{"id":269684,"date":"2004-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004"},"modified":"2016-03-16T19:17:56","modified_gmt":"2016-03-16T13:47:56","slug":"government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"Government Of India vs G.Limbadri Rao & Ors on 22 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Government Of India vs G.Limbadri Rao & Ors on 22 September, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: . A Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6234 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nGovernment  of India\n\nRESPONDENT:\nG.Limbadri Rao & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/09\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nK.G. Balakrishnan & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.11708 of 2003)<\/p>\n
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe above appeal is directed against the final judgment dated 13.8.2002 of the
\nHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.9653 of 2002 following
\nthe judgment of the High Court in Writ  Petition No.9182 of 2002 allowing the writ
\npetition filed by the first respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n
\tDuring the year 2001, as an advance action for the year 2002, the State
\nGovernment of Andhra Pradesh’s General Administrative Department, vide their D.O.
\nletter No.1875\/Spl.A\/2001-02 dated 25.10.2001 decided to send necessary proposals to
\nthe Union Public Service Commission for preparation of select list of Non-State Civil
\nService Officers for the year 2002 for appointment to the IAS under provisions of the
\nIAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the
\nRegulations”).  By this letter,  all  the Secretaries of the State Government Departments
\nhad been requested to furnish the names of eligible Non-SCS officers for appointment
\nto the post of IAS (Appointment by Selection) for sending proposals to the Union Public
\nService Commission for preparation of the select list of 2002 for appointment to the IAS
\nunder the selection Regulations.   In the “subject” heading of the said letter, the State
\nGovernment had inadvertently indicated that proposals are being called for preparation
\nof the select list of Non-SCS officers for the year 2001 instead of 2002.  However, in
\nparagraph 2 of the said letter, it was correctly stated that the State Government had
\ndecided to send the proposal to the Union Public Service Commission for preparing the
\nselect list of 2002 for appointment to the IAS.  In paragraph 3 of the letter, it was stated
\nthat those candidates who have not crossed  54 years of age as on 1.1.2002 were
\neligible.\n<\/p>\n
\tAggrieved by the non- inclusion, the first respondent herein (G.Limbadri
\nRao ), a Non-SCS officer of Andhra Pradesh,  had filed O.A.No.1711 of 2001 against
\nthe Union of India  before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.  The first
\nrespondent raised three contentions before the Tribunal:\n<\/p>\n
a)  As in the subject of the letter, it was mentioned that proposal
\nfor preparation of the select list for appointment of Non-SCS
\nofficers to the IAS for the year 2001 is to be forwarded to the
\nUPSC.  The applicant contended that the mention of the year
\n2002 in para 2 and para 3 of the letter was a mistake.  The year
\n2001 mentioned in the subject only is correct.\n<\/p>\n
b) In terms of the proviso to Regulation 4(iii) of the IAS
\n(Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997, the State
\nGovernment shall not consider the case of a person who has
\nattained the age of 54 years on the Ist day of January of the
\nyear in which the decision is taken to propose the names for
\nthe consideration of the Committee.  Thus the applicant
\ncontended that as per the letter of the State Government issued
\non 25.10.2001, wherein in the subject it was mentioned that
\nproposal for preparation of the select list for appointment of
\nNon-SCS officers to the IAS for the year 2001 is to be
\nforwarded to the UPSC, the select list of 2001 is to be prepared
\nand not the select list of 2002.  Therefore, he is eligible for
\nconsideration as on 1.1.2001 as he has not crossed the age of
\n54 years.\n<\/p>\n
c)\tThe Government of India amended Rule 16 of the All
\nIndia Services death-cum-retirement Benefit Rules,
\n1958 (sub-Rule (1) enhancing the age of retirement
\nfrom 58 to 60 years in respect of AIS officers including
\nIAS.  It is, therefore, just and proper to proportionately
\nincrease the maximum age limit to 56 years under
\nRegulation 5(3) of the IAS (Appointment by Selection)
\nRegulations, 1997.  Failure to do so by the Government
\nof India is affecting the fundamental right of the
\napplicant who is eligible and entitled to be considered
\nfor appointment to the post of IAS.\n<\/p>\n
The Tribunal in its judgment dated 1.5.2002 upheld the decision of the State
\nGovernment not to include his name in the eligibility list for consideration by the
\nSelection Committee for preparation of  the select list of 2002.  The Tribunal observed
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
“The issue for our consideration is whether the D.O. letter issued by
\nthe Secretary to Government in GAD to the other Secretaries calling
\nfor proposals amounts to the decision of the State to propose names
\nfor consideration of the Committee.  We are of the opinion that the
\nargument put forward by the learned counsel for the applicants not
\nwell founded.  The subject matter of the D.O. letter contains a
\ntypographical mistake as is clear from a plain reading for the letter.
\nEven after receipt of the proposal from all the departments, substantial
\namount of time is taken to scrutinise each one of these proposals to be
\nreceived from various Secretaries to Government.  Thereafter the
\nSecretary to the Government in the GAD submits the consolidated
\nproposals for consideration of the Government to shortlist the names.
\nMere calling of the proposals from the various departments does not
\nconfer on the applicants a right for consideration of their cases as  laid
\ndown under the Regulations.  The argument relating to enhancing of
\nage from the existing limit of 54 years to 56 years as prayed for by the
\napplicants is a matter impinging on the policy of the Central
\nGovernment.  We are of the view that it does not constitute an issue
\napplicable to the applicants alone.  We refrain from passing any orders
\non the subject as the applicants had been permitted to withdraw MA
\n122\/02 in OA 1711\/2001 during the admission hearing on 8.4.2002”.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the dismissal of his O.A., the first respondent herein filed Writ
\nPetition No.9653 of 2002 in the High Court challenging these orders.  Respondent
\nNo.1 herein  prayed to quash the order of the Tribunal and to direct  the respondent-
\nauthorities therein  that the first respondent herein is eligible for consideration for
\nappointment by selection to the IAS as per Regulation  4 of the Regulations and also
\nto declare that the action of the Government of India in not revising the date of
\neligibility from 54 years to 56 years as done in the case of IAS (appointment by
\nCompetitive Examinations) Regulations, 1955 i.e., 28 years to 30 years under
\nRegulation  4(b)(ii) is discriminative which affect his fundamental rights guaranteed
\nunder Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
\nThe High Court allowed the writ petition for the same reasons as recorded in
\nthe judgment\/order dated 13.8.2002 in Writ Petition No. 9182 of 2002  and set aside
\nthe impugned judgment dated 2.1.2001.  The writ petition was, accordingly, allowed
\nand consequent directions were also issued.  The High Court, however, rejected the
\ncontention of the first respondent herein to consider his case for increasing the age  on
\nthe ground that  such a relief cannot be granted by the Court and that any such
\ndirection from the High Court would amount to compel the respondent-authorities to
\nact contrary to law.\n<\/p>\n
The judgment passed in Writ Petition No.9182 of 2002 which was passed on
\nthe same date, has also been filed as annexure in this appeal.  In that, the High Court
\nobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n
“..In the instant case, the petitioner has not crossed the age
\nof 54 years as on the first day of January, 2001.  There is no option left
\nto the State Government except to consider the case of the petitioner
\nfor such inclusion since he has not attained the age of 54 years as on
\n1.1.2001.  The attainment of age of 54 years is with reference to the
\nfirst day of January of the year in which the decision is taken to
\npropose the names for consideration of the Committee and not with
\nreference to the vacancies as such.  What is crucial is the year in
\nwhich the decision is taken to propose the names.  Admittedly, the
\ndecision to submit the proposals has been taken and accordingly,
\nproposals have been called for during October, 2001 for the
\npreparation of select list for the year 2002.\n<\/p>\n
For the aforesaid reasons, the view taken by the respondents
\nnot to include the name of the petitioner on the ground that he has
\nattained the age of 54 years as on 1.1.2002 is absolutely
\nunsustainable.  The respondents have committed an error in referring
\nto the age of the petitioner as crossing 54 years as on 1.1.2002 i.e., to
\nsay with reference to the year in which the vacancies have arisen.
\nThe crucial requirement is that one should not cross the age of  54
\nyears as on the day of first day of January of the year in which the
\nState Government has taken decision to propose the names for
\nconsideration of the Committee.  The year of 2001 alone is relevant.
\nThe crucial date is Ist January, 2001.  Admittedly, as on that date, the
\npetitioner has not crossed the age of 54 years.”\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the above appeal by way of special leave
\nhas been filed before this Court.  Though the service of notice on all the respondents is
\ncomplete, none appears for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
We heard Mr. B. Datta, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the
\nappellant.  Learned ASG contended that the construction placed by the High Court on
\nRegulation 4 is wholly wrong and that the State Government has to consider the case
\nof the first respondent herein for inclusion since he has not attained the age of 54 years
\nas on 1.1.2001.  The High Court erred in holding that the vacancy has to be filled with
\nreference to the year in which the vacancy has arisen.  Concluding his arguments,
\nlearned ASG submitted that the view of the High Court is unsustainable and is liable to
\nbe set aside by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
In the background facts of this case, the following question of law arises for
\nconsideration by this Court:\n<\/p>\n
“Whether the High Court is justified in holding that the first
\nrespondent is entitled to be included for consideration for appointment
\nby selection to the IAS even though he had attained the age of 54
\nyears on 1.1.2002 .:”\n<\/p>\n
In other words, the short question that falls for consideration in the instant
\nappeal is as to whether the respondent have committed any illegality in considering the
\ncase of the first respondent for non-inclusion in the proposals to be sent to the Union
\nPublic Service Commission for preparation of the select list of Non-State Civil Services
\nOfficers for the year 2002 for appointment to the IAS on the ground that the first
\nrespondent has attained the age of 54 years as on 1.1.2002.
\nTo appreciate the contention of the appellant herein, Regulation 4 of the
\nRegulations is extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
“State Government to send proposals for consideration of the
\nCommittee:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tThe State Government shall consider the case of a
\nperson not belonging to the State Civil Service but serving
\nin connection with the affairs of the State who,<\/p>\n
(i)\tis of outstanding merit and ability and<\/p>\n
(ii)\tholds a Gazetted post in a substantive capacity
\nand<\/p>\n
(iii)\thas completed not less than 8 years of
\ncontinuous service under the State Government on the
\nfirst day of January of the year in which his case is being
\nconsidered in any post which has been declared
\nequivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State
\nCivil Service and propose the person for consideration
\nof the Committee.  The number of persons proposed for
\nconsideration of the Committee shall not exceed five
\ntimes the number of vacancies proposed to be filled
\nduring the year.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the State Government shall not
\nconsider the case of a person who has attained the age
\nof 54 years on the first day of January of the year in
\nwhich the decision is taken to propose the names for the
\nconsideration of the Committee.\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided also that the State Government shall
\nnot consider the case of person who, having been
\nincluded in an earlier select list, has not been appointed
\nby the Central Government in accordance with the
\nprovisions of Regulation 9 of these Regulations.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is no dispute whatsoever before us that the first respondent’s date of birth
\nis  20.1.1947 and he has attained the age  of 54 years as on 20.1.2001.  It is the case
\nof the first respondent that the other respondents have set in motion, the selection
\nprocess on 25.10.2001 calling for the proposals of the eligible Non-State Civil Services
\nOfficers for consideration of their cases for inclusion in the select list.  It was further
\ncontended that the name of the first respondent ought to have been included in the said
\nlist as he satisfies all the requirements.  As is evident from the impugned order dated
\n2.1.2002, the respondents-authorities  refused to include the name of the first
\nrespondent herein solely on the ground that the proposals are required to be sent in
\nrespect of the vacancies that have arisen during 2001 and that are available as on
\n1.1.2002 and by which date the first  respondent herein attained 54 years of age  as on
\n1.1.2002.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have already extracted Regulation 4 of the Regulations which would make it
\nclear that the State Government while considering the proposals is required to consider
\nthe case of the person not belonging to the State Civil Services but serving in
\nconnection with the affairs of the State who is of outstanding merit and ability and
\nholding a Gazetted post in a substantive capacity and has completed not less than 8
\nyears of continuous service under the State Government on the first day of January of
\nthe year in which he has been declared equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the
\nState Civil Services.  The State Government is required to propose the names of such
\npersons who possess such qualifications for consideration of the Committee.
\nHowever, the proviso mandates that the State Government shall not consider
\nthe case of the  person who has attained the age of 54 years on the first day of January
\nof the year in which the decision is taken to propose the names for consideration of the
\nCommittee.\n<\/p>\n
The first respondent  herein contended   that as is evident from the D.O. letter
\ndated 25.10.2001, the State Government has taken a decision to send necessary
\nproposals to the Union Public Service Commission for preparation of the select list of
\nNon-State Civil Services Officers for the year 2002 for appointment to the IAS under the
\nprovisions of the Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion, the High Court is not correct in allowing the writ petition of the
\nfirst respondent by misquoting Regulation 4.  It is seen from the records that for the
\nrecruitment year 2002, the proposals were received in that year and the eligibility of
\nofficers were reckoned from the Ist  of January, 2002 as per the provisions of the
\nselection Regulations.  The High Court’s observation that the eligibility of the officers
\nwere to be reckoned from 1.1.2001 is a misinterpretation of the Rules and Regulations
\nand this interpretation would bring to naught the entire selection process undertaken by
\nthe Union Public Service Commission not only for the Government of Andhra Pradesh
\nbut for all the State\/Cadres where selections have been made under the selection
\nRegulations.  The interpretation  of the Rules by the High Court is not a harmonious
\nconstruction of interpretation of the Rules and Regulations and if not set aside would
\nhave wide scale implications on the selection of officers for appointment to the IAS
\nunder the selection Regulations since the Selection Committee would then be required
\nto consider the eligibility of the officers of a previous and not the current year.
\nMoreover, the High Court has given relief to the first respondent herein under an
\ninadvertent typographical error in a letter of the State Government dated 25.10.2001
\nand this essentially circumvents the letter and spirit of the statutory Rules and
\nRegulations.  The typographical error in the D.O. letter dated 25.10.2001  in the
\n“subject” as specified:- IAS  Select List of Non-S.C.S. Officers for appointment to the
\nIAS under IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 for the year 2001
\nProposals  Called for.  However, in the remaining paras, the position has been made
\nclear.  The eligibility was as on 1.1.2002 as indicated in paragraphs 2 & 3, that the
\nproposals had been called for from the various departments.
\nIt is amply clear from the Regulation that eligibility of officers is reckoned from
\nthe Ist of January in the year in which the SCM meets which would be 1.1.2002 in the
\ninstant case.\n<\/p>\n
The proviso to Regulation 4 clearly states that the State Government shall not
\nconsider the case of a person who has attained the age of 54 years on the first day of
\nJanuary of the year in which the decision is taken to propose the names for
\nconsideration of the Committee.\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case, as already noticed, the proposal was sent by the State
\nGovernment in January, 2002.  Therefore, on 1.1.2002, the first respondent has
\ncompleted the age of  54 years.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion, the first respondent  is not eligible and entitled for considering his
\nname for appointment to the post of IAS by selection.\n<\/p>\n
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgement
\npassed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is unsustainable and is liable to be set
\naside.  Accordingly, we allow the appeal.  However, we order no costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Government Of India vs G.Limbadri Rao & Ors on 22 September, 2004 Author: . A Lakshmanan Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6234 of 2004 PETITIONER: Government of India RESPONDENT: G.Limbadri Rao & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/09\/2004 BENCH: K.G. Balakrishnan & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan JUDGMENT: J […]<\/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-269684","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGovernment Of India vs G.Limbadri Rao & Ors on 22 September, 2004 - 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\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Government Of India vs G.Limbadri Rao & Ors on 22 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-16T13:47:56+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Government Of India vs G.Limbadri Rao & Ors on 22 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-16T13:47:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2841,\"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\\\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004\",\"name\":\"Government Of India vs G.Limbadri Rao & Ors on 22 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-16T13:47:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Government Of India vs G.Limbadri Rao & Ors on 22 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Government Of India vs G.Limbadri Rao & Ors on 22 September, 2004 - 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\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Government Of India vs G.Limbadri Rao & Ors on 22 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-16T13:47:56+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Government Of India vs G.Limbadri Rao & Ors on 22 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-16T13:47:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004"},"wordCount":2841,"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\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004","name":"Government Of India vs G.Limbadri Rao & Ors on 22 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-16T13:47:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-india-vs-g-limbadri-rao-ors-on-22-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Government Of India vs G.Limbadri Rao & Ors on 22 September, 2004"}]},{"@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\/269684","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=269684"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269684\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269684"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269684"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269684"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}