{"id":15436,"date":"2003-03-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003"},"modified":"2017-12-08T19:07:51","modified_gmt":"2017-12-08T13:37:51","slug":"secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"Secretary, Selection Committee &#8230; vs N. Anirudhan (Minor) And Ors. Etc on 12 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Secretary, Selection Committee &#8230; vs N. Anirudhan (Minor) And Ors. Etc on 12 March, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2309-2310 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nSecretary, Selection Committee (MBBS)\n\nRESPONDENT:\nN. Anirudhan (minor) and Ors. etc.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/03\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nSHIVARAJ V. PATIL &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19429-19430\/2002)<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT J<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tChallenge in these appeals is to the directions given<br \/>\nby a learned Single Judge undisturbed by the Division Bench<br \/>\nof the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1736 and 1737<br \/>\nof 2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFactual scenario which is almost undisputed and leading<br \/>\nto the appeals is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondents were admitted to the MBBS degree<br \/>\ncourse. They claimed that they should have been given<br \/>\nadmission in the Government College category in respect of<br \/>\nthe seats created pursuant to the directions given by this<br \/>\nCourt, for creating additional seats for the open category.<br \/>\nThey filed writ petitions before the High Court contending<br \/>\nthat some students who had secured lesser marks than them<br \/>\nhad been admitted in the Government College category.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and<br \/>\nScheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in educational<br \/>\nInstitutions and of appointment or posts in services under<br \/>\nthe State) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;Act&#8217;)<br \/>\nwas enacted by the State of Tamil Nadu. Prior to its<br \/>\nenactment, the ratio of admission was as follows:<\/p>\n<pre>\n\nOpen category\t50%\n\t\tBC\/MBC\t\t31%\n\t\tSC\t\t\t18%\n\t\tST\t\t\t 1%\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>After enactment of the Act, the communal reservation to be<br \/>\nfollowed in the admissions was 31% to open competition<br \/>\ncandidates, while the rests 69% was allotted to BC, MBC, SC<br \/>\nand ST candidates. Constitutional validity of the provisions<br \/>\nof the said Act was challenged before this Court in SLP (C)<br \/>\nNo. 13526\/1993. Pending final orders, an interim order was<br \/>\npassed on 18.8.1994.  Essence of the order is being followed<br \/>\nfor various academic years.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe writ petitioners contended that they had secured<br \/>\n292.54 and 292.43 cut off marks. They were selected and<br \/>\nallotted to Perundurai Medical College under free seat<br \/>\ncategory by following the 69% reservation rule. Certain<br \/>\nadditional seats were created pursuant to the directions<br \/>\ngiven by this Court. But admission was given to two<br \/>\ncandidates who are 2nd and 3rd respondents in the writ<br \/>\npetitions respectively belonging to the backward classes<br \/>\ncategory, though they secured 292.08 cut off marks. They wee<br \/>\nallotted to Madurai and Coimbatore Government Medical<br \/>\nColleges respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>Grievance of the writ petitioners was that they were<br \/>\nentitled to be allotted to the seats in Government Medical<br \/>\nColleges and not the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the writ<br \/>\npetitions. This prayer was resisted by the State Government<br \/>\non the ground that because of the directions of this Court,<br \/>\nthere was a re-fixation of the cut off marks. The cut off<br \/>\nmarks for the open category candidates stood lowered to<br \/>\n293.18 from 294.52. Since writ petitioners had secured<br \/>\nlesser marks, they were not entitled to be admitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned Single Judge of the High Court directed that on<br \/>\nthe factual position as highlighted by the parties, the writ<br \/>\npetitioners were entitled to be admitted to the allotment in<br \/>\nGovernment seats in Government Medical Colleges. However,<br \/>\nthe allotment to the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the writ<br \/>\npetitions was not disturbed. The order passed by learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge came to be challenged before the Division Bench<br \/>\nwhich by the impugned order was dismissed. It was noticed<br \/>\nthat the learned Single Judge had passed an order on the<br \/>\nbasis of the directions given by this Court and had given<br \/>\nvalid reasons for allowing the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted<br \/>\nthat the approach of the High Court was erroneous. The order<br \/>\npassed by this Court on 18.8.1994 clearly indicated the<br \/>\nposition as regards the number of seats to be allotted to<br \/>\nvarious categories. The seats were filled up by the<br \/>\nconcerned authorities strictly complying with the directions<br \/>\nof this Court.\tIt is further submitted that by giving<br \/>\nadmission to the writ petitioners virtually new seats have<br \/>\nto be created for them which will be against the law laid<br \/>\ndown by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1881\/\">Medical Council of India v. Madhu<br \/>\nSingh and Ors.<\/a> (2002 (7) SCC 258).\n<\/p>\n<p>\tPer contra, learned counsel for the respondents-writ<br \/>\npetitioners submitted that the data furnished by the<br \/>\nappellant clearly indicate as to how misleading information<br \/>\nis being given. According to him, the data clearly indicates<br \/>\nthat directions of this Court have not been complied with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1526461\/\">In Voice (Consumer Care) Council v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a><br \/>\n(1996 (11) SCC 740) this court indicated the purport of the<br \/>\norder dated 18.8.1994 which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;First, make the admissions applying the<br \/>\nrule of 69% reservation in favour of Backward<br \/>\nClasses, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled<br \/>\nTribes. Second, the additional seats created<br \/>\nby virtue of the orders of this court be<br \/>\nfilled with the general category candidates.<br \/>\nThe number of seats so created was equal to<br \/>\nthe number of seats which the general<br \/>\ncandidates would have got if the rule of<br \/>\nfifty per cent total reservation had been<br \/>\napplied.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis order in effect respected the rule<br \/>\nof 69 per cent devised by the Government of<br \/>\nTamil Nadu  and sanctioned by the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nAct 45 of 1994\twhile, at the same time,<br \/>\nremoving the grievance of the general<br \/>\ncategory candidates by creating additional<br \/>\nseats for them for that year. In other words,<br \/>\nthe sanctioned strength of seats in every<br \/>\ncollege are being allotted exclusively in<br \/>\naccordance with the sixty-nine per cent<br \/>\nreservation rule. Only the additional seats,<br \/>\nwhich are created by and only because of the<br \/>\norders of this Court are being provided to<br \/>\ngeneral category candidates on the basis of<br \/>\nmerit, which category includes Backward<br \/>\nClasses, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled<br \/>\nTribes as well. It is significant to notice<br \/>\nin this connection that according to the<br \/>\nfigures supplied by the Government of Tamil<br \/>\nNadu for the Academic Years 1993-94 and 1994-<br \/>\n95, more than eighty per cent of the seats in<br \/>\nthe general category are being taken away by<br \/>\nthe students belonging to Backward Classes on<br \/>\nthe basis of their own merit. As fully<br \/>\nexplained and illustrated in the order dated<br \/>\n18.8.1994, the students belonging to Backward<br \/>\nClasses are getting fifty per cent of the<br \/>\ntotal seats on the basis of reservation and<br \/>\nmore than 80 per cent of the seats in the<br \/>\ngeneral category (open competition category)<br \/>\non the basis of their own merit. There is no<br \/>\nreason to believe that the situation is<br \/>\ndifferent this year. Thus, the bulk of the<br \/>\nadditional seats directed to be created by<br \/>\nthis Court year after year (since 1994-95)<br \/>\nare again going to students belonging to<br \/>\nBackward Classes. The order of this Court is<br \/>\nthus not only upholding the rule of fifty per<br \/>\ncent ceiling on reservation affirmed by the<br \/>\nSpecial Bench of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1394696\/\">Indra Sawhney<br \/>\nv. Union of India<\/a> (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217) but<br \/>\nis in truth operating to the advantage and<br \/>\nbenefit of a number of Backward Class<br \/>\nstudents. Many of the Backward Class<br \/>\nstudents, along with certain other candidates<br \/>\nbelonging to non-reserved categories, who<br \/>\nwould not have otherwise got admission into<br \/>\nthese courses, are getting seats by virtue of<br \/>\nthese orders. And yet it is surprising to<br \/>\nnote that the Government of Tamil Nadu has<br \/>\nchosen to ask for modification of the order<br \/>\ndated 22.7.1996. The said order is only<br \/>\ninterlocutory in nature. Pending decision of<br \/>\nthe several constitutional and legal<br \/>\nquestions raised in these matters, it was<br \/>\nsupposed to be an equitable order harming no<br \/>\none. If at all, it benefited some who would<br \/>\nnot have been able to obtain admission<br \/>\notherwise and surely that fact cannot be a<br \/>\nground of  grievance for the State of Tamil<br \/>\nNadu. Only as an interim measure, certain<br \/>\nadditional seats are being created and they<br \/>\nare being allotted to general category<br \/>\ncandidates  which in Tamil Nadu really<br \/>\nmeans providing the bulk of them to students<br \/>\nbelonging to Backward Classes.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the appellant that there is no scope for any increase of<br \/>\nseats without specific permission from the concerned<br \/>\nauthorities as was held in MCI&#8217;s case. The directions given<br \/>\nby this Court, as extracted above, are clear and<br \/>\nunambiguous. The only controversy is whether there has been<br \/>\nproper implementation of the order. We find that learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge and the Division Bench have categorically noted<br \/>\nthat persons belonging to open category who had secured<br \/>\nlesser marks than the writ petitioners, were admitted to the<br \/>\nGovernment Medical Colleges. From the data furnished, we<br \/>\nfind that there were several absentees from amongst those<br \/>\nselected in the open category in relation to the Government<br \/>\nMedical Colleges. Additionally, two seats were directed to<br \/>\nbe kept vacant by learned Single Judge which position<br \/>\ncontinued on confirmation of the Learned Single Judge&#8217;s<br \/>\norder by the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the peculiar circumstances without elaborate<br \/>\ndeliberations of the controversy involved in the main case<br \/>\nwhich is pending before this Court, it would be appropriate<br \/>\nif the writ petitioners (respondents in the present appeals)<br \/>\nare admitted in the Government Medical Colleges. Obviously,<br \/>\nthis direction would not amount to creation of additional<br \/>\nseats and has to be done within the sanctioned seats<br \/>\nstrength of the concerned Government College. As noted<br \/>\nabove, there were several absentees and the interim order<br \/>\npassed by the learned Single Judge continued to be operative<br \/>\non confirmation by the Division Bench as the writ petitions<br \/>\nwere decided in favour of the writ petitioners.\t Let the<br \/>\nnecessary steps be taken to admit the writ petitioners<br \/>\n(respondents in the present appeals) within three weeks from<br \/>\ntoday. Such admission shall be without prejudice to the<br \/>\nclaims involved in the main petition pending before this<br \/>\nCourt. We make it clear that we have not made any departure<br \/>\nfrom principles as laid down in MCI&#8217;s case (supra) and have<br \/>\npassed this order taking note of the undisputed factual<br \/>\nposition of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeals are accordingly disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Secretary, Selection Committee &#8230; vs N. Anirudhan (Minor) And Ors. Etc on 12 March, 2003 Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2309-2310 of 2003 PETITIONER: Secretary, Selection Committee (MBBS) RESPONDENT: N. Anirudhan (minor) and Ors. etc. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/03\/2003 BENCH: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Secretary, Selection Committee ... vs N. Anirudhan (Minor) And Ors. Etc on 12 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\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Secretary, Selection Committee ... vs N. Anirudhan (Minor) And Ors. Etc on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-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=\"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-08T13:37:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Secretary, Selection Committee &#8230; vs N. Anirudhan (Minor) And Ors. Etc on 12 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-08T13:37:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1614,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003\",\"name\":\"Secretary, Selection Committee ... vs N. Anirudhan (Minor) And Ors. Etc on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-08T13:37:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Secretary, Selection Committee &#8230; vs N. Anirudhan (Minor) And Ors. Etc on 12 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":"Secretary, Selection Committee ... vs N. Anirudhan (Minor) And Ors. Etc on 12 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\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Secretary, Selection Committee ... vs N. Anirudhan (Minor) And Ors. Etc on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-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":"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-08T13:37:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Secretary, Selection Committee &#8230; vs N. Anirudhan (Minor) And Ors. Etc on 12 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-08T13:37:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003"},"wordCount":1614,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003","name":"Secretary, Selection Committee ... vs N. Anirudhan (Minor) And Ors. Etc on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-08T13:37:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretary-selection-committee-vs-n-anirudhan-minor-and-ors-etc-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Secretary, Selection Committee &#8230; vs N. Anirudhan (Minor) And Ors. Etc on 12 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\/15436","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=15436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15436\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}