{"id":10439,"date":"2006-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006"},"modified":"2019-02-25T01:10:26","modified_gmt":"2019-02-24T19:40:26","slug":"dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"Dr.S. Arulmani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 10 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Dr.S. Arulmani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 10 March, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 10\/03\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN          \n\nW.P. No.17630 of 2005  \nand \nW.P.M.P.Nos.19894 & 19151\/2005    \nand \nW.V.M.P.Nos.1189 and 2080\/2005    \n\n\nDr.S. Arulmani .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.  Government of Tamil Nadu rep.,\nby its Secretary and Commissioner \nDepartment of Higher Education \n     Fort St. George, Chennai.\n\n 2.  The Director of Collegiate Education\n     College Road, Chennai.\n\n 3.  The Registrar\nManonmaniam Sundaranar University   \n     Tirunelveli.\n\n 4.  Regional Director of Collegiate\nEducation, Tirunelveli Region\n     Tirunelveli.\n\n 5.  The Secretary\n    Kamaraj College, Toothukudi.\n\n 6.  Dr. J. Mohan Raj                   ...  Respondents\n\n        Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of  the  Constitution  of  India\npraying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the\nrecords  of  the  5th respondent pertaining to Ref:31\/2005 dated 21.4.2005 and\nquash the same and direct the 5th respondent  to  promote  the  petitioner  as\nPrincipal.\n\n!For petitioner ::      Mr.B.Ravi\n                        for Mrs.  Hema Sampath\n\n^For Respondents \n1,2, & 4 ::     Mrs.G.  Kavitha\n                Government Advocate\n\nFor 3rd respondent::  Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran \n\nFor 5th respondent::  Mr.Vijay Narayan\n                Senior counsel for Mr.  Rathina Ashokan\n\nFor 6th respondent ::  Mr.K.Venkaeswaran \n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
        The  petitioner  is  working  as  Reader and Head of the Department of
\nTamil in Kamaraj College, Thoothukudi, which is aided non minority educational
\ninstitution( hereinafter called The College).As the post of  Principal(Gr.I)
\nbecame  vacant  on  1.06.2005,  the  college issued a circular dated 21.3.2005
\ninviting applications from the eligible Selection Grade Lecturers\/Readers with
\nPh.D.  and the said circular reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
        Ref:31\/2005 Circular 21.3.2005
\nSub:  Appointment as Principal-Applications called
\nFor-regarding.\n<\/p>\n
Ref:  G.O.Ms.No.111( Hr.Edn.Dept)dated 24.3.1999.\n<\/p>\n
        Applications are invited from the eligible
\nSelection Grade Lecturers\/Readers of our
\nCollege with Ph.D., for appointment as
\nPrincipal in our college
\nApplications in duplicate along with Bio-data
\nand Xerox copies of certificates\/testimonials
\nmust be addressed to the Secretary and routed
\nthrough the Principal, Kamaraj College.  The
\n        applicants are also requested to submit a
\nbrief note on their visions on the future
\ndevelopments of Kamaraj college for the next
\n10 years period.\n<\/p>\n
Eligibility for Principal (Gr.I)
\ni.A masters degree with atleast 55% of marks
\nor its equivalent Grade B in the seven point scale.\n<\/p>\n
ii.Ph.D., or equivalent qualification,
\niii.A minimum total experience of 15 years of
\nTeaching\/Research in Universities\/Colleges
\nand other institutions of Higher Education.\n<\/p>\n
The last date for receiving applications in
\nOur Principals office is 31.3.2005.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Nine candidates applied for the said post and the College prepared
\na list of seniority in which the petitioner was shown as the senior most.  The
\n6th respondent by name Dr.J.  Mohanraj was shown as 5th in the seniority.  The
\ncollege committee which interviewed the candidates consisted of the  following
\nmembers:\n<\/p>\n
        1.  Thiru V.  Ilango  President\n<\/p>\n
2.  Dr.  T.Rajasekaran  Vice-President\n<\/p>\n
3.  Thiru V.  Kanagavel  Secretary\n<\/p>\n
4.  Thiru M.  Rajamani  Joint Secretary\n<\/p>\n
5.  Prof.M.Ganesan  Principal\n<\/p>\n
6.  Prof.S.  Murugaraj  University
\nrepresentative\n<\/p>\n
7.  Prof.P.Chelliah  staff representative\n<\/p>\n
8.  Prof.S.  Stephen
\nDharmaraj  Staff representative\n<\/p>\n
9.  Thiru S.  Arumuga-\n<\/p>\n
perumal  Staff representative<\/p>\n
        3.  In its meeting held on 21.4.2005 the college committee resolved to
\nappoint Dr.J.Mohanraj, the 6th respondent herein as Principal with effect from
\n1.6.2005.   However,  the  University representative had made dissent note for
\nthe appointment.  Pursuant to the resolution of the college committee, the 6th
\nrespondent was issued with order of appointment on the same day.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  In challenging the above proceedings, Mr.R.Ravi,  learned  counsel
\nappearing for the petitioner has submitted the following:\n<\/p>\n
1)In  exercise  of  power  under  Section  12  and 26 of the University Grants
\nCommission  Act,  1956,regulations   were   framed   prescribing   educational
\nqualifications for the post of Principals in Colleges as well the constitution
\nof Committee  to select the candidate for that post.  The said regulation have
\nstatutory force under Section 28 of the Act and therefore, they are applicable
\nand bin ding on the College.  On the basis of the recommendations of the  UGC,
\nthe  Government  of  Tamil Nadu had issued G.O.Ms.No.111 Higher Education (H1)
\nDepartment dated 24.3.19 99 prescribing the educational qualifications for the
\npost of Principal and the constitution of the committee.  The above Government
\norder had been adopted by the  University  and  consequently  binding  on  the
\ncollege.   This  would be evident from the circular itself wherein a reference
\nhas been made to the said Government Order and the  college  has  to  strictly
\nfollow  the  directions  contained therein not only regarding qualification of
\nthe candidates but also in constituting the selection committee in  accordance
\nwith the  said Government Order.  As the constitution of the committee, namely
\n“The College Committee” is not in accordance with the  Government  Order,  the
\nentire  selection process is vitiated and consequently, the appointment of the
\n6th respondent is illegal.\n<\/p>\n
2)      In any event,the selection and appointment of the  6th  respondent  is
\nunsustainable  as  there  is  no  transparency  in  the  process of selection.
\nInasmuch as the petitioner  was  shown  as  the  senior  most  person  in  the
\nseniority  list,  no  reason  is  given  in  the  resolution  to  overlook the
\npetitioner  and  consequently,  prefer  and  select  the  6th  respondent   as
\nPrincipal.   The  resolution of the college committee is silent on this aspect
\nand in the absence  of  disclosure  of  reasons,  the  selection  of  the  6th
\nrespondent is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   In  reply  to  the  above  submissions, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned
\nsenior counsel appearing for the 5th  respondent  college  had  submitted  the
\nfollowing:\n<\/p>\n
        a.   The  recommendations of the UGC in respect of the constitution of
\nthe Committee to select the candidate  for  that  post  of  Principal  is  not
\nbinding on  the  college  as they are only recommendatory in nature.  Further,
\nthe learned senior counsel submitted that those recommendations were made only
\nfor the purpose of revision of pay scales of college and  University  teachers
\nand other  staffs  of the college and Universities.  In the circumstances, the
\nGovernment Order dated relating to the constitution of the  committee  is  not
\napplicable to  the  college.    The  Government of Tamil Nadu considered those
\nrecommendations and decided to implement the revised scales of pay in exercise
\nof power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.  Inasmuch as the said
\norder is only an executive order, it cannot  have  overriding  effect  on  the
\nprovisions  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Private  Colleges  (Regulation)  Act  19  76
\n(hereinafter referred to as The College Act and the Mamonmaniyam  Sundaranar
\nUniversity Act  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  The University Act).  Section
\n14(b) of the said Act empowers the college committee constituted in accordance
\nwith Section 11 of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Rules to  appoint  teachers
\nand other  staffs  in  the  college.   As per Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private
\nColleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, educational agency of every college,  other
\nthan  the  minority  college  shall  constitute  a  college  committee and the
\ncommittee constituted in accordance with the  said  Rule,  has  the  power  to
\nselect the candidates.  The college committee is empowered and well within the
\npower  to select and appoint a candidate of it choice, however, subject to the
\neducational qualifications and other eligibility norms prescribed by the  UGC.
\nThe  learned  senior  counsel  would  therefore  submit that 6th respondent is
\neligible and fully qualified and his selection and appointment by the  college
\ncommittee  constituted  in accordance with the provisions of the  the College
\nAct and Rules made thereunder is valid and in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
        b) He would also submit that  Section  15  of  the  University  Act,
\nempowers the University to make regulations, statutes or ordinances specifying
\nthe  qualifications required for the appointment of teachers and other persons
\nemployed in private colleges.  Chapter XVII of the statute of  the  University
\nprescribes  the  educational  qualification  as  well  the constitution of the
\ncommittee and the selection of a candidate made by such committee  in  respect
\nof  the candidate who has possessed the qualification prescribed thereunder is
\nvalid.\n<\/p>\n
c) He would further submit that the college committee, having  satisfied  with
\nthe  qualification  and merit and ability and being an expert body in academic
\nfield, resolved to select the 6th respondent and such decision cannot  be  the
\nsubject matter of review by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
d)  He  would  further  submit  that  in  any  case, the selection of the 6 th
\nrespondent requires approval from the University.  So far the  University  has
\nnot  considered  the  appointment  of  the  6th  respondent  for  approval and
\ntherefore, the Writ Petition is premature and consequently, it is liable to be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   I  have  given  my  careful  considerations  to  the   respective
\nsubmissions.  The following question arises for consideration:\n<\/p>\n
        1) Whether G.O.Ms.No.111 Higher Education
\n        (H1) dated 24.3.1999 have statutory backing
\nof “the Central enactment made in exercise
\nof the power under Entry 66 of Union List
\n        of VII Schedule and is binding on the college?<\/p>\n
        (2) Whether the power of the college committee
\n        to select a candidate for the post
\n        of Principal    could be traced to the
\nthe provisions of the Tamil Nadu
\nPrivate Colleges(Regulation) Act and
\nthe Rules made thereunder as well
\nas the provisions of the Manonmaniam
\nSundaranar University Act made in exercise
\nof power under Entry 25 of the concurrent
\nlist of the VIIth schedule?\n<\/p>\n
3) Whether selection of 6th respondent is
\nliable to be set aside on the ground that
\nthere was no transparency in selection
\nprocess?\n<\/p>\n
        4) Whether Writ Petition is premature?\n<\/p>\n
        7.  Points  1  and  2:    Entry  66  of Union List Schedule VII of the
\nConstitution of India read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Coordination and determination of standards
\nin institutions for higher education or
\nresearch and scientific and technical
\ninstitutions:\n<\/p>\n
        8.  The Parliament is vested with exclusive authority to enact law  in
\nregard  to  co-ordination  and determination of standards in institutions for
\nhigher education  or  research  and  scientific  and  technical  institutions.
\nConsidering   the   growth  of  number  of  Universities,  it  was  felt  that
\nconstitution of commission was necessitated  not  only  for  determination  of
\nstandards  in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and
\ntechnical institutions  but  also  to  allocate  and  disburse  grants.    The
\nUniversity  Grants  Commission  Act is essentially intended to make provisions
\nfor the Coordination and determination of Standards in Universities.    It  is
\nIntra vires  and  is  covered under Entry 66 of List I of VIIth Schedule.  The
\nscope and power of the University Grants Commission came up for  consideration
\nbefore  the  Apex  Court  in  UNIVERSITY  GRANTS  COMMISSION  ETC., VS SADHANA
\nCHAUDHARY AND OTHERS ETC., ( JT 1996(8) SC 234) and in para 10 it is  observed
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “The requirement regarding clearing
\nthe eligibility test for appointment
\non the post of Lecturer as prescribed
\nby the UGC under the 1991 Regulations
\ncame up for consideration before this
\nCourt in University of Delhi v.Raj
\nSingh and others JT 1994(6)SC 1.After
\ntaking note of the report of the National
\nCommission on Teachers II, the Mehrotra
\nCommittee report and the recommendations
\nof the vice-Chancellors’ conference held
\nin 1989, the Court has observed:-\n<\/p>\n
        “It is very important to note that a
\n        duty is cast upon the Commission(the UGC)
\nto take ‘all such steps as it may think
\nfit for the determination and maintenance
\nof standards of teaching’.  These are
\nvery wide ranging powers.  Such powers,
\nin our view, would comprehend the power
\nto require whose who possess the educa-\n<\/p>\n
tional qualifications required for hold-\n<\/p>\n
ing the post of lecturer in Universities
\nand colleges to appear for a written
\ntest, the passing of which would establish
\nthat they possess the minimal proficiency
\nfor holding such post.  The need for such
\ntest is demonstrated by the reports of
\nthe commissions and committees of edu-\n<\/p>\n
cationists referred to above which take
\n        note of the disparities in the standards
\nof education in the various Universities
\nin the country.  It is patent that the
\nholder of a postgraduate degree from one
\nUniversity is not necessarily of the same
\nstandard as the holder of the same
\n        postgraduate degree from another University
\nThat is the rationale of the test
\nprescribed by the said Regulations”\n<\/p>\n
        9.   Going  through  the  scheme  of  the Act, it is apparent that the
\ncommission will have the power to recommend to  any  University  the  measures
\nnecessary for reform and improvement of University education and to advise the
\nUniversity concern upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing
\nsuch recommendation.  It will act as an expert body also to advise the Central
\nGovernment   on  problems  connected  with  co-ordination  of  facilities  and
\nmaintenance of standards in Universities.  The  functions  of  the  commission
\nestablished  under Section 4 of the Act are enumerated under Section 12 of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  In terms of Section 12(d) the Commission could recommend  to  any
\nUniversity  the measures necessary for the improvement of University Education
\nand advise the University upon the action to  be  taken  for  the  purpose  of
\nimplementing such  recommendation.    Insofar  as the standard of teaching and
\nexaminations in the University recognized by the Commission,  such  University
\nmay  be  required by the Commission to furnish it with such information as may
\nbe needed relating to financial position of the University or the  studies  in
\nthe  various branches of learning undertaken in that University, together with
\nall the rules and regulations  relating  to  the  standards  of  teaching  and
\nexamination in that University in respect of each of such branches of learning
\nin terms of Section 12(i) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   The  Commission  is  also  empowered  to  make regulations under
\nSection 26 which are inconsistent with the Act as well the  rules  made  under
\nSection 25.    Section 26(1)(e) relates to the power of the commission to make
\nregulations specifying  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  service  of  the
\nteachers,  defining  the  qualifications that should ordinarily be required of
\nany person to be appointed to the teaching  staff  of  the  University  having
\nregard to branches of education in which he is expected to give instructions.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  In view of the fact that the University is recognized by UGC, the
\nregulations framed  by  UGC  is binding on the University.  The question as to
\nwhether the UGC Act has enacted only for  the  purpose  of  making  grants  to
\nvarious  institutions  governed  by  it  came  up for consideration before the
\nSupreme Court in the judgment reported  in  BHARATI  VIDYAPEETH  VS  STATE  OF
\nMAHARASHTRA (2004(11) SCC 755 and in para 24 of the judgment the Supreme Court
\nhas held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        Learned counsel appearing for the States
\n        very strenuously urged that the UGC Act
\nis only for the purpose of making grants
\nto various institutions governed by it
\nand it was not an authority which would
\ncreate a University and give a special
\n        status to it so as to keep it out of the
\ncontrol of the University or the State
\nwhere it is located.  This argument ignores
\nthe provisions of the enactment and
\nparticularly those to which we have
\nadverted to just now, for such insti-\n<\/p>\n
tutions are recognised or granted deemed
\nstatus for the maintenance of the standards
\nin the institutions and for coordinating
\nthe teaching in universities which is a
\nhigher purpose than merely giving grants
\nand with that object, the enactment is
\nmade.  We do not think it could be confined<\/p>\n
only to making of grants as has been
\ncontended by the respondents.  This arguments
\ntherefore, needs to be rejected”\n<\/p>\n
        13.  Though the said judgment arose in respect of deemed universities,
\nthe  law  laid  down  by  the  Supreme  Court  is more fully applicable to the
\nUniversity recognized by UGC and the colleges affiliated to such Universities.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   Insofar  as  the  prescription  of   the   minimum   educational
\nqualification,  the  UGC  vests  with the power under Section 26(1)(e) to make
\nregulations.  To this extent, there cannot be any dispute as  to  the  minimum
\neducational  qualification  and the eligibility fixed by the UGC to be equally
\nadopted and implemented by the University.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  In exercise of such power, the  University  Grants  Commission  (
\nMinimum  Qualifications  required  for  appointment  and career Advancement of
\nTeachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations,  2000
\n(hereinafter called  “The  Regulations” ) was enacted.  Clause 1.1.0 and 1.2.0
\nrelating to the educational qualifications for the post of Principal which are
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
1.1.0Principal (Professors Grade)\n<\/p>\n
1)A Masters Degree with atleast 55% of
\nMarks or it equivalent grade of B in the
\n7 point scale with latter grade O,A,B,C
\nD,E and F.\n<\/p>\n
2)Ph.D.  or equivalent qualification;\n<\/p>\n
3)Total experience of 15 years of teaching\/
\nResearch in Universities\/colleges and other
\nInstitutions of higher eduction.\n<\/p>\n
1.2.0Principal (Readers Grade)\n<\/p>\n
1)A Masters degree with atleast 55% of the
\nMarks or its equivalent grade of B in the
\n7 point scale with latter grades O,A,B,C,
\nD,E and F\n<\/p>\n
2)Ph.D.  or equivalent qualification;\n<\/p>\n
3)Total experience of 10 years of teaching\/
\nResearch in Universities\/Colleges and other
\nInstitutions of higher education.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  In the same regulations, the Constitution of selection  committee
\nfor the post of principal is also prescribed in 3.5.0.  which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
1)Chairperson of the Governing Board as
\nChairperson;\n<\/p>\n
2)One member of the Governing Board to be
\nNominated by the Chairperson\n<\/p>\n
3)Two Vice-Chancellors nominees, out of
\nWhom one should be an expert;\n<\/p>\n
4)Three  experts  consisting of the Principal of a college, a Professor and an
\naccomplished educationist not below the rank of a professor ( to be  nominated
\nby   the  Governing  Board)  out  of  a  panel  of  experts  approved  by  the
\nVice-Chancellor.\n<\/p>\n
        17.   The  Tamil  Nadu  Private  Colleges(Regulation)  Act  1976   and
\nMamonmaniyam  Sundaranar  University  Act,  1990  were  enacted  by  the State
\nGovernment in exercise of the power under Entry 25  of  Schedule  VII  of  the
\nConcurrent List.  In terms of Section 11 aided non-minority college shall form
\na Committee.    Section 14(1)(b) relates to the power of the college committee
\nto appoint teachers and other staffs.  Constitution of the  college  committee
\nis  prescribed  under  Rule  8  of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation)
\nRules, 1976.    The  petitioner  has  questioned  the  selection  of  the  6th
\nrespondent  for  the  post  of  Principal  on  the  ground  that the selection
\ncommittee namely, the college committee which interviewed  the  candidate  was
\nnot in  accordance  with  the  committee prescribed under UGC regulations.  In
\nthis context, it must be seen as to whether the UGC is empowered not  only  to
\nprescribe  the  educational  qualification for teachers but also prescribe the
\nconstitution of committee to interview the candidate.\n<\/p>\n
18.  It appears that the Government of India constituted Rasthogi Committee to
\nrecommend the revision of pay scales of College and  University  Teachers  and
\nother officers  of  Colleges  and  Universities.  Certain recommendations were
\nmade by the Committee and the same were accepted by UGC.   The  Government  of
\nIndia  also  accepted  the recommendations of the UGC and decided to implement
\nthe revision of pay scales.  The Government of India also  agreed  to  provide
\nfinancial  assistance  to  the  State Governments for implementing the revised
\nscales subject to certain conditions.  This is obvious from the first para  of
\nthe Government Order Ms.  No.111 dated 24.3.1999.\n<\/p>\n
        “The Rasthogi Committee appointed by the                Government  of
\nIndia recommended revision              of   Pay   scales   of   college   and
\nUniversity              Teachers and other Officers of Colleges         and
\nUniversities which was accepted by the          University  Grants Commission.\n<\/p>\n
The                             Government of India decided to accept the\nrecommendations of the University Grants                Commission         and\nimplement the revision of               Pay with effect from 1st January,1996.\nThe             Government of India have agreed to provide\nfinancial assistance to the State                               Governments\nfor implementing the revised            pay scales subject to the following\nconditions\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
        19.   On  a  careful  consideration, the Government of Tamil Nadu also
\ndecided to implement the revision of pay scale.  The  decision  of  the  State
\nGovernment in para 2 of the Order states as follows:
\nThe Government after careful consideration
\nof the scheme have decided to implement the
\nrevised scales of pay as recommended by the
\nGovernment of India with effect from 1st
\nJanuary,1996\n<\/p>\n
        20.   The  Government  infact ordered the coverage of the scheme as on
\n1st  January,1996  relating  to  Pay  Scales,  Dearness  Allowance  and  other
\nbenefits,  counting  of  past  service,  payment  of  arrears, recruitment and
\nqualification.  Insofar as the qualifications are  concerned,  the  Government
\ndirected that Direct recruitment to the post of Lecturers\/Principals shall be
\nin accordance  with  the UGC guidelines given in Annexure II.  It also ordered
\nthe conditions for the implementation relating to probation and  confirmation,
\nIncentives for   Ph.D.,\/M.    Phil,  career  advancement  scheme  and  age  of
\nsuperannuation.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  Insofar as the qualification  for  the  post  of  Principal,  the
\nGovernment   directed   the   same  educational  qualifications  as  well  the
\nconstitution  of  committee  for  selecting  the  candidate  prescribed  under
\nregulation 1.1.0 and 1.2.0 and 3.5.0.\n<\/p>\n
        22.   Coming  to  the Manonmaiam Sundaranar Act, Section 43 relates to
\nthe condition of service of officers, teachers and other persons  employed  in
\nthe  University,  particularly relating to appointment procedure for selection
\nand pay and allowances.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  Chapter XVIII of  the  Statute  of  the  University,  relates  to
\nservice conditions  of  the  establishment.  Statute 2 relates to the kinds of
\nappointment and the applicability of the Statutes.   It  refers  only  to  the
\nteachers and  other  persons employed in the University.  Statute 3 relates to
\nclassification of service.  Stature 4  relates  to  creation  of  non-teaching
\nposts, the mode of Recruitment, reservation, criteria for promotion, selection
\ncommittee, qualification, age etc.,\n<\/p>\n
        24.   Appendix  I  relates to method of recruitment and qualifications
\nprescribed for various teaching and  non-teaching  posts  in  the  University.
\nThough  qualification is prescribed for Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Registrar
\nand Controller of Examinations, no qualification is prescribed for the Post of
\nPrincipal.  Even for the post of Professors, the University has  adopted  only
\nUGC norms.\n<\/p>\n
        25.   Appendix  II  relates only to the qualification for non-teaching
\nposts.  A perusal of Section 43 read with Appendix I and II  shows  that  they
\nrelate  only to teaching and non-teaching staff employed in the University and
\nnot the colleges affiliated to the University.\n<\/p>\n
        26.   The  University  has  not  provided  any   minimum   educational
\nqualification  for  the  post  of  Principal  and also the constitution of the
\ncommittee apparently on the ground that  they  have  been  prescribed  by  the
\nregulations framed  by  UGC.    Hence,  reliance placed by the learned counsel
\nappearing for the respondent  on  the  provisions  of  Manonmaniam  Sundaranar
\nUniversity Act cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
        27.   Coming  to  the  provisions  of  Tamil  Nadu  Private  Colleges(
\nRegulation) Act, under Section 11, an  aided  non-minority  institution  shall
\nform a  college  committee.    The function of the college is enumerated under
\nSection 14(b) of the Act.   Section  14(1)(b)  of  the  Act  contemplates  the
\nfunctions  of  the  college  committee  as  well  the  responsibility  of  the
\neducational agency to appoint teachers and other staffs  which  selecting  the
\ncandidates, the College shall follow the norms relating to the eligibility and
\nqualifications prescribed by UGC.\n<\/p>\n
        28.   It  is the case of the 5th respondent that the college committee
\nwas constituted in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules which  interviewed  the
\ncandidates for  the  post  of  Principal.    It  is  also  the case of the 5th
\nrespondent that Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act,1976 was  enacted
\nby   Parliament   under   Article  357(1)(a)  of  Constitution  of  India  and
\nconsequently, it was made in exercise of the power conferred by Section  3  of
\nthe Tamil  Nadu  State  Legislation  (  Delegation  of Powers) Act, 1976.  The
\nsource of power is traceable to Entry 25 List III of Schedule VII.  Hence  the
\ncollege committee vests with the power to select and appoint the candidates.\n<\/p>\n
        29.   A  combined reading of Section11 and 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Private
\nColleges(Regulation) Act and Rules shows that they are not  inconsistent  with
\nSections  12  and  26(e)  of  the UGC Act and they operate in different field.
\nSections 11 and 14(b) and Rule  8  empowers  the  College  Committee  to  make
\nappointment.   The  power  of the College Committee to make appointment to the
\nteaching post as contemplated under Section  1  4(b)  of  the  Act  cannot  be
\nextended  to  constitute  a selection committee to select the candidate as the
\npower is conferred on UGC.  Section 12 read with 26(e) relates to the power of
\nUGC to prescribe qualification of candidate to be appointed as teachers.    In
\nthe event, the UGC makes regulations prescribing qualification, the same shall
\nbe binding on the University and the colleges affiliated to such University.\n<\/p>\n
        30.   In  this  context,  it is to be seen that the UGC has made the
\nUniversity  Grants  Commission  (minimum  qualifications  required   for   the
\nappointment   and   career   advancement   of  teachers  in  Universities  and
\ninstitutions affiliated to it) Regulations,2000.  There is no dispute that the
\nsaid regulation was adopted by Manonmaniam Sundaranar University on  1.11.2000
\nand the regulations were accepted on 4.11.2000.\n<\/p>\n
        31.    The   constitution  of  selection  committee  is  referable  to
\nregulation 3.5.0 of the UGC Regulations.  The very same regulation relating to
\nthe constitution of the committee is reproduced in the impugned order.  Though
\nthe Government Order was issued in exercise of power under Article 162 for the
\npurpose of extending the benefit of revision of pay  scales,  insofar  as  the
\nqualification  for  the  post  of  principal and constitution of committee was
\nincorporated in the said order as per the statutory regulations  of  the  UGC.
\nRegulations made  under  Section  26 of the Act has statutory force.  The Apex
\nCourt in the judgment reported in UNIVERSITY OF DELHI VS RAJ SINGH AND  OTHERS
\n(A.I.R.   199  5  SC  336)  has  held  that UHC was the competent authority to
\nprescribe the educational qualifications that are ordinarily required  to  the
\npost  of  a  Lecturer  including  the  principal  and  such  regulations shall
\nstatutory force.\n<\/p>\n
        32.  So far as the educational qualification prescribed by regulations
\nframed by UGC, there cannot be any dispute that the college  should  abide  by
\nthe  minimum  qualification  while  selecting  the  candidate  for the post of
\nPrincipal.  In fact, in the impugned order, the eligibility norms notified  by
\nthe  College is in tune with the minimum educational qualifications prescribed
\nin the regulations framed by UGC.\n<\/p>\n
        33.  The question still considered is as to whether the power  of  UGC
\nto  make  regulations  under  Section  26(e) of the Act could be extended even
\nprescribing the constitution of a committee for selecting the  candidates  for
\nthe post of principal.  Entry 66 relates not only to for coordination but also
\ndetermination of   the  standards  in  higher  education.    Determination  of
\nstandards in higher education  includes  maintaining  the  excellence  in  the
\ncollege.   The  post  of  Principal  is  pivotal importance in the educational
\ninstitution.   In  maintaining  the  standard  vis-`-vis  the  appointment  of
\nPrincipal  it  would  be  relevant  to  point out the role of the Heads of the
\neducational institution as observed by the Apex Court as well the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
        34.  In ALDO MARIA PATRONI VS E.C.KESAVAN(1964 Kerala LT 791) the Full
\nBench of Kerala High Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        The post of the Headmaster is a pivotal        importance in the life
\nof a school.  Around    him wheels the tone and temper of the
\ninstitution; on him depends the         continuity  of  its  traditions;   the
\nmain-           tenance of discipline and the efficiency        of         its
\nteaching.  The right to choose the      headmaster   is   perhaps   the   most
\nimportant       facet of the right to administer a school,      and   we  must
\nhold that the imposition of             any  trammel  thereon-except  to   the
\nextent  of prescribing the requisite qualifications     and  experience cannot
\nbut be considered as    a violation of the right guaranteed by  Article  30(1)
\nof the Constitution.  To hold   otherwise will be to make the right a
\nteasing illusion a promise of unreality\n<\/p>\n
        35.  The  Nine  Judge  Bench  in  the Ahamedabad St.  Xaviers college
\nSociety (1971 SCC717) has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        It is upon the principal and teachers of a
\nCollege that tone and temper of an educa-\n<\/p>\n
tional institution depend.  On them would
\ndepend its reputation, the maintenance of
\ndiscipline and its efficiency in teaching
\nThe right to choose the principal and to
\nhave the teaching conducted by teachers
\nappointed by the management after an
\noverall assessment of their outlook and
\nphilosophy is perhaps the most important
\nfacet of the right to administer an
\neducational institution\n<\/p>\n
        36.  In Gandhi Faiz-E-Am College Vs.  University of Agra (1975(2)  SCC\n<\/p>\n
283) the Apex Court has held as follows
\n        An activist principal is an asset in
\ndischarging these duties which are inextri-\n<\/p>\n
cably interlaced with academic functions.\n<\/p>\n
The principal is an invaluable insider-the
\nManagements own choice-not an outsider
\nanswerable to the Vice-chancellor.  He
\nbrings into the work of the Managing
\ncommittee that intimate acquaintance with
\neducational operations and that necessary
\nexpression of student-teacher aspirations
\nand complaints which are so essential for
\nthe minority institution to achieve a
\nhappy marriage between individuality and
\nexcellence\n<\/p>\n
        37.  In  N.Ammad  Vs.  Manager, Emjay High School and others ( 1999(2)
\nLW 52) the Apex Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        Selection and appointment of Headmaster
\nin a school (or principal of a college) are
\nprime importance in administration of that
\neducational institution.  The Headmaster is
\nthe key post in the running of the school.\n<\/p>\n
He is the hub on which all the spokes of
\nthe school are set around whom they rotate
\nto generate result.  A school is personified
\nthrough its Headmaster and he is the focal
\npoint on which outsiders look at the school.\n<\/p>\n
A bad Headmaster can spoil the entire insti-\n<\/p>\n
tution, an efficient and honest Headmaster
\ncan improve it by leaps and bounds.  The
\nfunctional efficacy of a school very much
\ndepends upon the efficiency and dedication
\nof its Headmaster.  This pristine precept
\nremains unchanged despite many changes
\ntaking place in the structural patterns
\nof education over the years\n<\/p>\n
        38.  The above emphasis made by the Apex Court as well the Full  Bench
\nof  Kerala  High  Court  as to the appointment not only the Headmaster and the
\nPrincipal of colleges but also the teachers in educational institutions,  only
\nby  taking  into  consideration  of  the  interest  of  students  for a better
\neducation.  Such appointment has relevance to the standard in the  educational
\ninstitution.  The provisions of Section 2 6 of UGC Act empower the Commissions
\nto  make  regulations  not  only prescribing the minimum qualification for the
\npost of Principal but as well the constitution of the committee for  selecting
\nthe person  from  among  the  teachers  appeared  for  the  interview.    Mere
\ninsistence  on  educational  qualification  may  not  serve  purpose  as   the
\nappointment  of  the  post  of Principal has to be made according to merit and
\nability which will be tested or decided by the committee properly  constituted
\nin accordance with the regulations framed by UGC.\n<\/p>\n
        39.   Of  course, an aided non-minority educational institution have a
\ncollege committee to appoint teachers.  The power for the college committee to
\nappoint teachers cannot be disputed.  However, such power should be  exercised
\nin the  manner prescribed under regulations of the UGC.  When once the college
\nis bound to adopt the minimum educational  qualifications  prescribed  in  the
\nregulation  framed  by  UGC,  it  is  equally  bound to make selection through
\nproperly constituted committee as per the said regulation.   The  constitution
\nof  the  selection  committee  prescribed  in Regulation 3.5.0 consists of the
\nChairperson of the Governing Board as Chairperson, one member of the Governing
\nBoard to be nominated by the Chairperson, two Vice-Chancellor’s  nominees  and
\nthree  experts  consisting  of  the Principal of a College, a Professor and an
\naccomplished educationist.  The majority  of  the  members  of  the  Selection
\nCommittee is from the College Committee except in the place of two nominees of
\nthe  Vice-Chancellor,  only one University representative figures as Member in
\nthe College Committee.  That apart, out of three experts,  the  representative
\nfrom  the  accomplished  educationist  not below the rank of a Professor to be
\nnominated  by  the  Board  out  of  a  panel  of  experts  approved   by   the
\nVice-Chancellor.  It  is not so in the College Committee.  The above committee
\nis only to ensure the maintenance of the standard  in  the  education  as  the
\nstandard  of  education  to  students  shall  depend upon the appointment of a
\nqualified person.  Only in this context, the Committee constituted by  UGC  is
\ninsisted to  select  the candidate.  In order to consider the appointment, the
\ncollege committee has to necessarily depend upon the  recommendations  of  the
\ncommittee constituted  in accordance with the regulations.  To this extent the
\npower  of  the  college  committee  cannot  be  extended  even  for  selecting
\ncandidates  ignoring  the  regulations  of the UGC in regard to composition of
\nselection committee.  That apart When once the regulations are adopted by  the
\nUniversity,  the  5th respondent college affiliated to the University is bound
\nto follow the regulations.  In this context, the constitution of the committee
\nto select the post  of  Principal  should  be  only  in  accordance  with  the
\nconditions prescribed  under  the regulation of UGC.  There is no dispute that
\nthe committee which interviewed and selected the 6th respondent for  the  post
\nof  Principal  was  not  in  conformity  with the composition of the committee
\nprescribed in UGC Act and to this extent, the selection of the 6th  respondent
\ncannot be held to be valid.\n<\/p>\n
        40.  In  view  of  the  finding  that  G.O.Ms.  No.111 dated 24.3.1999
\nprescribing educational qualification and the constitution  of  committee  was
\nissued  only  in  accordance  with the regulations framed by UGC, the impugned
\norder though issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of Indian,  inasmuch
\nas  it  reproduces the minimum educational qualifications and the constitution
\nof the selection committee as per the Regulations, it cannot be said  that  it
\nis not  binding on the college.  Hence, Point No.1 is answered by holding that
\nthe said Government Order have statutory backing of the Central Enactment  and
\nconsequently, is binding on the college.\n<\/p>\n
        41.   In  view  of  the  above finding, Point No.2 is also answered by
\nholding that the college committee has no power to select a candidate for  the
\npost of Principal or constitute a separate selection committee which is not in
\naccordance  with  Regulations  of UGC for the said purpose as no such power is
\nconferred under both the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Act  and  the
\nRules  made  thereunder  as  well  the  provisions  of  Manonmaniam Sundaranar
\nUniversity Act.\n<\/p>\n
        42.  The learned senior counsel appearing  for  the  respondent  would
\nrely  upon  the  judgment  reported  in THE ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENTS PRIVATE
\nCOLLEGES VS GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ( 2000(IV) CTC 641).   In  my  considered
\nopinion,  UGC  regulations  prescribing the minimum educational qualifications
\nfor the post of Principal and the composition of selection committee to select
\na candidate were not brought to the notice of this Court and the judgment  was
\nrendered  on  the ground that the said Government Order was issued in exercise
\nof the power under Article 162  of  the  Constitution  of  India  and  without
\nreference  to  the  fact  that  it was issued on the basis of the regulations.
\nTherefore, the said decision cannot be pressed into service.\n<\/p>\n
        43.  Point No.3:  It is not a Rule that the Selection  Committee  need
\nto  pass  a  detailed  order  with  cogent reasons to arrive its conclusion to
\nselect a candidate.  Nevertheless, the Selection  Committee  must  indicate  a
\ngist of  conclusions  in  the  order  based  on records.  It would be fair and
\nreasonable to describe  the  comparative  merits.    By  such  procedure,  the
\nSelection  Committee  could  avoid  a  reasonable  apprehension in the mind of
\nunsuccessful candidates that their merits have  been  overlooked  without  any
\nreason.   In  this  regard, the following judgment of a Division Bench of this
\nCourt is referable.  JEYASELVI VS GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU(1994(1)  MLJ  130).
\nA  perusal  of  the  impugned  order  shows that there is no disclosure of any
\nreason as to  why  the  6th  respondent  was  preferred  especially  when  the
\npetitioner is  senior  to the 6th respondent.  In the absence of such reasons,
\nthe impugned order is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
        44.   Point  No.4:-  Mr.Vijay  Narayan,  the  learned  senior  counsel
\nappearing  for  the 5th respondent would however submit that the selection and
\nappointment of the 6th respondent is yet to be approved by the University  and
\nthe Writ  Petition  is  premature.    I  am  not  inclined  to accept the said
\nsubmission as in the event this Court comes to the conclusion  that  the  very
\nselection and appointment is against regulations of the UGC, the Writ Petition
\ncannot be  dismissed  on  the  ground that it is premature.  In the event, the
\norder of selection and appointment is found to be illegal and in contravention
\nof the regulations the proposal should be necessarily rejected and no approval
\ncould be granted.  In that view of the matter, merely  because  the  selection
\nand appointment is yet to be approved by the University, the petitioner should
\nnot be prevented from approaching this Court questioning the very basis of the
\nprocess of selection.\n<\/p>\n
        45.   For  the  above reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the
\nWrit Petition is allowed.  However, the 5th respondent college is  at  liberty
\nto  select  a  candidate  to  the  post  of  Principal by the duly constituted
\ncommittee in accordance with the regulations.  No costs.    Consequently,  all
\nconnected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nWebsite:  Yes <\/p>\n
vbs<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary and Commissioner
\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu
\nDepartment of Higher Education
\nFort St.  George, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Director of Collegiate Education
\nCollege Road, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Registrar
\nManonmaniam Sundaranar University
\nTirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
4.  Regional Director of Collegiate
\nEducation, Tirunelveli Region
\nTirunelveli.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Dr.S. Arulmani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 10 March, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10\/03\/2006 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN W.P. No.17630 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.Nos.19894 & 19151\/2005 and W.V.M.P.Nos.1189 and 2080\/2005 Dr.S. Arulmani .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. Government of Tamil Nadu rep., by its […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.S. Arulmani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 10 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.S. Arulmani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 10 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-24T19:40:26+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=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.S. Arulmani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 10 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-24T19:40:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":5772,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006\",\"name\":\"Dr.S. Arulmani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 10 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-24T19:40:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.S. Arulmani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 10 March, 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":"Dr.S. Arulmani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 10 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.S. Arulmani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 10 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-24T19:40:26+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":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.S. Arulmani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 10 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-24T19:40:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006"},"wordCount":5772,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006","name":"Dr.S. Arulmani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 10 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-24T19:40:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-arulmani-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-rep-on-10-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.S. Arulmani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 10 March, 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\/10439","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=10439"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10439\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}