{"id":115637,"date":"2003-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003"},"modified":"2015-02-27T10:03:47","modified_gmt":"2015-02-27T04:33:47","slug":"o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003","title":{"rendered":"O.M.Jessymol vs The Director Of on 18 September, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">O.M.Jessymol vs The Director Of on 18 September, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 18\/09\/2003 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice A.K.RAJAN   \n\nWrit Petition No.2767 of 2002\n\nO.M.Jessymol                           .....           Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Director of\n    Teachers' Training Research Education\n   College Road\n   DPI Complex \n   Nungambakkam   \n   Chennai.6.\n\n2. The Commissioner &amp; Secretary  \n   Education Department \n   Fort St. George\n   Chennai.9.\n   (R2 impleaded as per order\n    dated 13.12.2002 in\n     W.M.P.No.60276 of 2002)            .....           Respondents\n\nPrayer:  Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the\nissue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner :  Mr.  K.Vasudevan\n\nFor respondents :  Mr.  R.Vijayakumar G.A.\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>                The petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to  issue<br \/>\na  writ  of  Certiorarified  Mandamus  to call for the records relating to the<br \/>\norder O.Mu.No.12423\/C3\/2001 dated 18.12.2001 and quash the  same  and  further<br \/>\ndirect the respondent to issue evaluation certificate to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   The  brief fact that is necessary for the disposal of the<br \/>\nwrit petition is that the  petitioner  has  passed  Under  Graduate  Teacher&#8217;s<br \/>\nTraining  Course  at Nagaland in the year 1993, after completing her Secondary<br \/>\nSchool studies in Kerala State.  The petitioner got married in the  year  1995<br \/>\nand her  husband is an advocate practicing in Chennai.  The petitioner applied<br \/>\nfor the Evaluation Certificate on 23.08.2001 to the first  respondent  and  in<br \/>\nspite  of  repeated  requests  and lawyer&#8217;s notice dated 10.11.2001, the first<br \/>\nrespondent passed the impugned order dated 18.12.2001  rejecting  her  request<br \/>\nregarding the evaluation of her &#8216;Teacher&#8217;s Training Certificate&#8217; on the ground<br \/>\nthat the petitioner has passed the said course without undergoing the plus Two<br \/>\ncourse  with  50%  of marks and the petitioner has not secured 50% of marks in<br \/>\nany one of the subjects.  Hence, the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  The respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   Mr.K.Vasudevan,  learned  counsel   appearing   for   the<br \/>\npetitioner  submitted  that  the impugned order is not sustainable in law; the<br \/>\npetitioner has got Teacher&#8217;s Training Certificate at Nagaland which cannot  be<br \/>\nrejected  and it cannot be said to be invalid in Tamil Nadu on the ground that<br \/>\nit does not conform to the rules and regulations  framed  by  the  Tamil  Nadu<br \/>\nGovernment  for  getting  admission to Teachers Training Certificate Course in<br \/>\nTamil Nadu.  The respondent failed to consider that in India, there are number<br \/>\nof States; each  and  every  State  would  fix  the  eligibility  for  getting<br \/>\nadmission to  these  course  and degrees.  More over, India is a secular state<br \/>\nwhere all the States are united  and  one  state  respects  the  other  state.<br \/>\nWithout  considering  all these vital aspects, the first respondent passed the<br \/>\nimpugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  Learned counsel further submitted even within the  country<br \/>\nsome  of  the  institutions  are not recognised by other parts of the country.<br \/>\nThe University will recognise only certain certificates and  certain  degrees.<br \/>\nThose certificates recognised by the authorities are valid and equivalent.  If<br \/>\nthe  authorities  passed  spe cific orders that certain certificates cannot be<br \/>\nrecognised for the purpose of admission for higher studies or for  employment,<br \/>\nthat orders are to be held as unenforceable.  It is violative of provisions of<br \/>\nConstitution of India or other provisions of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   Learned  counsel  further  relied  upon  the  decision  of  this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/734542\/\">K.Anthony Savarimuthu v.   The  Director  of  School  Education  Madras.6  and<\/a><br \/>\nanother (1985 WLR 178), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held when<br \/>\na  dispute arose with resepct to certificate issued by Karnataka State that it<br \/>\nwas equivalent to the certificate issued in Tamil Nadu State; this  Court  has<br \/>\nrefused to  recognise  those cadres and set aside the order.  Relying upon the<br \/>\njudgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the<br \/>\nabove cited judgment, the impugned order is  invalid.    In  the  above  cited<br \/>\njudgment, this Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>                &#8221; &#8230;   Once the two certificates are treated as equivalent of<br \/>\neach other, the State could not show any preference to any particular class of<br \/>\nteachers merely on the ground that they were holders of certificates issued by<br \/>\nan institution in Tamil Nadu.\n<\/p>\n<p>                Once we place this construction on the G.O.dt.   5-8.1981  the<br \/>\nnatural  results  would  be that equivalence of the Karnataka certificate with<br \/>\nthe Tamil Nadu Certificate would continue to be effective till 17-9-1984, when<br \/>\nthe G.O.Ms.No.1236 was issued.  The only impediment for the evaluation of  the<br \/>\ncertificates  of  the  Karnataka  certificate  holders was G.O.dated 5-8-1981.<br \/>\nOnce that is out of the way in view of the construction placed upon  it,  then<br \/>\nobviously  whatever  certificates  were submitted to the State Government till<br \/>\n17-9-1984 would have to be dealt  with  on  the  footing  that  the  Karnataka<br \/>\nCertificate was equivalent with the Tamil Nadu Certificate.&#8221;<br \/>\nUltimately, in the above Judgment, it was further held as follows:<br \/>\n&#8221; &#8230;    In  all  these three categories of cases the certificate holders will<br \/>\nhave a equivalent to the Tamil Nadu certificates,  provided  the  certificates<br \/>\nhave been handed over prior to 17.9.1984.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore,  a  perusal  of  the judgment cited supra shows that as long as G.O<br \/>\npassed in Tamil Nadu State recognised the certificates issued by the Karnataka<br \/>\nState, such certificates was held  to  be  valid,and  when  G.O.No.1236  dated<br \/>\n17.9.1984  was  passed not recognising Karnataka State Certificate, this Court<br \/>\nheld that only such of  those  certificates  which  were  submitted  prior  to<br \/>\n17.9.1984 was to be recognised.  Such of the certificates submitted subsequent<br \/>\nto that  date  were not considered as equvalent.  Therefore, the authority has<br \/>\ngot the right to  recognise  or  not  to  recognise  the  certificates.    The<br \/>\nauthorities  have  chosen  not  to recognise the certificates of the Karnataka<br \/>\nthereafter no person can ask that certificate should be  recognised  in  Tamil<br \/>\nNadu.  Therefore, this judgment is not helpful to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.   Learned counsel further submitted that 50% marks limit is<br \/>\nprescribed as a pre-requisite for getting admitted into the higher studies  or<br \/>\nTeachers Training  Course.   Once having got admitted in the higher education,<br \/>\nthe required marks at  50%  cannot  be  insisted  upon.    Therefore,  once  a<br \/>\ncertificate  had  been obtained and the same has to be looked into and not the<br \/>\nfact that whether he obtained the requisite minimum marks  in  the  qualifying<br \/>\ncourse.   Therefore this certificate has to be taken on the face of it and the<br \/>\nGovernment cannot go behind it to verify whether the person  has  got  minimum<br \/>\nnumber of marks for getting admission into the Teachers Training course.  This<br \/>\nargument  of  the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable because<br \/>\nthe authorities have prescribed the minimum marks and issued Government Orders<br \/>\nto that effect.  It is a matter of policy and it cannot be challenged.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  Considering the facts that there is a specific G.O.  which<br \/>\nrequires that a person must obtain 50% of marks for getting  admitted  in  the<br \/>\nTeachers Training Course and the petitioner has not acquired the minimum marks<br \/>\nin  the  Teachers Training Course examinations, and When the terms of the G.O.<br \/>\nhas not been complied with, the petitioner  has  no  right  to  challenge  the<br \/>\nimpugned order and get her certificate evaluated.\n<\/p>\n<p>                In  the  result,  the writ petition is devoid of merits and is<br \/>\nliable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet Yes<\/p>\n<p>kvsg<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Director of<br \/>\nTeachers&#8217; Training Research Education<br \/>\nCollege Road<br \/>\nDPI Complex<br \/>\nNungambakkam<br \/>\nChennai.6.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Commissioner &amp; Secretary<br \/>\nEducation Department<br \/>\nFort St.  George<br \/>\nChennai.9.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court O.M.Jessymol vs The Director Of on 18 September, 2003 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 18\/09\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice A.K.RAJAN Writ Petition No.2767 of 2002 O.M.Jessymol &#8230;.. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Director of Teachers&#8217; Training Research Education College Road DPI Complex Nungambakkam Chennai.6. 2. The Commissioner &amp; Secretary [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>O.M.Jessymol vs The Director Of on 18 September, 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\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"O.M.Jessymol vs The Director Of on 18 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-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=\"2003-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-27T04:33:47+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\\\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"O.M.Jessymol vs The Director Of on 18 September, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-27T04:33:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1127,\"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\\\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003\",\"name\":\"O.M.Jessymol vs The Director Of on 18 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-27T04:33:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"O.M.Jessymol vs The Director Of on 18 September, 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":"O.M.Jessymol vs The Director Of on 18 September, 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\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"O.M.Jessymol vs The Director Of on 18 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-27T04:33:47+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\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"O.M.Jessymol vs The Director Of on 18 September, 2003","datePublished":"2003-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-27T04:33:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003"},"wordCount":1127,"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\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003","name":"O.M.Jessymol vs The Director Of on 18 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-27T04:33:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-jessymol-vs-the-director-of-on-18-september-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"O.M.Jessymol vs The Director Of on 18 September, 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\/115637","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=115637"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115637\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}