{"id":10560,"date":"2009-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-05-19T22:40:58","modified_gmt":"2016-05-19T17:10:58","slug":"the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Divisional Personnel Officer vs S.Shivalingam on 23 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Divisional Personnel Officer vs S.Shivalingam on 23 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT :SANGALOR1A:,_':\"'H._V_\n\nDATED THIS TI-IE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2:369.'   .\u00bb_. A' \n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN,   _ , T\n\nAND, _ V\nTHE I-ION'BLE MR.JUS'rIcE:\"v,G.smH_AHI:r  \nWRIT PETITION,NO.3236'8\/SO99{S-CAT)\" \nBETWEEN       ._\n1. THE DIVISIONALPERSONNEL O'PPjIcER,  \nPERSONNEL BRANCH SEC,   \n\nSOUTH WESTERI'i RAILWAY;._  \nBANGALORE -550 0:23.   ,-\n\n2. THE U'N1ON1OP\"--1N\u00abI)IA,  _ -\nREP. BY. ITS GE.NERAL\"MAPIA\u00a73ER,\nSOUTH WESTERN R\"A1Lw'Ay,'\nI-IUBLI~--580.,020,  '   PETITIONERS\n\n(BR SR1. j3EvAD,A,S, SR,\"AD.V.\u00ab'A\/W SMT. K.S. ANASUYA DEVI\n\nFOR  \/Sf' NYAY,A2\\\u00abIITRA ADVOCATES)\n\nAND'    V' '  %\n\n -  SHRI S'; ,SRIvALI.NOA:M,\n \"~S;'O K. SUBRAM\/_xN--1AN,\nAGED ABOIJTHAS YEARS,\n.. _, CASUAL 'LABOUR, SBC DIVN,\n_ .,S'OU'JfH WESTERN RAILWAY,\n '~._R\/.O;\u00ab ea\/.45S_, KOLAIYAMMAN KOVIL\n.  STREET,  'I'ALAVAI PATTI POST,\ng\"SALEM EDISTRICT - 636 302.  RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
5′<\/p>\n
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85
\n227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
\nRECORDS IN O.A. No. 467\/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CAT,<\/p>\n
BANGALORE BENCH AND ON CONSIDERATION OI~?”‘1vT1IE..A’
\nMATTER. QUASH THE ORDER OF CAT, EANOALOR;E*\u00ab–BEN__CH___
\nDTD 06.05.09 IN O.A. NO. 467\/2007 VIDE ANNEX–A AN-D DISMISW 0-<\/p>\n
O.A. NO. 467\/2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ANDV1’ETC–._;’~ _<\/p>\n
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING U25 I\u00ab*ORORI:>’ER’S,_ <\/p>\n
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE F’OLL’OWING:’–<\/p>\n
oRnERf
\n(Delivered by.   .)
\nThis Writ petition is \ufb01led’  Personnel<\/p>\n
Officer, South WeSvteI.~ni_’ respondent in<\/p>\n
Original App_licationv.”No:.:4-6’f,(:2Q,Q7 [on the \ufb01le of the Central
\nAdministrativeTribimal'”..:(11ei*einafter referred to as ‘CAT’)
\nBangalore.{iBer1chI Bangalolire, being aggrieved by the order<\/p>\n
cilia:\/53 _QF6.0SC.??..OFi(4)”9._ wherein, the CAT has allowed the<\/p>\n
 appli’CatiO_nCA   the prayer of the applicant by<\/p>\n
directingF”‘the—-V:respondent No.1–the first appellant herein to<\/p>\n
 exercise of absorption of I:1’.x.CL’s against the<\/p>\n
F.”.’*.._Vav.ailaIa:le  Group ‘D’ posts in the manner explained in<\/p>\n
5″\n<\/p>\n
paragraph—-16 of the order within a period of three months
\nfrom the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
\nHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners<\/p>\n
and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent  ”<\/p>\n
3. The challenge made in this writ petition   <\/p>\n
the one raised and considered by this iCourt  <\/p>\n
No.29767\/2009, wherein this Court, bv’.a}’1.etai1ed {ietee1* .<\/p>\n
1831 November 2009 has disposed”–of”the  In<\/p>\n
the said writlpetition itiifis’ o:b’se1’vedu_las’ hereunder:<\/p>\n
“10. The’ itnaterial on record would
\nclearly  that’_dia_te’of’ birth of the respondent-
\nappiieem beforelithepifribunal is 25 \/ 12 \/ 1955 and
\n   initially engaged as casual labour on
\n  ~L’_’,.The material on record would
\n.i’e1prther.lsiiir;:vv’ that even as per the intimation sent
\n  petitioner herein, the name of the
\n applicant was shown in the live register when the
\n intirnation was sent on 22\/ 7\/ 2003 as per
\nllinnexure ‘A-3’ annexed to the application. it is
\n“clearly stated that the name of the applicant is<\/p>\n
available in the live \/ supplementary! register and<\/p>\n
he has been already asked to attend for screening<\/p>\n
on 30\/12\/2004 and 31\/12\/2004 at Railway<\/p>\n
Institute, Bangalore. Further contents  <\/p>\n
Annexure ‘.A-5′ would clearly show that in th’e\u00a7i_list’i’- ‘T ‘<\/p>\n
of Casual Labourers eligible  is<\/p>\n
entered in the live register and[thie”Iia_n:e of <\/p>\n
applicant has also been shown.  theiplfacti  <\/p>\n
that applicant had been called” for”screeningi{forVV <\/p>\n
absorption of casual labourerisgthat’
\nhas been found in the live not disputed
\nby the applicant. I-Iow_e’ver,,  letters<\/p>\n
Annexures ‘A–lf’to ‘A;s3″‘were”cancelled”since the<\/p>\n
educational  hadiiiibeen prescribed for
\nabsorption’,  for the purpose of
\nabsorption! andllivould  only in case of initial
\napp~;)’intment.~-. Z   it <\/p>\n
  The i”rr1ate’rial on record would clearly<\/p>\n
 ‘ show  is no merit in the contention of<\/p>\n
ii the.,petiti_oneif”that the applicants were called for<\/p>\n
screen.i’n’g\u00bbo’n1y for the purpose of preparing fresh<\/p>\n
 live register as the intimation would fairly show<\/p>\n
 asiii\ufb01referred to above that the name of the<\/p>\n
‘applicant had already been entered in the live<\/p>\n
 ” “register and he had been called for absorption of<\/p>\n
casual labourers. The only ground upon which<\/p>\n
the petitioners seems to have rejected the claim of V K  <\/p>\n
the applicant for absorption is age limit.  <\/p>\n
clear from the Railway Board Master Circ’u:lari.tVlV:<\/p>\n
No.38 envisaged at Para. 17.9 as .follows:~;’ M it<\/p>\n
“At the time of screening of casual.\n<\/p>\n
labour relaxation in page “should be  .
\nautomatic if it is established that the
\nindividual was within the,prescnbed’ag’e
\nlimit and had been more__or-.less regularly V.
\nworking. In old’ ‘cases; wlriere*.the age
\nlimit was not obseruepd, re%_l’axat’ion”o_f age
\nshould be considered i’V’sympat’liejtic’a,lly.
\nThe cpos, prams} and, the  “Chief
\nEngineers'{Qbnstruc:tia~h) ‘are Competent to
\ngrant. reIl_a,ra’tion in age”); .\n<\/p>\n
12. The” rain; thijit Capos, o’Riii”5 and the Chief
\nEngineers ‘(Constr1:iction)””‘ar’e’ competent to grant<\/p>\n
relaxationpginade is.not’disputed by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Further, having’ regard to the fact that the case of<\/p>\n
  theapzplicant beforetthe Tribunal is for absorption<\/p>\n
‘ and.no_t’for, initial appointment. What is required<\/p>\n
 tobe  is as to whether the appointment<\/p>\n
of “”\u00abcas1;\u00a3al.VAlabour was Within the prescribed age<\/p>\n
 limit ” when initially recruited as a casual labour<\/p>\n
” and-.the fact that when the petitioner was initially<\/p>\n
Ziengiaged as a casual labour, he was within the age<\/p>\n
 ” -“limit was not disputed as the date of birth of the<\/p>\n
applicant is 25\/ 12\/ 1955 and initial engagement is<\/p>\n
on 16\/8\/1979. The applicant has also<\/p>\n
substantiated before the Tribunal that though his <\/p>\n
name was found in the register he was not <\/p>\n
engaged and persons who were junior to  .;. <\/p>\n
the list were engaged and therefore, the  .4<\/p>\n
after detail consideration of ‘ ;the”above.y  <\/p>\n
material on record has held that the s\u00e9llipplicatioiilpof ” is<\/p>\n
the applicant for abs’or’ption “is V  <\/p>\n
erroneously and issued directions to cor’np_eele’te the
\nexercise of absorption’~~..of  Labourers
\nagainst the available   in the
\nmanner explainedin   otztiabove.\n<\/p>\n
 ‘  the above said facts of
\nthe case,’*–t.he circular issued by the petitioner and<\/p>\n
Master tCircular”No.4V8 and also having regard to<\/p>\n
 \u00ab…Athve\u00a7:._fac,te\u00bb.thvat material on record clearly show that<\/p>\n
 inarrze  applicant had already been included<\/p>\n
HthevV’liite–__register and his application has been<\/p>\n
rejeotecl”  on the ground of age and absorption<\/p>\n
 has been declined only on the ground of age,<\/p>\n
  is clearly erroneous and contrary to the<\/p>\n
circular issued by the petitioner as referred to<\/p>\n
 “above. The Tribunal has issued direction as<\/p>\n
impugned in this writ petition. That having regard<\/p>\n
to the above said material on record, we_NareVu’f7s. <\/p>\n
satis\ufb01ed that the \ufb01nding of the Tribunal   ‘<\/p>\n
justified and does not suffer froth  <\/p>\n
illegality as to call for interferehce  je\ufb01ereise. <\/p>\n
the writ jurisdiction of this Courtand._accord_ihgvly*, V
\nwe hold that the writ petivti–c)_i*’1″~.V_iMs devQid.VoI*,rrieVri’t”‘ <\/p>\n
and pass the following: —\n<\/p>\n
The Writ Petitii\u00e9nt\n<\/p>\n
4. Hence,; tliigsjii~:.d_ii’ig”‘rendered by us in Writ
\nPetition No.s2976?~s;.r2deas (disposed””so’1″‘: on 18-11-2009), as
\nreferred to tsulpra’,  is also liable to be
\ndismissed. Acclordirigly-,._ ‘dismissed. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n
.  Yes\/No<\/p>\n
i7d”Sn\u00a7\/<\/p>\n
Web ‘Host: Yes \/ No<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Divisional Personnel Officer vs S.Shivalingam on 23 November, 2009 Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT :SANGALOR1A:,_’:”‘H._V_ DATED THIS TI-IE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2:369.’ .\u00bb_. A’ PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, _ , T AND, _ V THE I-ION’BLE MR.JUS’rIcE:”v,G.smH_AHI:r WRIT PETITION,NO.3236’8\/SO99{S-CAT)” BETWEEN ._ 1. […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10560","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Divisional Personnel Officer vs S.Shivalingam on 23 November, 2009 - 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\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Divisional Personnel Officer vs S.Shivalingam on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-19T17:10:58+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Divisional Personnel Officer vs S.Shivalingam on 23 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-19T17:10:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1081,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009\",\"name\":\"The Divisional Personnel Officer vs S.Shivalingam on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-19T17:10:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Divisional Personnel Officer vs S.Shivalingam on 23 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"The Divisional Personnel Officer vs S.Shivalingam on 23 November, 2009 - 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\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Divisional Personnel Officer vs S.Shivalingam on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-19T17:10:58+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Divisional Personnel Officer vs S.Shivalingam on 23 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-19T17:10:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009"},"wordCount":1081,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009","name":"The Divisional Personnel Officer vs S.Shivalingam on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-19T17:10:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-personnel-officer-vs-s-shivalingam-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Divisional Personnel Officer vs S.Shivalingam on 23 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/10560","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=10560"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10560\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10560"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10560"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}