{"id":46946,"date":"1998-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998"},"modified":"2016-09-30T16:23:13","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T10:53:13","slug":"k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998","title":{"rendered":"K Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah And Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah And Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1998<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, M. Srinivasan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1402-03 of 1995\n\nPETITIONER:\nK  ANJAIAH ETC.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. CHANDRAIAH AND ORS. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/03\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nG.B. PATTANAIK &amp; M. SRINIVASAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>1998 (2) SCR 35<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n<p>PATTANAIK, J. These appeals are directed against the order of Andhra<br \/>\nPradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 14.9.1994 in OA Nos. 6742<br \/>\nof 1993 and 2465 of 1993. By the impugned order the Tribunal has quashed<br \/>\nRegulation 9(2) of the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission (terms and<br \/>\nconditions of service of employees of the Commission) Regulation, 1986<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;Regulation&#8217;) inter alia on the ground that<br \/>\nit contravenes Regulation 9(1) and it purports to wipe off the past<br \/>\nservices rendered by the government servant. Superintendent, College<br \/>\nService Commission is the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>The brief facts of the case are that the Service Commission in Andhra<br \/>\nPradesh was formed under the Provisions of Andhra Pradesh College Service<br \/>\nCommission Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Act&#8217;).The employees<br \/>\nof this Commission came on deputation from the State Government in<br \/>\ndifferent batches and such deputationists were managing the affairs of the<br \/>\nCommission. The Commission itself was constituted by the State Government<br \/>\nin exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 3 of the Act. Section<br \/>\n7 of the Act deals with the staff of the Commission and it stipulates that<br \/>\nthe Secretary of the Commission shall be appointed by the Government and<br \/>\nother employees as the Commission may with the previous approval of the<br \/>\nGovernment appoint from time to time. Section 7(3) of the Act provides that<br \/>\nthe terms and conditions of service of such employees of the Commission<br \/>\nshall be such as may be provided for by Regulation. Section 7 of the Act is<br \/>\nextracted hereinbelow in extenso:-\n<\/p>\n<p>STAFF OF THE COMMISSION 7.     (1) The staff of the Commission shall<br \/>\nconsist of:\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)  Secretary, who shall be appointed by the Government, arid<\/p>\n<p>(b)  Such other employees as the commission may, with the previous approval<br \/>\nof the Government, appoint from time to time.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) The Salary of the Secretary and other employees of the Commission,<br \/>\nshall be such as may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3) The other terms and conditions of Service of the Secretary shall be<br \/>\nsuch as may be prescribed and those of the other employees of the<br \/>\nCommission shall be such as may be provided for by Regulations.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 20 of the Act confers power upon the Commission to make Regulation<br \/>\nwith the previous approval of the Government and such Regulation may<br \/>\nprovide the terms and conditions of the Services of the employees of the<br \/>\nCommission. In exercise of the power conferred upon the Commission under<br \/>\nSection 20 read with Section 7(3).of the Act. a set of Regulations were<br \/>\nframed by the Commission and the Government examined the same and conveyed<br \/>\nits approval as required in Sub-Section (1) of Section 20 by Government<br \/>\nletter dated 29.11.1986. For better appreciation Section 20 of the Act is<br \/>\nextracted hereinbelow in extenso:-\n<\/p>\n<p>POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS<\/p>\n<p>Section 20 &#8211; (1) The Commission may, with the previous approval of the<br \/>\nGovernment make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this<br \/>\nAct or the rules made thereunder for discharging its functions under this<br \/>\nAct,<\/p>\n<p>(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing<br \/>\npower, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following<br \/>\nmatters, namely :-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)   the terms and conditions of services of the employees of the<br \/>\nCommission under sub-section (3) of Section 7.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) The manner of selection of persons for appointment to the posts of<br \/>\nteachers under sub-section (1) of Section 10.\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)    The procedure for the conduct of business of the Commission under<br \/>\nSub-section (2) of Sections 10 and 13; or<\/p>\n<p>(d)    The income and expenditure, budget, accounts and audit and annual<br \/>\nreport of the Commission.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Regulation 9, as originally approved by the Government, stood amended and<br \/>\nthe amended Regulation 9(1) reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The persons drawn from other departments will carry their service and they<br \/>\nwill be treated as on other duty for a tenure period to be specified by the<br \/>\nCommission or until they are permanently absorbed in the Commission<br \/>\nwhichever is earlier.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Regulation 9(2)-The services of those staff members working in the<br \/>\nCommission on deputation basis and opted for their absorption in the<br \/>\nCommission, shall be appointed regularly as the staff in the Commission,<br \/>\ncadre to which they belong as per the orders of Government approving their<br \/>\nappointments batch by batch and to determine the seniority accordingly. For<br \/>\nthis purpose the Commission may review the promotions already affected.&#8221; It<br \/>\nmay be stated here that the original Regulation 9 was re-numbered as<br \/>\nRegulation 9(1) and Regulation 9(2) was inserted by amendment. Since the<br \/>\nCommission was being manned by the employees on deputation from the State<br \/>\nGovernment, the Commission asked for exercise of option by those employees<br \/>\nwho were desirous to be absorbed permanently in the Commission. The private<br \/>\nrespondents are those employees who are on deputation with the Commission<br \/>\nfrom the State Government arid they approached the Administrative Tribunal<br \/>\nchallenging the validity of Regulation 9(2) and the Tribunal by the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment has held the said provision to be ultra virus and hence<br \/>\nthese appeals. While granting leave this Court indicated that the Special<br \/>\nLeave is granted in so far as the validity of Regulation 9(2) is concerned.<br \/>\nIn this view of the matter the only question which arises for consideration<br \/>\nis whether the aforesaid provision of Regulation 9(2) can be said to be<br \/>\ninvalid?\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr: Ram Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that<br \/>\nthe employer has a right to determine the service conditions of the<br \/>\nemployees including the principle on which the seniority of the employees<br \/>\ncan be governed and in exercise of that power the employer, namely. Service<br \/>\nCommission, having framed the Regulation and having indicated that the<br \/>\npersons who are continuing on deputation can be absorbed in the Commission<br \/>\nbatch by batch as per the orders of the Government and their seniority<br \/>\nnaturally will be determined in accordance with their absorption and the<br \/>\nsaid principle does not violate any of the constitutional provision. Mr.<br \/>\nRam Kumar, learned counsel, therefore, contended that the Tribunal<br \/>\ncommitted an error in striking down Regulation 9(2), the learned counsel<br \/>\nfurther contended that Regulation 9(1) has no connection with Regulation<br \/>\n9(2) in as much as Regulation 9(1) deals with a situation not connected<br \/>\nwith the determination of seniority of the employees and, therefore,<br \/>\nRegulation 9(2) cannot be said to be violative of Regulation 9(1} and the<br \/>\nTribunal was thus in error in coming to the said conclusion. In support of<br \/>\nhis submission the learned counsel relied upon the decisions of this Court<br \/>\nin Chief Engineer and Secretary, Engineering Department for and on behalf<br \/>\nof Chandigarh etc. v. K.S. Brar &amp; Anr. Etc., [1988] Suppl Supreme Court<br \/>\nCases, 756 and <a href=\"\/doc\/639457\/\">M. Hara Bhupal v. Union of India &amp; Ors.,<\/a> [1997] 3 Supreme<br \/>\nCourt Cases 561.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent on the<br \/>\nother hand contended, that when persons from different sources are drafted<br \/>\nto serve in a new service, their pre-existing length of service in the<br \/>\nparent department should be respected and preserved by taking the same into<br \/>\naccount in determining their ranking in the new service cadre and this has<br \/>\nbeen done under Regulation 9(1) that benefit cannot be taken away for<br \/>\ndetermination of the inter se seniority as per Regulation 9(2) and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the tribunal was justified in striking down Regulation 9(2), In<br \/>\nsupport of his contention the learned cuunsel relied upon the decisions of<br \/>\nthis Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1894922\/\">Wing Commander J. Kumar v. Union of India,<\/a> (1982) 2 Supreme<br \/>\nCourt Cases 116 and <a href=\"\/doc\/212274\/\">K Madhavan &amp; Anr. Etc. v. Union of India &amp; Ors.<\/a> etc.,<br \/>\n[1987] 4 Supreme Court Cases, 566.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mrs. Amareswari, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Andhra<br \/>\nPradesh on the other hand submitted, that Regulations 9(1) and 9(2) have to<br \/>\nbe harmoniously read, the learned counsel further contended that though<br \/>\nthere has been little clumsiness in the drafting of Regulation 9(2) but the<br \/>\nintention is clear that the deputationists on being finally absorbed in the<br \/>\nCommission would get their seniority determined in the new cadre under the<br \/>\nCommission by taking into account the past services rendered under the<br \/>\nGovernment and, therefore, the provisions of Regulation 9(2) can be read<br \/>\ndown to the aforesaid effect and should not be struck down.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the rival submissions at the Bar the only question that arises<br \/>\nfor consideration is whether the provisions of Regulation 9(2) shall be<br \/>\nupheld by reading down the same or the language used in the said provision<br \/>\nis not susceptible to be read down and should be struck down by the<br \/>\nTribunal ? It is a cardinal principle of construction that the Statute and<br \/>\nthe Rule or the Regulation must be held to be constitutionally valid unless<br \/>\nand until it is established they violate any specific prevision of the<br \/>\nConstitution. Further it is the duty of the Court to harmoniously construe<br \/>\ndifferent provisions of any Act or Rule or Regulation, if possible, and to<br \/>\nsustain the same lather than striking down the: provisions out right. In<br \/>\nother words the Court has to make an attempt to see if the different<br \/>\nprovisions of the Regulation can survive and in making that attempt it is<br \/>\nopen for the Court to read down a particular provision to clarify any<br \/>\nambiguity so that the provision can be sustained but not to relegislate a<br \/>\nprovision, This being the parameters under which a Court is required to<br \/>\nscrutinise the provisions of any Act by Regulation when the same is<br \/>\nchallenged, we would now examine the Validity of Regulation 9(2),<br \/>\nAdmittedly when the Commission started functioning after being constituted<br \/>\nby the Government in exercise of powers under the Act the employees came on<br \/>\ndeputation from the State Government to man the job in the Commission. When<br \/>\nthe Commission finally takes a decision to permanently absorb these<br \/>\ndeputationists after obtaining their option the question of their inter se<br \/>\nseniority in the Commission crops up and Regulation 9(2) deals with the<br \/>\nsaid situation. In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/480687\/\">R.S. Makashi &amp; Ors. v. I.M. Menon and Ors.,<\/a><br \/>\n[1982] 1 Supreme Court Cases 379, this Court had indicated that it is a<br \/>\njust and wholesome principle commonly applied to persons coming from<br \/>\ndifferent sources and drafted to serve a new service to count their pre-<br \/>\nexisting length of service for determining their ranking in the new service<br \/>\ncadre. The said principle was reiterated by this Court in K. Madhavan&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase (supra), A three Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of<br \/>\nWing Commander J. Kumar (supra) also reiterated the aforesaid well known<br \/>\nprinciple in the service jurisprudence, and in the case in hand this<br \/>\nprinciple has been engrafted in Regulation 9(1), The question that arises<br \/>\nfor consideration is whether the benefits conferred upon a deputationist<br \/>\nunder Regulation 9(1) has been taken away by Regulation 9(2)? the Tribunal<br \/>\nhas come to the aforesaid conclusion and accordingly has struck down. If a<br \/>\nliteral meaning is given to the language used in Regulation 9(2), it may<br \/>\nappear that the benefits conferred under Regulation 9(1) is given a go bye<br \/>\nand the past services rendered by the deputationists in their parent cadre<br \/>\nis not being taken into account while determining their inter se seniority<br \/>\nin the new cadre under the Commission. But as has been contended by Mrs.<br \/>\nAmareswari, learned senior counsel appearing for the State Government who<br \/>\nis the authority for approval of the Regulation that the phraseology used<br \/>\nin Regulation 9(2) is no doubt little cumbersome but it conveys the meaning<br \/>\nthat the total length of service of these deputationists should be taken<br \/>\ninto account for determining the inter se seniority in the new service<br \/>\nunder the Commission and the past service is not being wiped off. We find<br \/>\nconsiderable force in this argument and reading down the provision of<br \/>\nRegulation 9(2) we hold that while determining the inter se seniority of<br \/>\nthe deputationists in the new cadre under the Commission after they are<br \/>\nfinally absorbed, their past services rendered in the Government have to be<br \/>\ntaken into account. In other words the total length of service of each of<br \/>\nthe employees would be the determinative factor for reckoning their<br \/>\nseniority in the new services under the Commission. Mr. Ram Kumar, Jearned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the appellant vehemently urged that length of service<br \/>\nunder the Commission should be the criteria For determining the inter se<br \/>\nseniority but we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the<br \/>\naforesaid submission of the learned counsel. It is not known that when the<br \/>\npersons were brought over to the Commission from the Government on<br \/>\ndeputation whether their option had been asked for or not? Further such a<br \/>\nprinciple if accepted then the inter se seniority would be dependent upon<br \/>\nthe whim of the Government, and we see no rationale behind the aforesaid<br \/>\nprinciple. The two decisions on which Mr. Ram Kumar, learned counsel placed<br \/>\nreliance in support of his contention infact do not lay down the aforesaid<br \/>\nproposition. We have, therefore, no hesitation to reject the submission of<br \/>\nMr. Ram Kumar.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the aforesaid premises we dispose of these appeals by reading down the<br \/>\nprovisions of Regulation 9(2) in the manner as indicated earlier rather<br \/>\nthan Striking down the same and hold that while determining the inter se<br \/>\nseniority of the deputationists in the services of the Commission their<br \/>\nentire length of continuous service shall be the basis. These appeals are<br \/>\ndisposed of accordingly. But in the circumstances there will be no order as<br \/>\nto costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India K Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah And Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1998 Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, M. Srinivasan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1402-03 of 1995 PETITIONER: K ANJAIAH ETC. RESPONDENT: K. CHANDRAIAH AND ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/03\/1998 BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK &amp; M. SRINIVASAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 1998 (2) SCR 35 [&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-46946","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah And Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1998 - 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\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah And Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-30T10:53:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah And Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-30T10:53:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2207,\"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\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998\",\"name\":\"K Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah And Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-30T10:53:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah And Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"K Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah And Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1998 - 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\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah And Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-30T10:53:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah And Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1998","datePublished":"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-30T10:53:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998"},"wordCount":2207,"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\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998","name":"K Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah And Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-30T10:53:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-anjaiah-etc-vs-k-chandraiah-and-ors-etc-on-3-march-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah And Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/46946","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=46946"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46946\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46946"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46946"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46946"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}