{"id":12728,"date":"2003-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003"},"modified":"2018-02-10T12:25:35","modified_gmt":"2018-02-10T06:55:35","slug":"k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"K.Malini vs The Secretary on 10 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.Malini vs The Secretary on 10 March, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 10\/03\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN\n\nWRIT PETITION NO.7745 of 1998  and WRIT PETITION NO.19105 OF 1998\nAND\nWMP Nos:11782 and 28987  OF 1998\n\n\nK.Malini                                       ..Petitioner\n                                               in both WPs\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Secretary\n   Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly\n   Secretariat\n   Chennai\n\n2. The Secretary\n   Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission\n   Government Estate\n   Chennai-2                                    ..Respondents\n                                                  in both WPs\n\n\n\nFor petitioner :: Mr.R.Thiagarajan, S.C.,for\n                   M\/s.K.Venkataraman\n                   M.Muthappan\n\nFor respondents:: Ms.V.Velumani AGP\n                   Mr.Paul Vasantha Kumar for R.2\n\n\n        Writ petitions filed  under  Art.226  of  The  Constitution  of  India\npraying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, as stated therein.\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        In W.P.No:7745 of 1998, the petitioner has prayed for the issue  of  a<br \/>\nwrit  of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to regularise the services<br \/>\nof the petitioner in the post of Typist in the first  respondent  Secretariate<br \/>\nand pass such other further order or orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  In W.P.No:19105 of 1998 the very  same  petitioner  challenge  the<br \/>\nproceedings of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the second respondent<br \/>\nherein  in  Letter  No.6782\/CD-B2-96,  dated  3.11.1998 and quash the same and<br \/>\nconsequently  direct  the  respondent  to  regularise  the  services  of   the<br \/>\npetitioner with  all  attendant  and  consequential  monetary  benefits.   The<br \/>\npetitioner and respondent are common in both the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  Heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing  for  Mr.<br \/>\nM.Muthappan  for  the petitioner, Ms.V.Velumani, learned Additional Government<br \/>\nPleader appearing for the  first  respondent  and  Mr.N.Paul  Vasantha  Kumar,<br \/>\nlearned counsel appearing for the second respondent Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   It  may  not  be  necessary to set out the facts in detail in the<br \/>\nlight of the directions which this court proposes to issue.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  The petitioner a Typist temporarily appointed in  the  Tamil  Nadu<br \/>\nLegislative  Assembly  is  governed  by  the  Tamil  Nadu Legislative Assembly<br \/>\nService Rules framed under Article 187 of The  Constitution  of  India.    The<br \/>\npetitioner  was  initially  appointed  as  temporary Typist in the Legislative<br \/>\nAssembly Department  and  she  has  been  working  continuously  on  and  from<br \/>\n6.11.1989.  The  petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange.  But she<br \/>\nwas appointed on temporary basis.  When such appointment continued, the  first<br \/>\nrespondent-Legislative    Assembly    Department    addressed    the    second<br \/>\nrespondent-Public Service Commission for concurrence and  continuance  of  the<br \/>\nwrit  petitioner&#8217;s appointment as a regular candidate sponsored by the Service<br \/>\nCommission while setting out certain facts, circumstance and the background in<br \/>\nwhich the  petitioner  came  to  be  appointed  on  temporary  basis  and  her<br \/>\ncontinuance in service of the Legislative Assembly Department.  The Commission<br \/>\nreiterated its earlier stand by letter dated 7.8.1996 and refused to grant its<br \/>\nconcurrence  for  the  continuance  of  the  petitioner  and  advised that the<br \/>\npetitioner may be discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  In the meanwhile, the Service Commission issued a Notification for<br \/>\nthe Special Qualifying Examination conducted during 1994 for regularisation of<br \/>\nthe temporary posts of Junior Assistant, Typist, Steno Typist etc.,  who  were<br \/>\nrecruited  through  Employment Exchange and who are temporary hands working in<br \/>\nthe said posts during the period set  out  in  the  said  Notification.    The<br \/>\npetitioner  once again made representation through the Hon&#8217;ble Speaker seeking<br \/>\nfor regularisation  of  her  services.    The  Personnel  and   Administrative<br \/>\nDepartment  took  the  view  that  the  request of the petitioner could not be<br \/>\nconsidered as  she  has  not  qualified  herself  in  the  Special  Qualifying<br \/>\nExamination conducted during 1994.  Despite the said facts, the petitioner was<br \/>\nallowed  to continue ins service and the Legislative Assembly Secretariat once<br \/>\nagain requested the Service Commission for concurrence for the  regularisation<br \/>\nof her   temporary  services.    The  Service  Commission  declined  to  giver<br \/>\nconcurrence for regularisation of the petitioner&#8217;s temporary services  by  the<br \/>\nimpugned letter dated 3.1.1998.  Hence the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  Earlier the petitioner has filed W.P.No.7745 of 1998 seeking for a<br \/>\ndirection  to  regularise her services in the Legislative Assembly Department,<br \/>\nwhile pointing that she has been working for more than a decade and  that  she<br \/>\nshould be  regularised.   Later, the petitioner filed the second writ petition<br \/>\nchallenging the decision of the Service Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  Both the writ petitions are taken up together and common arguments<br \/>\nwere advanced.  Mr.N.Paul Vasantha Kumar, learned counsel  appearing  for  the<br \/>\nService Commission sought to sustain the views taken by the Service Commission<br \/>\nwhile  Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel represented that the different<br \/>\nstand taken by the Service Commission in respect of the petitioner alone would<br \/>\namount to discriminatory treatment as persons identically placed were given  a<br \/>\nfavoured  treatment,  while pointing out that the Service Commission has given<br \/>\nconcurrence for regularization of identical appointees.    Mr.N.Paul  Vasantha<br \/>\nKumar,  learned  counsel for the Service Commission in turn contended that the<br \/>\ncases of two other individual appointees in whose favour concurrence was given<br \/>\nby the Commission were differently placed and therefore  the  same  cannot  be<br \/>\ncited  as an example, nor the plea of discrimination, nor the plea of estoppel<br \/>\nwould apply.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   Mr.R.Thiagarjan,  learned  senior   counsel   raised   the   only<br \/>\ncontention,  namely that the petitioner alone has been singled out and treated<br \/>\ndifferently while the two others namely Tmt.Santhanamathi and  Tmt.    Kanmani<br \/>\nVasantharani  have  been  treated differently and it is just and fair that the<br \/>\npetitioner is also given the same treatment.  In  this  respect,  the  learned<br \/>\nsenior  counsel  referred to the following paragraphs in the Counter Affidavit<br \/>\nfiled on behalf of the second  respondentService  Commission.    The  relevant<br \/>\nportion of the counter affidavit read thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;20.    As  the plea of the Government to regularise the petitioner in<br \/>\nthe post of Typist was not in order, s it is violative of the G.   O.Ms.No.433<br \/>\nP   &amp;   A.R.(P.C)  Dept.,  dated  14.12.1993  and  G.O.ms.No.270,  Tamil  Nadu<br \/>\nLegislative Assembly Secretariat Department dated 7.11.1994 ,  the  Commission<br \/>\nhad refused  concurrence  to  regularise  her,  in  the  above  letters.   The<br \/>\npetitioner had challenged the  above  letter  in  this  writ  petition.    The<br \/>\nCommission&#8217;s  letter  challenged  by  the  petitioner  was  addressed  to  the<br \/>\nSecretary, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat Department and  not  to<br \/>\nthe petitioner.  The necessary reply for the Government&#8217;s letter had been sent<br \/>\nby  the  Commission  to  the  Head  of  the  Department i.e., the Secretary to<br \/>\nGovernment Tamil Nadu  Legislative  Assembly  Secretariat  Department.    Even<br \/>\nbefore  the  receipt  of  the  same  by  the  Head of the Department, she took<br \/>\nnecessary action on that, it seems that  the  petitioner  had  manipulated  to<br \/>\nobtain the same and challenged it in her individual capacity which was done in<br \/>\nflagrant violation  of  any  official  norms.   In the said circumstances, the<br \/>\ncontention of the petitioner that no positive reply from the second respondent<br \/>\ni.e., the Commission is not correct and the contention of the  petitioner  may<br \/>\nbe rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>        21.     With reference to the petitioner&#8217;s contention in para 4 of the<br \/>\naffidavit that  &#8220;two  candidates  namely Tmt.S.Santhanamathi and Tmt.  Kanmani<br \/>\nVasanthamani&#8221;  were  given  concurrence  for  their  regularisation   by   the<br \/>\nCommission,  it is submitted that the Government in the Tamil Nadu Legislative<br \/>\nAssembly Secretariat  in  their  letter  dated  29.9.1997  had  addressed  the<br \/>\nCommission  for  issue  of  concurrence  for  regularisation  ofo the said two<br \/>\ncandidates.  The contents of the letter are reproduced  below  which  is  self<br \/>\nexplanatory.\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;Since  the  above two candidates, have been serving continuously or a<br \/>\nlong period, their request for regularisation  their  temporary  services  was<br \/>\nintimated  to  the Tamil nadu Public Service Commission in order to obtain its<br \/>\nconcurrence under latter part of Regulation 16(b) of  The  Tamil  Nadu  Public<br \/>\nService Commission Regulations, 1954.  However, in its letter fifth cited, the<br \/>\nTamil  Nadu Public Service Commission has conveyed its inability to accord its<br \/>\nconcurrence.  In this connection, I am to state  that  these  two  candidates,<br \/>\nviz,.  Tmt.S.   Santhanamathy and Tmt.C.Kanmani Vasantharani have been working<br \/>\nfor more than 7 years, only under emergency provisions.  This being the  case,<br \/>\nthe  Government  have  taken  a sympathetic consideration in the case of those<br \/>\ntemporary personnel who had been recruited through the Employment Exchange and<br \/>\nissued orders in G.O.ms.NO.996, Personnel &amp; Administrative Reforms (Placement)<br \/>\nDepartment, dated 22.9.1984, for regularising their service,  after  obtaining<br \/>\ndue concurrence  of  the  Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.  Like wise, in<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.433, Personnel &amp; Administrative Reforms (Placement-Cell)  Department<br \/>\ndated  14.12.1993,  the temporary services of such candidates were regularised<br \/>\nby conducting a Special Qualifying Examination by the TNPSC.  It may be  quite<br \/>\npertinent  to  state  that  in  the above processes, the temporary services of<br \/>\nthose candidates who  had  put  in  a  day&#8217;s  temporary  services,  were  also<br \/>\nregularised.   I  am  also to add that those two candidates are under indigent<br \/>\ncircumstances, since the ormer had lost her husband and the  latter;s  husband<br \/>\nis unemployed.    They  have  to shoulder the entire responsibilities of their<br \/>\nfamilies.  Getting a placement of any other office at this stage is  also  too<br \/>\nhard to be thought of.  Hence, it has become necessary to consider their cases<br \/>\nsympathetically.   I  am  therefore,  to  request you to kindly reconsider the<br \/>\nrequests of these two candidates on a humanitarian approach and to take  early<br \/>\naction  for  obtaining  and  communicating  the  concurrence of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nPublic Service Commission, so as to enable them to  be  appointed  on  regular<br \/>\nbasis&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        22.     As   the   Government   have   requested   to  reconsider  the<br \/>\nCommission&#8217;s stand and to take humanitarian  view,  the  Commission  gave  its<br \/>\nconcurrence  for  the  regularisation  of  the  two  individuals  viz., Tmt.S.<br \/>\nSanthanamathy and Tmt.C.Kanmani Vasantharani by its order dated 21.3.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>        23.  Moreover, the two persons mentioned above had  not  appeared  for<br \/>\nthe  Special Qualifying Examination&#8217;94 conducted by the Commission; Unlike the<br \/>\nabove two persons the petitioner had the chance for appearing for the  Special<br \/>\nQualifying Examination  GroupIV&#8217;94  by virtue of her temporary service.  While<br \/>\n4329 candidates had appeared for the said examination,  2618  candidates  were<br \/>\nselected and  their services were regularised consequently.  For the total 200<br \/>\nmarks (one paper i.e., English 100 marks  and  the  other  paper  General  100<br \/>\nMarks)  the  candidates  were required to take the minimum qualifying marks of<\/p>\n<p>30# in the aggregate i.e., the minimum marks for pass was fixed as 60 marks in<br \/>\naggregate.  But, the petitioner had secured only 28 marks in  aggregate  viz.,<br \/>\nEnglish-11, General Knowledge 17) for the required aggregate of 60 marks.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   On a consideration of the above portions, it is clear that there<br \/>\nis no difference, much less, considerable or material difference  between  the<br \/>\ncase   of   the   petitioner   viz-a-viz   Tmt.Santhanamathy  and  Tmt.Kanmani<br \/>\nVasantharani.  On  all  aspects,  they  are  identically  placed.     However,<br \/>\nMr.N.Paul Vasantha Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Service Commission<br \/>\ncontended  that  the two persons in whose favour the second respondent Service<br \/>\nCommission had given concurrence are in a  pitiable  condition  and  therefore<br \/>\nsuch a concurrence had been accorded.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.   It  is  not as if there has been any comparison between the said<br \/>\ntwo candidates and the writ petitioner  when  the  Commission  considered  the<br \/>\nrequest of the petitioner.  The reliance placed on the letter forwarded by the<br \/>\nLegislative  Assembly  Secretariat  Department  is the only material if at all<br \/>\nthat could have been placed in favour of the said two persons for  a  favoured<br \/>\ntreatment as  against  the  writ  petitioner.   It may be that the Legislative<br \/>\nAssembly Secretariat Department has not  worded  the  letters  identically  or<br \/>\ncarefully or  as effectively as the others.  But in every respect the said two<br \/>\npersons namely Tmt.Santhanamathy and Tmt.Kanmani Vasantharani are  identically<br \/>\nplaced.  Factually,  the  petitioner also has been in continuous service.  The<br \/>\npetitioner was also doing certain urgent pressing work like  the  two  others.<br \/>\nThe  indigent  circumstances  relied  upon or suggested will also apply to the<br \/>\ncase of the petitioner.  As already  pointed  out,  the  Legislative  Assembly<br \/>\nSecretariat  Department while forwarding the papers might not have highlighted<br \/>\nthe indigent circumstance of the petitioner as well as her  social  status  or<br \/>\nfinancial position.    Only  in  certain  aspect of the matter, there may be a<br \/>\nlittle difference, but it will not be a  a  ground  to  treat  the  petitioner<br \/>\ndifferently   from   that   of  the  said  Tmt.Santhanamathy  and  Tmt.Kanmani<br \/>\nVasantharani.  The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is well<br \/>\nfounded in his contention that the petitioner should  not  have  been  treated<br \/>\ndifferently  than that of the two others as there is no difference, much less,<br \/>\nsubstantial or material difference which may disentitle  the  petitioner  from<br \/>\nhaving the same treatment.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.   In  the circumstances, this court is of the considered view that<br \/>\nthe mater requires and deserves reconsideration in the  hands  of  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent-Service  Commission  and  the  Commission may have a fresh look and<br \/>\nconsideration and therefore it is proper to  remit  back  the  matter  to  the<br \/>\nService  Commission  for  being  considered  taking  into consideration of the<br \/>\nentire matter and in  particular  the  background  of  the  petitioner&#8217;s  case<br \/>\nviz-a-viz  the  other  two  candidates  in  whose  favour concurrence has been<br \/>\naccorded as a relaxation.  The Service Commission may  reconsider  the  matter<br \/>\ntaking  into  consideration  of  the entire facts and the over all view of the<br \/>\nmatter.  The Service Commission has to decide the issue afresh as  it  is  the<br \/>\nexpert body in such matters independent of the view expressed by the Personnel<br \/>\nand  Administrative  Reforms  Department,  while  considering  the request for<br \/>\nrelaxation or concurrence for regularisation of her services.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  The petitioner has been  working  for  more  than  a  decade  and<br \/>\nallotted  to  work  and  if  she  is  to be turned out at this stage as she is<br \/>\nalready aged above Forty, she may not find an employment at all.   This  court<br \/>\nis confident that the case of the petitioner may receive full consideration in<br \/>\nthe hands of the Service Commission on par with other cases.  Till the Service<br \/>\nCommission  reconsider  and  communicate  its  decision,  the  services of the<br \/>\npetitioner shall be continued.  It is for the Service Commission to  call  for<br \/>\nfur  ther  reports from the Legislative Assembly Secretariat Department and it<br \/>\nis also equally open to the petitioner to make further submissions to  justify<br \/>\nher request through proper channel.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.  Writ  Petition  No.19105 of 1998 is allowed.  The impugned letter<br \/>\nNo.6782\/CD-B2-96, dated 3.11.1998 is quashed and the matter is  remitted  back<br \/>\nto the second respondent-Service Commission for de novo consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>        15.  Consequently,  connected WP.NO.7745 of 1998 is closed.  Connected<br \/>\nWMPs are also closed.  The parties shall bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Internet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\ngkv<\/p>\n<p>Copy to:-\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Secretary<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Legislative Assembly<br \/>\nSecretariat<br \/>\nChennai<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Secretary<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Public Service Commission<br \/>\nGovernment Estate<br \/>\nChennai-2<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K.Malini vs The Secretary on 10 March, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10\/03\/2003 Coram THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN WRIT PETITION NO.7745 of 1998 and WRIT PETITION NO.19105 OF 1998 AND WMP Nos:11782 and 28987 OF 1998 K.Malini ..Petitioner in both WPs -Vs- 1. The Secretary Tamil Nadu [&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-12728","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>K.Malini vs The Secretary on 10 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Malini vs The Secretary on 10 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-10T06:55:35+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Malini vs The Secretary on 10 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-10T06:55:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2265,\"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\\\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003\",\"name\":\"K.Malini vs The Secretary on 10 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-10T06:55:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Malini vs The Secretary on 10 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.Malini vs The Secretary on 10 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Malini vs The Secretary on 10 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-10T06:55:35+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Malini vs The Secretary on 10 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-10T06:55:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003"},"wordCount":2265,"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\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003","name":"K.Malini vs The Secretary on 10 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-10T06:55:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-malini-vs-the-secretary-on-10-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Malini vs The Secretary on 10 March, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12728","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=12728"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12728\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12728"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12728"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12728"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}