tribunal.\t   A
\nperusal\t of the above provisions shows that the Tribunal can
\nbe approached only by ‘persons aggrieved’  by  an  order  as
\ndefined.  The crucial expression ‘ persons aggrieved’ has to
\nbe  construed in the context of the Act and the facts of the
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
16.In Thammanna versus K. Veera Reddy and other\t (1980)
\n4  S.C.C.  62  it  was held that although the meaning of the
\nexpression ‘person aggrieved’  may  vary  according  to\t the
\ncontext\t  of   the  statute  and  the  facts  of  the  case,
\nnevertheless normally, a person aggrieved must be a man\t who
\nhas  suffered  a  legal\t grievance,  a\tman  against  whom a
\ndecision has been pronounced which has\twrongfully  deprived
\nhim  of\t something  or\twrongfully  refused him something or
\nwrongfully affected his title to something.\n<\/p>\n
17.In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Versus Roshan  Kumar  Haji
\nBashir\tAhmed  and others (1976) 1.S.C.C. 671 the Court held
\nthat the expression ‘aggrieved person’ donotes\tan  elastic,
\nand to an extent, an elusive concept. The Court observed:
\n\t“…It\tcannot\tbe  confined  within the bounds of a
\n\trigid, exact, and comprehensive definition. At best,
\n\tits features can be described in a  broad  tentative
\n\tmanner.\t Its  scope  and meaning depends on diverse,
\n\tvariable factors such as the content and  intent  of
\n\tthe  statue  of\t which contravention is alleged, the
\n\tspecific circumstances of the case, the\t nature\t and
\n\textent\tof the petitioner’s interest, and the nature
\n\tand extent of the prejudice or\tinjury\tsuffered  by
\n\thim’.\n<\/p>\n
18.The\tconstitution  of  Administrative  Tribunal  was
\nnecessitated because of large pendency of cases relating  to
\nservice matters\t in  various  courts in the country.  It was
\nexpected that the setting up of Administrative Tribunals  to
\ndeal  exclusively  in service matters would go a long way in
\nnot only reducing the burden of the Courts but also  provide
\nto  the\t persons  covered  by the Tribunals speedy relief in
\nrespect of their grievances.  The basic idea as evident from
\nthe various provisions of  the\tAct  is\t that  the  Tribunal
\nshould quickly redress the grievances in relation to service
\nmatters.   The\tdefinition  of\t‘service  matters’  found in
\nSection 3<\/a> (q)  shows  that  in\trelation  to  a\t person\t the
\nexpression   means  all\t service  matters  relating  to\t the
\nconditions of his service.  The\t significance  of  the\tword
\n‘his’ cannot  be  ignored.    Section 3<\/a> (b) defines the word
\n‘application’ as an application made under Section 19<\/a>.\t The
\nlatter Section\trefers\tto  ‘person aggrieved’.\t In order to
\nbring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be
\nmade and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved  by
\nany  order  pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction
\nof the Tribunal.  We have already seen that the work ‘order’
\nhas been defined in the explanation to sub-s. (1) of Section
\n19<\/a> so that all matters referred\t to  in\t Section  3<\/a>  (q)  as
\nservice\t matters could be brought before the Tribunal. It in
\nthat context, Sections 14<\/a>  and 15<\/a>  are\tread,  there  is  no
\ndoubt  that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot
\nmake an application before the Tribunal. If public  interest
\nlitigations  at\t the instance of strangers are allowed to be
\nentertained by\tthe  Tribunal  the  very  object  of  speedy
\ndisposal of service matters would get defeated.\n<\/p>\n
19.Our\tattention  has been drawn to a judgement of the
\nOrissa Administrative Tribunal in Smt.\t  Amitarani  Khuntia
\nVersus State of Orissa 1996.  (1) OLR (CSR)-2.\tThe Tribunal
\nafter  considering  the\t provisions  of\t the Act held that a
\nprivate citizen or a stranger having no\t existing  right  to
\nany  post  and\tnot intrinsically concerned with any service
\nmatter is not  entitled\t to  approach  the  Tribunal.\t The
\nfollowing passage in the judgement is relevant:
\n\t“….A reading of  the\taforesaid  provisions  would
\n\tmean that an application for redressal of grievances
\n\tcould  be  filed only by a ‘person aggrieved’ within
\n\tthe meaning of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tTribunals are constituted under Article 323<\/a> A of the
\n\tConstitution of\t India.\t  The above Article empowers
\n\tthe  Parliament\t  to   enact   law   providing\t for
\n\tadjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of
\n\tdisputes  and complaints with respect to recruitment
\n\tand conditions of service of  persons  appointed  to
\n\tpublic\tservices  and  posts  in connection with the
\n\taffairs of the Union or of any State or any local or
\n\tother authority within the  territory  of  India  or
\n\tunder  the  control  of\t the Government and such law
\n\tshall specify the jurisdiction, powers and authority
\n\twhich  may  be\texercised  by  each  of\t  the\tsaid
\n\tTribunals.   Thus,  it\tfollows\t that Administrative
\n\tTribunals are constituted for adjudication or  trial
\n\tof  the\t disputes  and\tcomplaints  with  respect to
\n\trecruitment and conditions  of\tservice\t of  persons
\n\tappointed to   public\tservices  and  posts.\t Its
\n\tjurisdiction and powers have  been  well-defined  in
\n\tthe Act.  It does not enjoy any plenary power.”
\n\tWe agree with the above reasoning.\n<\/p>\n
20.Learned  counsel  for the respondents relied upon the
\ndecision of this Court in S.P.\tGupta and others etc.  versus
\nUnion of India & Ors.  etc.  1982 (2) S.C>R.   365  and\t read
\nout  several  passages\tfrom  the  judgement dealing with the
\nquestion of ‘standing’.\t In  that  case\t the  Court  was  not
\nconcerned with\ta  Tribunal  constituted under a Statute.  It
\nwas discussing the question of\t‘standing’  in\ta  proceeding
\nbefore the High Court or this Court.  That ruling cannot help
\nthe respondents\t in  the present case.\tOur attention is also
\ndrawn to a judgement in\t University  of\t Mysore\t and  another
\nversus C.D.   Govinda  Rao  and\t another 1964 (4) S.C.R.  575
\nwherein the  scope  of\ta  writ\t of  quo  warranto  has\t been
\ndiscussed.   That decision will not apply in the present case
\nas there was no application  for  issue\t of  a\twrit  of  quo
\nwarranto before\t the  Tribunal.\t   Learned  counsel  for  the
\nrespondents submits that the proceedings before the  Tribunal
\nis in the nature of quo warranto and it could be filed by any
\nmember\tof  the\t public\t as  he is an aggrieved person in the
\nsense public interest is affected.  We have  already  pointed
\nout that the applications in the present case have been filed
\nbefore\tthe  appointment  of the petitioner as a Lecturer and
\nthe relevant prayers are to quash the creation\tof  the\t post
\nitself\t and   preventing  authorities\tfrom  appointing  the
\npetitioner as lecturer.\t Hence, the applications filed by the
\nrespondents cannot be considered to be quo warranto.\n<\/p>\n
21.In  the  result,  we answer the first question in the
\nnegative  and\thold   that   the   Administrative   Tribunal
\nconstituted  under the Act cannot entertain a public interest
\nlitigation at the instance of a total stranger.\n<\/p>\n
22.Turning to the second question, even\t the  facts  set
\nout  by\t us  earlier would show that the petitioner satisfied
\nthe requisite  qualifications  prescribed  for\tthe  post  of
\nlecturer.   The\t only contention urged is that the petitioner
\ndid  not  have\ttwo  years  special  training\tin   Surgical
\nGastroenterology  from\tan  institution recognised by MCI for
\ngiving special\ttraining.    There  is\tno   merit   in\t  the
\ncontention.  The list of recognised Medical Colleges in India
\npublished by  the  MCI\tcontains  the name of S.C.R.  Medical
\nCollege, Cuttack in Sl.\t No.  80.  Thus the said college is a
\nrecognised institution.\t    The\t  interpretation   that\t  the
\ninstitution  should be recognised for giving special training
\nis erroneous.  There is no such requirement in the rule.\n<\/p>\n
23.Even\t the  Tribunal has found that the petitioner had
\nacquired sufficient practical  experience  by  assisting  the
\nHead  of  the  Department of Surgical Gastroenterology in the
\nsaid college for a long perliod of six years and had  several
\npublications to his credit.  The Tribunal overlooked that the
\nsaid  experience acquired by the petitioner was recognised to
\nbe sufficient to satisfy the requisite qualification  of  two
\nyears  special\ttraining by the Director of Medical Education
\nand Training when a reference was made to him by  the  Orissa
\nPublic Service\tCommission.    It  was only after getting the
\nmatter\tclarified,  the\t  Service   Commission\t called\t  the
\npetitioner for viva voce.  Once the concerned authorities are
\nsatisfied  with\t the eligibility qualifications of the person
\nconcerned it is not for the Court or the Tribunal  to  embark
\nupon   an   investigation   of\t its  own  to  ascertain  the
\nqualifications of the said person.\n<\/p>\n
24.In State of Bihar versus Ramesh Chandra  and\t another
\n(1997) 4 S.C.C., 43 a Division Bench to which one of us (S.C.
\nAgarwal,  J.)  was  party  had occasion to consider a similar
\nregulation  prescribing\t qualifications\t for  appointment  of
\nProfessor\/Associate Professor.\t The rule used the expression
\n‘two years special training’.  The High Court held  that  the
\nappointee  did\tnot  have  the requisite special training and
\nfailed to establish that he possessed the same qualification.
\nThis Court reversed that conclusion and pointed out that  the
\nsaid person had received more than two years training in thee
\nconcerned speciality  after  obtaining the degree of M.S.  It
\nwas held that the  training  received  as  resident  surgical
\nofficer\t by  the concerned person between 1976 and 1980 could
\nbe regarded as special training though the concerned Unit was
\nnot an independent unit but it was having all  the  requisite
\nfacilities.   This  Court  also\t referred  to the Certificate
\nissued by the Head of the Unit and other materials on  record
\nand held that the condition of special training for two years
\nwas fulfilled.\n<\/p>\n
25.In  the  present case we have already referred to the
\nopinion of the Director of Medical Education in the matter of
\nqualifications of the petitioner.  There was no justification
\nfor the Tribunal to ignore the\tsame.\t Hence\tthe  Tribunal
\nexceeded its jurisdiction by considering a technical question
\nafter  brushing\t aside\tthe  opinion  of  the experts and the
\nconcerned authorities.\tThere  is  no  material\t whatever  to
\naccept\tthe contention of the respondents that the petitioner
\nwielded influence over the concerned authorities or that  the
\naction of the authorities was vitiated by mala fides.\n<\/p>\n
26.In\tthe   view   we\t have  expressed  above,  it  is
\nunnecessary  for  us  to  consider  the\t contention  of\t  the
\nappellants that the applications before the Tribunal were not
\nbona  fide and the applicants therein had ulterior motives in
\nfiling the same.\n<\/p>\n
27.In the result, the appeals are allowed. The judgement
\nand  order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubneshwar
\nin O.A. nos. 1439 and 1630 of 1992 and 1614 of\t1994  is  set
\naside. There will however be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998 Author: Srinivasan. Bench: S.C.Agarwal, S. Saghir Ahmad, M Srinivasan. PETITIONER: DR. DURYODHAN SAHU AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/08\/1998 BENCH: S.C.AGARWAL, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, M SRINIVASAN. ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-251508","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998 - 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\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-26T10:00:48+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-26T10:00:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998\"},\"wordCount\":4260,\"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\\\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998\",\"name\":\"Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-26T10:00:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998 - 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\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-26T10:00:48+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998","datePublished":"1998-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-26T10:00:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998"},"wordCount":4260,"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\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998","name":"Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-26T10:00:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-duryodhan-sahu-and-ors-vs-jitendra-kumar-mishra-and-ors-on-25-august-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998"}]},{"@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\/251508","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=251508"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251508\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}