{"id":62079,"date":"2003-03-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003"},"modified":"2015-01-30T12:03:55","modified_gmt":"2015-01-30T06:33:55","slug":"gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"Gunanidhi Martha And Ors vs Govt. Of Orissa And Ors on 27 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gunanidhi Martha And Ors vs Govt. Of Orissa And Ors on 27 March, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  860 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nGUNANIDHI MARTHA AND ORS.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGOVT. OF ORISSA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/03\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nSHIVARAJ V. PATIL &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2003(3) SCR 60<\/p>\n<p>The following Order of the Court was delivered:\n<\/p>\n<p>The order dated 18th January, 1996 passed by the Orissa Administrative<\/p>\n<p>Tribunal is under challenge in these appeals. The controversy relates to<br \/>\nselection of Police Constables for training for further promotion to the<br \/>\nrank of Lance Naik. Admittedly in the Police Manual, there is no provision<br \/>\nfor regulating the selection of Police Constables for training for<br \/>\npromotion to the rank of Lance Naik; however; the same is regulated by the<br \/>\nPolice Order No. 266 of 1981 in which criteria for selection of candidates<br \/>\nand procedure have been prescirbed. According to the Police Order, a<br \/>\nConstable can be promoted to the rank of Lance Naik provided (1) he has put<br \/>\nin three years&#8217; service after recruits training; (ii) is below 35 years of<br \/>\nage; (iii) has passed the district drill test; and<\/p>\n<p>(iv) has a good record of service. The Selection Board constituted as per<br \/>\nthe aforesaid Police Order would conduct the test. The subject on which the<br \/>\ntest is to be conducted as specified in the said Order are as stated<br \/>\nbelow:-\n<\/p>\n<p>___________________________________________________________________________<br \/>\n_<br \/>\n&#8220;Out-Door&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<pre>Full Mark              Pass Mark\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1.           Squad Drill                               20<\/span>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">10<\/span>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">2.           Arms Drill                                20<\/span>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">10<\/span>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">3.           Weapon training                       30<\/span>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">15<\/span>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">4.           Field Craft                                20<\/span>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">10<\/span>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">5.           P.T.                                          20<\/span>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">10<\/span>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">6.           Turn out                                   10<\/span>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">5<\/span>\nIn Door\nA Simple Essay or a report or a letter to be written in Oriya           40\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">20<\/span>\n\nMISCELLANEOUS\n1,           Service records (the overall record should be examined and\nrewards and punishments)        40\n<\/pre>\n<p>2.           Sports and other extra curricular activities (give reasons)<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">20<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<p>3.          Courses passed (i.e. P.T. Course, W.T. Course, VAC Course)<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">20<\/span><br \/>\nGrand Total<br \/>\n240 marks<br \/>\n___________________________________________________________________________<br \/>\n______________<\/p>\n<p>The pass marks on out-door and indoor subjects would be 50% i.e. 80 marks.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The said order spells out that the size of the Select List should be one<br \/>\nand half times the number of anticipated vacancies. Since the number of<br \/>\nexpected vacancies in the post of Lance Naik was 24, a Select List of 36<br \/>\ncandidates was to be prepared. 100 eligible Constables were called for<br \/>\npromotional test, in the test, 57 candidates were selected for promotional<br \/>\npost on the basis of the 50% aggregate marks secured by them irrespective<br \/>\nof the marks secured in the individual items of both out-door and indoor<br \/>\ntests and marks awarded in the miscellaneous test. A list of 36 candidates<br \/>\nwas prepared for training to the promotional post on the basis of the<br \/>\nhighest aggregate marks secured by them. The validity of the Select List of<br \/>\n36 candidates prepared for the training for further promotion to the post<br \/>\nof Lance Naik was questioned before the Tribunal on the ground that the<br \/>\nselect List should have been prepared on the basis of the length of<br \/>\nseniority in the rank of Constable. An application was filed before the<br \/>\nTribunal for intervention which was allowed and the intervenors were<br \/>\narrayed as respondents 4 to 13 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after<br \/>\nconsidering rival contentions and respective submissions passed the order<br \/>\ndirecting as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Hence without quashing the entire selection, we would direct that first a<br \/>\nlist of candidates who had secured the minimum of 50% in each of the indoor<br \/>\nand outdoor subjects should be prepared (List-I). Their marks in indoor and<br \/>\noutdoor subjects should then be totalled up and to the aggregate marks of<br \/>\neach of the candidates, the marks secured by him in miscellaneous subjects<br \/>\nshould be added. A list of 36 candidates who have secured the highest marks<br \/>\narrived at in this matter should be prepared (List-II). Then this List-II<br \/>\nshould be redrawn in order of seniority (List-III). Candidates should be<br \/>\ndeputed for traning according to their placement in this list (List-III).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us in these appeals. Shri<br \/>\nP.H. Parekh, the learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 860<br \/>\nof 1998 urged that the Tribunal was not right in ignoring the length of<br \/>\nservice of the candidates as Constables; length of service of each<br \/>\nqualified candidate should have been taken into consideration irrespective<br \/>\nof marks secured in the individual subject. According to him, the Police<br \/>\nOrder did not prescribe that the candidates should secure 50% marks in each<br \/>\nindividual subject irrespective of aggregate marks secured by them;<br \/>\nsecuring 50% aggregate marks in but-indoor tests was enough; there was no<br \/>\nneed to insist upon securing 50% marks in each individual item under out-<br \/>\ndoor and indoor tests. He added that the Tribunal committed an error in<br \/>\ndirecting to revise the Select List on the basis of the 50% marks secured<br \/>\nin the individual subjects when the Select List had been prepared by the<br \/>\nSelection Board without any mala fide or bias. He further submitted that a<br \/>\nSelect List could be prepared on the basis of 50% aggregate marks secured<br \/>\nby the candidates in out-door and indoor tests and thereafter inter-se<br \/>\nseniority could be arranged in Select List which would be fair, proper and<br \/>\nreasonable.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri Janaranan Das, the learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 861 of 1998 while supporting the argument of Shri Parekh, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 850 of 1998, so far it<br \/>\nrelated to securing 50% marks in aggregate in out-door and indoor tests<br \/>\nwithout insisting upon securing of 50% marks in each individual subject in<br \/>\nout-door and indoor tests, submitted that once the candidates are selected<br \/>\non the basis of marks secured by them irrespective of the aggregate marks<br \/>\nsecured, the candidate should be selected for training strictly in<br \/>\naccordance with their seniority. Both the learned counsel submitted that<br \/>\nthe pass marks of outdoor and indoor tests would be 50% i.e. so marks as<br \/>\ncan be seen from the Police Order itself; insisting upon securing minimum<br \/>\npass marks in each item in out-door and indoor tests was not at all<br \/>\nmandatory.\n<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent 1 to 3 found<br \/>\nthemselves in difficulty in taking a clear stand having regard to the<br \/>\ncounter filed before the Tribunal and having not filed any appeal<br \/>\nchallenging the order of the Tribunal. The counsel for the private<br \/>\nrespondents reiterated their stand that was taken before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>We have carefully considered the respective contentions urged on behalf of<br \/>\nthe parties. It is clear from the Police Order extracted above that in out-<br \/>\ndoor and indoor tests, full marks and pass marks are prescribed as against<br \/>\neach item. Minimum pass marks under each item is 50% of the full marks.\n<\/p>\n<p>No doubt, at the end of the prescription marks, it is stated that the pass<br \/>\nmarks in out-door and indoor subjects would be 50% i.e. 80 marks. That is<br \/>\ncorrect, but that does not dispense with securing of pass marks in each<br \/>\nitem in outdoor and indoor tests. If the contention of the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the appellants is to be accepted that there is no need to secure<br \/>\nminimum pass marks in each individual subject in out-door and indoor tests<br \/>\nand that securing total 80 marks in out-door and indoor tests is enough,<br \/>\nprescribing of minimum pass marks in each individual subject becomes<br \/>\nmeaningless and purposeless. Further, having regard to individual test<br \/>\nprescribed in out-door and indoor tests, it will be clear that there is<br \/>\nsome purpose in prescribing minimum pass marks. For instance, item no. 3 in<br \/>\nout-door test i.e. weapon training, 15 marks are required for passing out<br \/>\nof 30 marks. Suppose a Constable secures zero marks or one or two marks out<br \/>\nof 30, in the very nature of things, a Constable cannot be promoted to the<br \/>\npost of Lance Naik without there being proper weapon training. When the<br \/>\ncandidates have appeared in the tests knowing fully well that they had to<br \/>\nsecure minimum pass marks in each individual subject, cannot be permitted<br \/>\nto say that they need not secure pass marks and yet they should be<br \/>\nconsidered for promotion. It is to be stated here itself that the<br \/>\nprescription of pass marks in the Police Order was not at all challenged.<br \/>\nIt is clear from the said Police Order itself (Expt. A) that a list of<br \/>\ncandidates who passed the test should be prepared as per their original<br \/>\nseniority and such select list should not be more than one and half times<br \/>\nof the total probable vacancies.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus, it is clear that a list of selected candidates who passed the tests<br \/>\nsecuring minimum pass marks in out-door and indoor tests adding marks in<br \/>\nmiscellaneous test must be prepared and out of them, 36 candidates should<br \/>\nbe chosen on the basis of their original seniority irrespective of the<br \/>\ntotal marks secured by them in aggregate of out-door, indoor and<br \/>\nmiscellaneous tests. This would be consistent with the Police Order afore-<br \/>\nmentioned. If we accept the argument of the learned counsel that the Select<br \/>\nList of 36 candidates should be prepared on the basis of the aggregate<br \/>\nmarks secured by the candidates and thereafter the inter-se seniority<br \/>\nshould be fixed, it would lead to anomalous situation of ignoring seniority<br \/>\nof the candidates. If such criteria is followed, some of the senior<br \/>\ncandidates though having passed the test, on account of their securing<br \/>\nlesser marks in aggregate may be deprived of their promotion.\n<\/p>\n<p>Under these circumstances, in our view, the impugned order needs to be<br \/>\nmodified to the effect that the authority shall re-draw i.e. prepare a<br \/>\nfresh select list of 36 candidates who have secured minimum pass marks in<br \/>\neach individual subject in out-door and indoor tests as indicated in the<br \/>\nPolice Order subject to satisfaction of all other requirement including<br \/>\nmarks obtained in the miscellaneous test and out of that list, candidates<br \/>\nare to be sent for training on the basis of their original seniority<br \/>\nirrespective of the total marks secured in aggregate by the candidates for<br \/>\nthe purpose of promotion to the rank of Lance Naik. The authority shall now<br \/>\ndraw a list accordingly and proceed further in accordance with law. The<br \/>\nappeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Gunanidhi Martha And Ors vs Govt. Of Orissa And Ors on 27 March, 2003 Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 860 of 1998 PETITIONER: GUNANIDHI MARTHA AND ORS. RESPONDENT: GOVT. OF ORISSA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/03\/2003 BENCH: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT [&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-62079","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>Gunanidhi Martha And Ors vs Govt. Of Orissa And Ors on 27 March, 2003 - 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\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gunanidhi Martha And Ors vs Govt. Of Orissa And Ors on 27 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-30T06:33:55+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gunanidhi Martha And Ors vs Govt. Of Orissa And Ors on 27 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-30T06:33:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1598,\"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\\\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003\",\"name\":\"Gunanidhi Martha And Ors vs Govt. Of Orissa And Ors on 27 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-30T06:33:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gunanidhi Martha And Ors vs Govt. Of Orissa And Ors on 27 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Gunanidhi Martha And Ors vs Govt. Of Orissa And Ors on 27 March, 2003 - 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\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gunanidhi Martha And Ors vs Govt. Of Orissa And Ors on 27 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-30T06:33:55+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gunanidhi Martha And Ors vs Govt. Of Orissa And Ors on 27 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-30T06:33:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003"},"wordCount":1598,"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\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003","name":"Gunanidhi Martha And Ors vs Govt. Of Orissa And Ors on 27 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-30T06:33:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gunanidhi-martha-and-ors-vs-govt-of-orissa-and-ors-on-27-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gunanidhi Martha And Ors vs Govt. Of Orissa And Ors on 27 March, 2003"}]},{"@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\/62079","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=62079"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62079\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62079"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}