{"id":27403,"date":"1969-01-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-01-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969"},"modified":"2017-03-24T12:10:17","modified_gmt":"2017-03-24T06:40:17","slug":"kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969","title":{"rendered":"Kaja Sudhir vs The Principal, Guntur Medical … on 30 January, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court<\/div>\n
Kaja Sudhir vs The Principal, Guntur Medical … on 30 January, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1970 AP 404<\/div>\n
Author: P J Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: P J Reddy, S Rao<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
   P. Jaganmohan  Reddy, C.J.  <\/p>\n
 1.  These  six Writ Petitions relate to admission to the medical colleges in Andhra  Area.  In Writ  Petitions Nos.   4217,  4249,  4268,  4360  and  4956  of  1968,  the question is as to the interpretation of Appendix  I to Rule  3  (a)  of the Rules for admission as amended by  g.  O.  Ms.  No.  1499  Health dated  28th  June  1968.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   Before we deal with the several contentions raised before us,  it is necessary to set out the   qualifications of each of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
        3.     K.  Sudhir,  Petitioner in Writ  Petition  No. 4217  of  1968,  has obtained in the P.U.C.  examination     230,25 marks in operational and also obtained a 'B'  Certificate in N.C.C. \n \n  \n\n           4.      C.  Vijayasekhar,  petitioner in Writ  Petition No.  4249  of  1968, has obtained 182.25  marks in optional and he is also a 'B'  certificate  holder.   Apart form this,  he  has been for three years in A.C.C.  and  has also obtained a certificate  for attending Advanced Leadership course and Annual  Training Camp. \n \n  \n\n          5.    Pardhasarathi is the petitioner in Writ  Petition No.  4268 of  1968  with 228  marks in optional and is a 'B'  certificate holder. \n \n  \n\n            6.     Santhi Swarup Nayar is the petitioner in Writ  Petition No.  4360  of  1968.  He has obtained 228.75  marks in optional and is also the holder of  a 'B'  certificate. \n \n  \n\n           7.       S. V.  Umamaheswara  Rao  is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4956 of 1968.  He has passed the H. S. C.  Multi purpose examination obtaining  196.50  marks in optional subject and is a holder of  'A-I '  and  'A-2'  certificates. \n \n  \n\n<\/pre>\n
             8.   These  candidates are competing against eleven candidates who have either obtained  ‘A-1’,  A-II,  J-II or C certificates   —-  all of which are said to be higher than  the ‘B’   certificates obtained by the petitioners.  it is the contention of the learned advocates for the petitioners that his Court had,  on a prior occasion,  in a.  S.  Rami  Reddy  v.  Principal,  Guntur Medical  College, 1968-1  Andh  WR  56  considered  the constitutionality of Rule  3  and the  Appendix thereof which are in similar  terms to these with which we are now  concerned.  The Division Bench  consisting of one  of us and Kumarayya.  J.,  had held the Rule to be discriminatory.  before we deal with this contention,  it is necessary to set out  Rule  3(a)  and Appendix  I  to the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     3(a),    \"2% of the seats shall be reserved exclusively for student possessing the prescribed certificates in  N.C.C.,  and  A.C.C.  Selection of candidates under this category will be made according to the procedure detailed in Appendix  I  to these Rules; \n \n    x    x   x   x \n \n    x    x   x   x \n \n  \n\n APPENDIX    I \n \n  \n\n        The selection of candidates possessing the N.C.C.  and A.C.C.  and  A.C.C  certificates will be made in the order of preference indicated below;--- \n   \n  \n\n     (i)   Holder of  'C'  certificates  for Boys  from Colleges,  holders of \"A-II\"  Certificates for boys from  High  Schools,  holders of \"G-II\"  Certificates for girls form Colleges, holders of  \"J-II  Certificates for girls  form High  Schools. \n \n  \n\n    (ii)  Holders of  'B'  Certificates for boys from Colleges, holder of  'A-I'  Certificates for boys form High  Schools,   holders of  'G-I'  Certificates for girls from Colleges,  and holder of  'J-I'  Certificates for girls  form High  Schools. \n \n  \n\n      (iii)   Holders of  A.C.C.  Certificates for boys and girls from Schools. \n\n  \n\n<\/pre>\n
 NOTES:—  The  candidates with one year training in the Air Wing of N.C.C. shall,  for purposes of admission, be treated on par with a candidate possessing  ‘B’  and  ‘A-i’  Certificates of the Army and the Naval  Wings subject to the condition that the candidate should  produce a certificate form the Director,   N.C.C.  to the effect that he is proficient in this course,  and also gives an undertaking that he would  continue and obtain his  ‘B’  certificate in the Air  Wing.”\n<\/p>\n
         9.      It is the contention of the petitioners’  advocates that this categorisation of the several  certificates in order of preference is not based on any rational classification and is discriminatory,  in that the  Junior  and  Senior Divisions of  N.C.C  irrespective of proficiency have been  grouped together.  In the first category  of the order of preference  ‘C’  certificates  for boys form colleges which can only be  awarded two years after they obtain ‘B’  certificates in the colleges while studying  P.U.C.  are   grouped together with ‘A-II  certificates which are awarded tow years    after obtaining  ‘A-I’  Certificates form  high  schools.  ‘G-II’   certificates and  ‘J-II’  certificates are respectively equivalent to  ‘C’  certificates and  ‘A-II’  certificates for  girl from colleges and this schools and  the same argument applies to them as  well.  Similarly, in the  second   category  of preference,  it is contended that ‘B’  certificates which are obtained after one year’s  training in Colleges and a Senior  Division in N.C.C.  are compared and treated as equivalent  to ‘A-I’ certificates  obtained by boys from  high schools who have put in one year.  In so far as the girls are concerned,  the equivalent of these are  ‘G-I’  and ‘J-I’  certificates  respectively.  In the third and last category of preference,  it is contended that A.C.C.  certificates for boys and girl show have put in even three years of training are relegated to this category.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that this classification is based on a rational differentia  which has the nexus with the object  sought to be achieved, namely,  that candidates who have been in the N.C.C.  fro  longer periods and have taken interest are preferred to these who have had lesser number of years of training.  With  this object the grouping  has been  done into the several  categories of preference.   we are also  told that it has not been denied that candidates who have obtained  ‘A-II’  certificates in H.S.C.   notwithstanding the fact that they cannot obtained the ‘B’  certificates in P.U.C. ,  nonetheless are  in a position t obtain  ‘B’  certificates subsequently in the first year degree  course and proceed to get  ‘C’  certificates    before they do their B.Sc.,  degree  course just as in the same way as a P.U.C.   candidate , who is going in for a degree, can obtain the ‘C’  certificate.  One of the condition for obtaining  ‘C’  certificates is  that a person must obtain the ‘B’  certificate which can only be done in the Senior Division of  N.C.C,  in the college  during the first year.  if this position if correct we have no doubt it is and because there has been no serious dispute then there is  certainly no discrimination between the H.S.C.  and P.U.C  boys.  Even in the case of candidates  competing H.S.C.  in  schools and who come to the colleges to take  P.U.C  they can be awarded  “A-I”   and “A-II”  certificates as these are certificates given for training in schools.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Once it is admitted that there is no disadvantage between  the candidates who come for  H.S.C  and those candidates who compete on the basis of P.U.C  certificates,  it will not be open for this Court,  to go into the question of categorisation   of the preferences since it is found  that  those preferences are based upon some rational differentia  which is not discriminatory.  Whether the standard   of the  total length of training in the N.C.C.  both in  schools and colleges is taken as  the criterion for efficiency or as a qualification for selection,  or whether preference is to be given only to the  training  and certificates obtained in the Senior  Division of  N.C.C.  is a matter which is not within  the jurisdiction of the Courts.  it is a matter entirely for the authority  empowered to frame  the rules for selection.   There  is not a rule,  the basis of  which cannot be disagreed with.  But  that the courts have to see is whether in making or farming the rule,  the authority  concerned has adopted a reasonable classification and has based it on an intelligible   differentia  which  has  a reasonable connection with the object  sought  to be  achieved.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      10.   In the present petitions,  we find that while  making admission to medical colleges,  certain percentage of  seats is  given to candidates who have obtained  proficiency either in sports or in extracurricular activities because  it is felt that those who have taken part in these activities have done so at the experience  of  their studies;  and therefore do not have the same advantage as those who have exclusively concentrated on getting marks.    It this is the avowed object,  namely,  to compensate those candidates who have taken part in some of the activities referred to above, then the authority concerned is perfectly justified in giving preference to persons who have  taken part in those activities for a longer period than those who have taken  part of  a comparatively shorter  period.   There is nothing discriminatory or unintelligible in this classification.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         11.  Sri.  G.  Vedanta  Rao,  learned Advocate for the petitioner in W. P.  No.  4249  of  1969,  has produced  the opinion of  one  of the Military Officers to the effect that  Senior  N.C.C.  is a superior training than junior  N.C.C   training.  No  doubt it may be so.  But that is not the only criterion  because if that were to be so,  there must be no reason why persons who have obtained  B.Sc.,  degree should not compete  or be given preference over  those who  have passed only  P.U.C.   This  would cut  at the very object of the selection which  is intended to see that they should be selected  at the lowest  level or at the threshold of their entrance to the profession colleges.   In this view we find no discrimination whatever wither in the Rule or   in the  Appendix which prescribes preference of various categories.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         12.    Certain observations made in   (1968)   I  Andh  WR  56  by  a Bench  consisting of one of us and Kumarayya.  J.,  have been relied on for holding  that Rule  3  is unconstitutional.  It may  be stated that in that case after the last date  for the receipt  of applications,  the Government changed the Rule pertaining to selection which caused rejudice to the petitioners.   The basis of that   decision was that the  Government was estopped  from applying  a different rule to that which was prevailing at the time when the applications were called for and not  subsequent to the date when the receipt  of applications for admission is closed.   Kumaryayya,  J.,  who spoke for the Bench observed at p.  63:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          “At any rate,  as we have already noticed “the Government, possessing as they do, powers to amend,  alter and cancel  any rule, could not exercise these powers in an unreasonable manner to  unjustly  defeat the rights already accrued.   They are bound by the doctrine of  equitable  estopel.   It follows therefore that if the  petitioners,  according to the rules in force  on the last date of applications, are entitled to a seat in the medical college as against the respondents,  who are actually  awarded such  seats, their right cannot be  defeated by subsequent amendment to  the rules.  Apart form any other ground  the very idea that the rule should be thus changed to the detriment of some,  after all   the applications have been received is obnoxious   enough, for if so permitted it will lead not only to arbitrariness but also to unjust   results of far reaching   consequences.   We therefore  held when the rule in force was valid and  was not struck down, the change in the rule to the detriment of some including the petitioners in unjustified and the Government o n the principle of equitable estoppel is precluded form retracting from  the original position  and giving effect tot he amended rule to the detriment   of the petitioners.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 No  doubt this was the ratio  of that decision.   But there are certain observations made in that decision which certainly assist the petitioners, viz., <\/p>\n
         “…  …    P.U.C  students who could hope  to get only ‘B’  certificates and not  ‘C’  certificate unless they continue to study  for  3  years in college should have been  made to suffer by this rule.   The highest certificate that they can hope to get is only ‘B’  certificate and that certificate for purposes of selection has not been placed at least at a par with  ‘A-II’  which  is the highs that H.S.C.  students can get.”\n<\/p>\n
 These observations were based upon the materiel placed before  the Bench then.\n<\/p>\n
       13.     As  we have already said earlier,  it is not denied that a person applying under the P.U.C  category for admission can nonetheless ask to be considered for admission under the N.C.C. category on a ‘C’  certificate because it is not necessary that such a candidate should apply immediately after passing the  P.U.C :  but he can do so when he gets into the final  year of  B.Sc.  by which time he could not only get  ‘B’  certificate but also  ‘C’  certificate.  In fact one of such candidates  who has been given a seat,  namely, Roop  Kumar, has been awarded  a ‘C’  certificate  and he got  229.50  marks in P.U.C.  Similarly, as we said earlier   a person in H.S.C.  who has got  “A-II”  certificate can easily  compete with a person who has applied  in the category of P.U.C.   with a “C”  certificate .  Nor can it be said that a person who has passed  P.U.C  can only get  “B”  certificate and not  “A-II”  certificate.  We think  that the observations made in (1968)  I  Andh  WR  56  are no doubt obiter,  as such could not be pressed in aid of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Appendix has already been struck down;  or ,  at any rate,  must be struck down.   In this view,  we reject  the contention that the Rule and the Appendix are unconstitutional.  For this  reason, the “B”  certificate holders come under the second   category of preference and must be compared only with those that are specified in Appendix  I.\n<\/p>\n
     14.    It is stated on behalf of one of the petitioners  (W.  P.  No.  4249  of  1968)  that he has put  in three years in A.C.C  and is a holder of a “B”  certificate which gives him longer training than the others.  But we have no material which can afford a basis for holding that A.C.C.  certificate is of a higher category or involves a  longer period of training or is more efficacious.  One of the m <\/p>\n
 considerations for  grouping certain certificates in the first  category of preference is that they  are  given to boys who have attended the  annual Training Camps.   We do not know whether persons who are trained  in A.C.C.  have to attend such Training  Camps.  Consequently it is not possible for us to say that they re in the same  category of those who have been grouped in the first category  ;  and therefore must be given preference.  therefore none of the petitioner s can claim preference to those who have already been given seats.\n<\/p>\n
        15.      No doubt, the petitioners in W.  P.  No. 4217  of 1968.  K.  Sudhir, has a claim to be considered on merits because he has   obtained  230.25  marks.  Mr.  G.  venkatarama  Sastry,  II  Government Pleader,  who  has given us the details of marks obtained by others,  has frankly conceded on instructions that the  petitioner would be in the third rank   in the reserved list of candidates and that there are 13  seats available out of which  9  are reserved including the  seat reserved for the petitioner himself.  In this view, he is entitled to one of the seats.  Accordingly we direct that this petitioner should be given  a seat.\n<\/p>\n
     16.  Similarly, Santi   Swarup Nayar,  Petitioner in W. P.  No.  4360  of  1968,  has obtained  228.  75  marks and if so,  he is entitled to a seat  on merits and his case   for admission can be considered.  We cannot direct that a seat should be given to  him because we have not got all the details of marks obtained by to her candidates,   or their marks in English which   have to be considered for giving preference in the event of there being a tie.   We accordingly direct the 1st respondent Principal  of the Guntur Medical  College,  to consider his case on merits.\n<\/p>\n
        17.      The contention that because these petitioner had applied for admission as coming under the N.C.C   group, they were  not considered for the general  seats is not a valid one.   The proper  course to be followed by the selection authority,  according to the Rule,  is to consider the applications of the five petitioners an their respective merits;  and if they are not likely to get seats  on that footing, then alone their applications can be considered as falling under any one of the special  categories.\n<\/p>\n
       Writ  Petition NO.  17  of  1969.\n<\/p>\n
       18.     The question arising in this writ petition is already concluded by the directions given by us in the judgment in Writ  Petition NO.  4670  of  1968  delivered on  9th  December  1968  in that they  may be considered as a class of merit without further categorisation into Scheduled Castes,  Schedule Tribes.  Women candidates, sports etc. <\/p>\n
        19.   In the result,  W.  P.  Nos.  4217\/68,  4,360\/68  and  17  of  1969  are allowed with costs.  Advocate’s  fee Rs.  100\/-  (Rupees one hundred only)  in each.  W. P. Nos.  4249\/68.  4268\/68  and  4956\/68  are dismissed without costs.   We however, fix  the Government  Pleader’s  fee at Rs.  100\/-  (Rupees one hundred only) in each of these petitions.\n<\/p>\n
 20. Order accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court Kaja Sudhir vs The Principal, Guntur Medical … on 30 January, 1969 Equivalent citations: AIR 1970 AP 404 Author: P J Reddy Bench: P J Reddy, S Rao JUDGMENT P. Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J. 1. These six Writ Petitions relate to admission to the medical colleges in Andhra Area. In Writ Petitions Nos. […]<\/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":[10,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKaja Sudhir vs The Principal, Guntur Medical ... on 30 January, 1969 - 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\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kaja Sudhir vs The Principal, Guntur Medical ... on 30 January, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969\" \/>\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=\"1969-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-24T06:40:17+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\\\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kaja Sudhir vs The Principal, Guntur Medical … on 30 January, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-24T06:40:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969\"},\"wordCount\":2583,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Andhra High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969\",\"name\":\"Kaja Sudhir vs The Principal, Guntur Medical ... on 30 January, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-24T06:40:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kaja Sudhir vs The Principal, Guntur Medical … on 30 January, 1969\"}]},{\"@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":"Kaja Sudhir vs The Principal, Guntur Medical ... on 30 January, 1969 - 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\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kaja Sudhir vs The Principal, Guntur Medical ... on 30 January, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-24T06:40:17+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\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kaja Sudhir vs The Principal, Guntur Medical … on 30 January, 1969","datePublished":"1969-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-24T06:40:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969"},"wordCount":2583,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Andhra High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969","name":"Kaja Sudhir vs The Principal, Guntur Medical ... on 30 January, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-24T06:40:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaja-sudhir-vs-the-principal-guntur-medical-on-30-january-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kaja Sudhir vs The Principal, Guntur Medical … on 30 January, 1969"}]},{"@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\/27403","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=27403"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27403\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}