{"id":32719,"date":"2006-09-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-09-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006"},"modified":"2015-03-15T06:10:56","modified_gmt":"2015-03-15T00:40:56","slug":"arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006","title":{"rendered":"Arun Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 20 September, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Arun Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 20 September, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Sema<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: H.K.Sema, P.K.Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2262 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nArun Kumar Nayak\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUnion of India &amp; Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/09\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nH.K.SEMA &amp; P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>H.K.SEMA,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThis appeal is directed against the judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 13.02.2003 of the High Court of Orissa in OJC No.<br \/>\n6122 of 2000 whereby the order dated 6.8.1999 passed by the<br \/>\nCentral Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter the Tribunal) in<br \/>\nO.A.No.606 of 1998 was set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>       We have heard the parties at length.  The present<br \/>\ncontroversy relates to the appointment of Extra Departmental<br \/>\nSub Post Master ( in short EDSPM ) at Ratnagiri, now<br \/>\nredesignated as, &#8220;Gramin Dak Sewak&#8221;.  On 18.9.1997 a<br \/>\nrequisition was made to the local Employment Exchange.  It<br \/>\nwas stipulated that preference would be given to ST\/SC<br \/>\ncandidates.  Pursuant to the advertisement the Employment<br \/>\nExchange sponsored a list of 40 candidates including the 4th<br \/>\nrespondent herein Sri Chittaranjan Kar.  A corrigendum was<br \/>\nissued on 19.8.1998 requiring public Notification having wider<br \/>\npublicity along with the requisition to be made to the<br \/>\nEmployment Exchange.  This corrigendum was issued in<br \/>\nterms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of<br \/>\nExcise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District,<br \/>\nA.P.  Vs.  K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others 1996(6) SCC\n<\/p>\n<p>216.  On 9.9.1998, the public Notification was issued inviting<br \/>\napplications from intending candidates.  In the said<br \/>\nNotification, it was stipulated that if a minimum number of 3<br \/>\neligible candidates belonging to ST community do not offer<br \/>\ntheir candidature, the vacancy in question shall be offered to<br \/>\nthe candidates belonging to OBC and SC candidates<br \/>\nrespectively, in order of deficiency in representation.  Pursuant<br \/>\nto Public Notification the appellant applied for the post as an<br \/>\nOBC candidate in the prescribed application format along with<br \/>\nthe requisite documents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIt may be mentioned here that out of 40 candidates<br \/>\nsponsored by the Employment Exchange, only 7 candidates<br \/>\nsubmitted their application forms when called upon to do so.<br \/>\nThus, 33 were eliminated.  Out of the balance 7 candidates,<br \/>\nsix candidates were again disqualified since they did not<br \/>\nproduce all the necessary documents.   The candidature of<br \/>\nonly the 4th respondent was considered and he was selected on<br \/>\n15.10.1998.  There was no element of selection.  The process<br \/>\nof selection was a mockery.  The candidates including the<br \/>\nappellant, who applied pursuant to the advertisement, were<br \/>\neliminated by Respondent No.2 Supdt. of Post Offices,<br \/>\nCuttack, North Division, on the ground that since the<br \/>\nrecruitment process had already commenced pursuant to the<br \/>\nrequisition made to the Employment Exchange on 18.9.1997,<br \/>\nthe public Notification issued on 9.9.98 inviting applications<br \/>\nwas superfluous and unnecessary.  On this reasoning, the 2nd<br \/>\nRespondent was of the view that  the 4th respondent who is a<br \/>\ngeneral category candidate was the only eligible candidate<br \/>\namongst the applicants who applied pursuant to the<br \/>\nrequisition made to the Employment Exchange.<br \/>\n\tAggrieved thereby, the present appellant challenged the<br \/>\nselection of 4th respondent by filing O.A.606\/98 before the<br \/>\nCentral Administrative Tribunal, praying inter alia for<br \/>\nquashing the selection process and directing the Department<br \/>\nto consider the petitioner&#8217;s application along with others on<br \/>\nmerits.  The learned Tribunal passed an interim order that any<br \/>\nappointment made would be subject to the final result of the<br \/>\nO.A.   Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order, the department<br \/>\nissued a letter of appointment in favour of respondent No.4 on<br \/>\n15.1.1999, with a rider that appointment was subject to the<br \/>\nfinal result of O.A.  Thereafter, by an Order dated 6.8.1999,<br \/>\nthe Tribunal allowed the O.A. and quashed the entire selection<br \/>\nprocess in question with a direction to the respondent<br \/>\ndepartment to conduct a selection process afresh and consider<br \/>\nall the applications on merit, received both from the<br \/>\nEmployment Exchange and the candidates who submitted<br \/>\napplications pursuant to the public Notification dated 9.9.98<br \/>\nincluding the application of the appellant.<br \/>\n\t\tThe Tribunal after hearing the parties has held that<br \/>\nafter examining the records of the selection file in original, out<br \/>\nof seven candidates who were being considered, six candidates<br \/>\ndid not submit all the necessary documents and they were<br \/>\ndisqualified.  The Tribunal also found that the Selection<br \/>\nCommittee considered only the case of 4th respondent whose<br \/>\ncandidature according to the Committee was complete in all<br \/>\nrespect and he was selected subsequently.  The reasoning of<br \/>\nthe department was that issuing of public Notification was<br \/>\nwrong as the circular of the Director General, Posts, providing<br \/>\nfor simultaneously calling for names from Employment<br \/>\nExchange and for issuing public Notification was not<br \/>\napplicable in respect of the cases where selection procedure<br \/>\nhad already been taken on hand and therefore six candidates<br \/>\nwho applied pursuant to the public Notification were<br \/>\ndisqualified.  The stand of the department was rejected by the<br \/>\nTribunal and, in our view, correctly.  The Tribunal was of the<br \/>\nview that there was no element of choice before the<br \/>\ndepartment since the only candidate remained to be<br \/>\nconsidered was the 4th Respondent.  On this reasoning, the<br \/>\nTribunal set aside the selection and appointment of the 4th<br \/>\nrespondent.  We fully subscribe to the views of the Tribunal.<br \/>\n\t\tIn compliance of the direction of the Tribunal the<br \/>\nappointment of the 4th respondent was terminated on<br \/>\n3.5.2000.  A fresh selection was held on 15.5.2000 in which<br \/>\nthe total number of 13 candidates which included the<br \/>\napplication made pursuant to the sponsored list prepared by<br \/>\nthe Employment Exchange including that of 4th respondent<br \/>\nand the applications made in pursuance of the public<br \/>\nnotification dated 9.9.98 were considered.   In that selection<br \/>\nthe present appellant, Arun Kumar Nayak, was selected and<br \/>\nthe 4th respondent was not selected.   This would show that<br \/>\nthe 4th respondent was not eligible even at the time when his<br \/>\ncase was first considered by the Selection Committee on<br \/>\n15.10.1998 and recommended for appointment. However, by<br \/>\nthe impugned order in OJC No. 6122 of 2000 the High Court<br \/>\nhas set aside the order dated 6.8.99 of the Tribunal   and<br \/>\nconfirmed the appointment of the 4th respondent.<br \/>\n\t\tThis Court issued notice on 28.3.2003 and the<br \/>\norder of the High Court was stayed.  It is stated that in view of<br \/>\nthe stay order granted by this Court the appellant is still<br \/>\ncontinuing in the post.   The High Court upset the reasoning<br \/>\nof the Tribunal by relying on the decision of this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/427688\/\">Union of India   vs. N.Hargopal<\/a> (1987) 3 SCC 308, where it<br \/>\nhas been held that the Government instructions enjoying the<br \/>\nfield of choice should in the first instance, be restricted to<br \/>\ncandidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, and the<br \/>\nsame was upheld as not offending Articles 14 and 16 of the<br \/>\nConstitution.  The High Court has also relied on the decision<br \/>\nof this Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1577755\/\">Delhi Development Horticulture<br \/>\nEmployees&#8217; Union    vs.  Delhi Administration, Delhi<\/a> (1992)<br \/>\n4  SCC 99, where this Court approved the recruitment through<br \/>\nEmployment Exchanges as a method of preventing<br \/>\nmalpractices.    Subsequent decisions of this Court rendered<br \/>\nin <a href=\"\/doc\/1268713\/\">Excise Supdt. Malkapatnam   vs.  K.B.N.Visweshwara<br \/>\nRao<\/a> (1996) 6 SCC 216, wherein Hargopal (supra)  was<br \/>\nconsidered and distinguished, was placed before the Division<br \/>\nBench of the High Court but the High Court brushed it aside<br \/>\nby observing that it was distinguishable on the basis of special<br \/>\nfacts of that case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIn Visweshwara Rao (supra) a three Judge Bench of<br \/>\nthis Court after considering Hargopal (supra) held in<br \/>\nparagraph 6 as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Having regard to the respective contentions, we<br \/>\nare of the view that contention of the<br \/>\nrespondents is more acceptable which would be<br \/>\nconsistent with the principles of fair play,<br \/>\njustice and equal opportunity.  It is common<br \/>\nknowledge that many a candidate is unable to<br \/>\nhave the names sponsored, though their names<br \/>\nare either registered or are waiting to be<br \/>\nregistered in the employment exchange, with the<br \/>\nresult that the choice of selection is restricted to<br \/>\nonly such of the candidates whose names come<br \/>\nto be sponsored by the employment exchange.<br \/>\nUnder these circumstances, many a deserving<br \/>\ncandidate is deprived of the right to be<br \/>\nconsidered for appointment to a post under the<br \/>\nState.  Better view appears to be that it should<br \/>\nbe mandatory for the requisitioning<br \/>\nauthority\/establishment to intimate the<br \/>\nemployment exchange, and employment<br \/>\nexchange should sponsor the names of the<br \/>\ncandidates to the requisitioning departments for<br \/>\nselection strictly according to seniority and<br \/>\nreservation, as per requisition.  In addition, the<br \/>\nappropriate department or undertaking or<br \/>\nestablishment should call for the names by<br \/>\npublication in the newspapers having wider<br \/>\ncirculation and also display on their office notice<br \/>\nboards or announce on radio, television and<br \/>\nemployment news bulletins, and then consider<br \/>\nthe cases of all the candidates who have<br \/>\napplied.  If this procedure is adopted, fair play<br \/>\nwould be subserved.  The equality of<br \/>\nopportunity in the matter of employment would<br \/>\nbe available to all eligible candidates.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThis Court in Visweshwara Rao (supra), therefore,<br \/>\nheld that intimation to the Employment Exchange about the<br \/>\nvacancy and candidates sponsored from the Employment<br \/>\nExchange is mandatory.  This Court also held that in addition<br \/>\nand consistent with the principle of fair play, justice and equal<br \/>\nopportunity, the appropriate department or establishment<br \/>\nshould also call for the names by publication in the<br \/>\nnewspapers having wider circulation, announcement on radio,<br \/>\ntelevision and employment news bulletins and consider all the<br \/>\ncandidates who have applied.  This view was taken to afford<br \/>\nequal opportunity to all the eligible candidates in the matter of<br \/>\nemployment.  The rationale behind such direction is also<br \/>\nconsistent with the sound public policy that wider the<br \/>\nopportunity of the notice of vacancy by wider publication in<br \/>\nthe newspapers, radio, television and employment news<br \/>\nbulletin, the better candidates with better qualifications are<br \/>\nattracted, so that adequate choices are made available and the<br \/>\nbest candidates would be selected and appointed to subserve<br \/>\nthe public interest better.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t       In Arun Tewari   Vs.  Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh<br \/>\n(1998) 2 SCC 332, where to fill about 7000 posts of Assistant<br \/>\nTeachers under a time-bound scheme (Operation Blackboard),<br \/>\nstatutory rules were amended and decision taken to fill up<br \/>\nvacancies district wise by calling candidates from district<br \/>\nemployment exchanges, without involving the Selection Board,<br \/>\nthe Two Judge Bench of this Court held that in view of the<br \/>\nexigency the method adopted in the given facts was not unfair.<br \/>\nAlthough a reference was made to Visweshwara Rao (supra)<br \/>\nbut it was not even distinguished in Arun Tewari (supra).  The<br \/>\ndecision of the two judge bench of this Court after considering<br \/>\nHargopal (supra), Delhi Development Horticulture<br \/>\nEmployees Union (supra) and Visweshwara Rao  (supra) held<br \/>\nin paragraph 20 as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The next contention relates to inviting<br \/>\napplications from employment exchanges<br \/>\ninstead of by advertisement.  This procedure<br \/>\nhas been resorted to looking to the<br \/>\nrequirements of a time-bound scheme.  The<br \/>\noriginal applicants contended that if the posts<br \/>\nhad been advertised, many others like them<br \/>\ncould have applied.  The original applicants<br \/>\nwho so complain, however, do not possess the<br \/>\nrequisite qualifications for the post.  As far as<br \/>\nwe can see from the record, nobody who had<br \/>\nthe requisite qualifications has complained<br \/>\nthat he was prevented from applying because<br \/>\nadvertisement was not issued.  What is more<br \/>\nimportant, in the special circumstances<br \/>\nrequiring a speedier process of selection and<br \/>\nappointment, applications were invited<br \/>\nthrough employment exchanges for 1993 only.<br \/>\nIn this context, the special procedure adopted<br \/>\nis not unfair.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, the decision by this Court in Arun Tewari (supra) is<br \/>\nbased on the facts of that case, namely a time bound scheme<br \/>\nand exigency of service.   No law has been laid down<br \/>\nthereunder.  But in the case of Visweshwara Rao (supra) a<br \/>\nthree Judge Bench of this Court has laid down the law and<br \/>\nthat is still holding the field.\n<\/p>\n<p>  \t\tThere is yet another reason for which the order of<br \/>\nthe High Court, cannot be sustained.  In the Notification dated<br \/>\n9.9.98 the applications were invited from the intending<br \/>\ncandidates belonging to ST community for the posts.  It was<br \/>\nalso stipulated in the advertisement that if a minimum of three<br \/>\neligible candidates belonging to the ST community do not offer<br \/>\ntheir candidature, the vacancy in question will be treated as<br \/>\nunreserved and offered to the candidates belonging to the<br \/>\nother reserved communities in order of deficiency in<br \/>\nrepresentation  OBC Community and SC community.  The<br \/>\nappellant belongs to OBC.  Admittedly, the 4th respondent<br \/>\nbelongs to general category.  Even otherwise, he could not<br \/>\nhave been selected, notwithstanding the availability of<br \/>\ncandidates from other reserved category like OBC and SC<br \/>\ncommunity.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tFor the aforestated reasons, the impugned order of<br \/>\nthe High Court dated 13.02.2003 passed in OJC No.6122 of<br \/>\n2000 is hereby set aside.  The appeal is allowed.  Writ Petition<br \/>\nfiled by the 4th respondent stands dismissed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Arun Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 20 September, 2006 Author: H.K.Sema Bench: H.K.Sema, P.K.Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2262 of 2005 PETITIONER: Arun Kumar Nayak RESPONDENT: Union of India &amp; Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/09\/2006 BENCH: H.K.SEMA &amp; P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Arun Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 20 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arun Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 20 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-15T00:40:56+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arun Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 20 September, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-15T00:40:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2057,\"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\\\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006\",\"name\":\"Arun Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 20 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-15T00:40:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arun Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 20 September, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Arun Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 20 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arun Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 20 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-15T00:40:56+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arun Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 20 September, 2006","datePublished":"2006-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-15T00:40:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006"},"wordCount":2057,"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\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006","name":"Arun Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 20 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-15T00:40:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-nayak-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-20-september-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arun Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 20 September, 2006"}]},{"@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\/32719","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=32719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32719\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}