{"id":159713,"date":"2007-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007"},"modified":"2019-02-05T23:04:10","modified_gmt":"2019-02-05T17:34:10","slug":"a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"A.J.M. Innocentia vs The Director Of Collegiate &#8230; on 1 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.J.M. Innocentia vs The Director Of Collegiate &#8230; on 1 October, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 01\/10\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\n\nW.P (MD) No.9605 of 2006\n\n\nA.J.M. Innocentia\t\t...  \tPetitioner\n\n\nvs.\n\n\n1.The Director of Collegiate Education\nDirectorate of Collegiate Education\nCollege Road, Nungambakkam\nChennai\n\n2.The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education\nMadurai Region, Madurai\n\n3.Lakshmi College of Education\nRep. by its Secretary\nGandhigram, Dindigul\n\n4.Dr.S.Thangasamy\t\t... Respondents\n\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of\nCertiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the third\nrespondent pertaining to the impugned order of appointment of the fourth\nrespondent as Principal dated 16.5.2006 in ref. no. 288\/INS.7\/06 and quash the\nsame and direct the third respondent to appoint the petitioner as the Principal\nof the third respondent college.\n\n\n!For petitioner\t \t...\tMr. V. Prakash, SC\n\t\t\t   \tfor Mr. A. Arul Sagai\n\t\n^For Respondents 1&amp;2 \t...\tMrs.V.Chellammal, Spl. GP\n\t\n\t\nFor Respondent 3\t...\tMr.V.Vijayshankar\n\n\nFor Respondent 4\t...\tMr.A.Srinivasan\n\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe present writ petition is filed by an unsuccessful aspirant for the<br \/>\npost of Principal in the third respondent College who is challenging the order<br \/>\nof appointment dated 16.5.2006 appointing the fourth respondent as Principal of<br \/>\nthe College. By setting aside the same, the petitioner seeks for a direction to<br \/>\nappoint her as the principal of the third respondent College.\n<\/p>\n<p>Trust and it is a College of Education.    The College is a Private aided<br \/>\nCollege governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges<br \/>\n(Regulations) Act 1976 (for short, &#8216;Private Colleges Act&#8217;].        On an earlier<br \/>\noccasion, when the question of filling up the post of Principal arose, one<br \/>\nM.Sadanandan was appointed directly from outside without considering any of the<br \/>\nsuccessful aspirants, who are available within the College.    This necessitated<br \/>\nthe petitioner filing the writ petition before the Principal Bench in W.P.<br \/>\nNo.4663 of 1999 challenging the appointment of Dr. M.Sadanandan as the Principal<br \/>\nof the College.    Two other petitions filed by two other teachers, viz.,<br \/>\nW.P.No.2810 of 1999 filed by one Dr.T.Savadamuthu and W.P. No.1949 of 1999 filed<br \/>\nby one Dr.S.Indirani, for the same relief are also pending.     During the<br \/>\npendency of the writ petition, the said Principal Dr.M.Sadanandan sought for<br \/>\nrelieving him from  the post of Principal in order to enable him to take up the<br \/>\nappointment of asReader in the Manonmaniyam Sundaranar University.    Therefore,<br \/>\nhe was relieved from the office of Principal on 30.3.1996 on his own request.<br \/>\nThis created a permanent vacancy in the post of Principal.    On account of the<br \/>\nvacancy and since the filling up the post of Principal may take a longer time,<br \/>\nthe petitioner was directed to take charge of the post of Principal.    It is<br \/>\nalso stated that the writ petitions pending  before the Principal Bench  had<br \/>\nvirtually become infructuous and, therefore, the College was proposing to<br \/>\nappoint a Principal  in accordance with the Private Colleges Act and the Rules<br \/>\nthereunder.     Under Rule 11(4) of the Private  Colleges Rules, any promotion<br \/>\nshall be given to persons, who are already qualified and working in the College<br \/>\nand selection will be based upon merit and ability and when they are<br \/>\napproximately equal, seniority will be preferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.\tThe College Committee of the third respondent met on 03.5.2006 and<br \/>\nformed the Selection Committee to select the Principal of the College and the<br \/>\npetitioner was also directed to submit her bio-data to attend for an interview<br \/>\non 16.5.2006 before the Selection committee.    On the apprehension that she may<br \/>\nnot be selected, she filed another writ petition being W.P.(MD) No.4263 of 2006<br \/>\nbefore this Court and sought for a prayer to consider her case to the post of<br \/>\nPrincipal.     The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 17.5.2006 on<br \/>\nthe ground that the petitioner had already participated in the interview and if<br \/>\nshe is not selected, she can always challenge the selection, if any, made.   It<br \/>\nwas stated in the College Committee Meeting held on 16.5.2006, that  it was<br \/>\ndecided to constitute a Selection Committee comprising of the Managing Trustee<br \/>\nof the Gandhigram Trust, Chairman of the College Committee and Principal of the<br \/>\nCollege Committee, Principal of Yadava Woman&#8217;s College, Madurai and Secretary of<br \/>\nthe College Committee.   The Committee also decided to request the Joint<br \/>\nDirector of Collegiate Education, Madurai and representative from the Madurai<br \/>\nKamaraj University to be members of the Selection Committee and they also<br \/>\ninvited Dr.S.Mohan, Dean, College Development Council, Alagappa University and<br \/>\nDr.N.Balasubramanian, Dean of Bharathiyar University and Dr.S.Mohan did not<br \/>\nattend the meeting.   The petitioner, being the acting Principal and also ex-<br \/>\nofficio member of the College Committee as well as Dr.S.Indirani, who also<br \/>\napplied for the post of Principal were obviously not made as members of the<br \/>\nselection Committee as they themselves were aspirants for the post.     There<br \/>\nwere three claimants for the post of Principal within the College.   They are<br \/>\n(1) petitioner (2) fourth respondent and (3) Dr.S.Indirani.     The committee<br \/>\ndecided to appoint Dr.S.Indirani as Vice-Principal of the College for which  no<br \/>\nmonetary benefit will be paid by the Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.\tWith reference to the appointment to the post of Principal, the<br \/>\nCommittee selected the candidature of the fourth respondent and did not favour<br \/>\nthe selection of the petitioner.     Accordingly, the fourth respondent was<br \/>\nappointed subject to approval by the Government for grant purposes.    In this<br \/>\nwrit petition, the selection of the fourth respondent is not attacked on the<br \/>\nground of any lack of qualification.    But the procedure adopted by the third<br \/>\nrespondent College is under attack.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.\tI have heard the arguments of Mr. V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel<br \/>\nleading Mr. A.Arul Sagai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs.<br \/>\nV.Chellammal, learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents 1<br \/>\nand 2, Mr.V.Vijayshankar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and<br \/>\nMr.A.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and have<br \/>\nperused the records.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.\tMr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.Arul Sahay, for the<br \/>\npetitioner submitted that the petitioner has been agitating for the post of<br \/>\nPrincipal over the yearsand admittedly, between the fourth respondent and<br \/>\nherself, she is senior and she is holding the office of the Principal ever since<br \/>\nthe vacancy arose on 31.3.2006 and, therefore, she had gained experience and she<br \/>\nshould be appointed to the said post.    When confronted with the statutory Rule<br \/>\nfound in Rule 11(4)(ii) of the Private Colleges Rules that a criteria for the<br \/>\nappointment is merit and ability and only when they are approximately equal,<br \/>\nseniority will come to the picture, the learned Senior Counsel changed his<br \/>\ncourse of argument and submitted that the formation of the College Committee was<br \/>\nwrong inasmuch as it excluded two sitting members and instead of appointing some<br \/>\npersons in their places as they were disqualified to sit in the committee<br \/>\n(because of they themselves were aspirants to the post), the College Committee<br \/>\nshould have invited persons from outside for sitting in the committee.<br \/>\nTherefore, the procedure for selection cannot be held to be valid.   The<br \/>\nargument that there were vacancies in the College Committee cannot be accepted<br \/>\nbecause the petitioner as well as Dr.Indirani were excluded from committee only<br \/>\nfor considering the relevant subject, viz., the selection of Principal and that<br \/>\ntoo, this is on the ground that they themselves were applicants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.\tThe invitation of two experts from outside does not prejudice the<br \/>\ncase of the petitioner.   On the other hand, it only removes any kind of<br \/>\npersonal animosity.    The two persons, who are outsiders, cannot be said to be<br \/>\ntotal strangers to the College.    One is the Joint Director of Collegiate<br \/>\nEducation, who  knows the Rules relating to the Private Colleges and authority<br \/>\nand the second is the subject expert from another University.    It is not known<br \/>\nas to how the petitioner is prejudiced by some additional invitees being<br \/>\ninvited.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.\tIn this context it is relevant to point out that  a similar question<br \/>\nwhich arose in respect of a Private School, which litigation finally reached the<br \/>\nSupreme Court, and its judgment  is reported in JT 2007 (7) SC 82 [<a href=\"\/doc\/859773\/\">S.Sethuraman<br \/>\nv.  R.Venkataraman and others<\/a>].   Speaking for the Bench, Justice S.B.Sinha<br \/>\npointed out the scope in a private management in selecting the candidate for the<br \/>\npost of Headmaster.    The following passages found in paragraphs 16 and 17 can<br \/>\nbe usefully extracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Para 16:\t&#8220;The terms and conditions of service of the teachers of an aided<br \/>\nschool are governed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.  The Managing<br \/>\nCommittee of the School in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules are enjoined with a<br \/>\nduty to fill up the post of Headmaster primarily on the basis of &#8216;merit and<br \/>\nability&#8217;.    Indisputably, the committee while appointing a person must take<br \/>\ninto consideration the merit and ability of the candidate alone and only when<br \/>\nthe respective merit and ability of two candidates are equal, seniority will<br \/>\nhave some role to play.   Respondent No.1 is senior to the appellant only by 13<br \/>\ndays.    At the relevant point of time, the appellant had passed the prescribed<br \/>\nAccounts test for headmasters conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service<br \/>\nCommission in the year 1989.    Before us various other factors have been placed<br \/>\nfor the purpose of showing that apart from the fact that the appellant was more<br \/>\nqualified, the respondent No.1 having regard to his past services should not<br \/>\nhave been considered suitable for appointment to the said post.\n<\/p>\n<p>Para 17:\tWhile exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate authority<br \/>\nhas indisputably a plenary power.    It may not only consider the respective<br \/>\neducational qualifications and other activities of the respective candidates for<br \/>\nthe purpose of arriving at a decision as to which of the two candidates had<br \/>\nbetter merit and ability, but it should exercise its jurisdiction keeping in<br \/>\nview the views of the Managing Committee,.     If two views are possible,<br \/>\nordinarily, the view of the Managing Committee should be allowed to prevail.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.\tThe provisions of the Private Colleges Act and the Rules framed<br \/>\nthereunder are in parimateria with Rule 15 relating to the Private Schools Act<br \/>\nwhich was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision cited above.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.\tIn the light of the above, the grounds raised by the petitioner will<br \/>\nhave to be necessarily rejected and the decision of the College Committee must<br \/>\nhave a pre-eminent role in selecting  a person for the post of Principal.<br \/>\nThe fact that the petitioner was made to officiate in the post of Principal due<br \/>\nto the resignation of the earlier Principal, is only by a fortuitous<br \/>\ncircumstances and the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same.   Learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner having  failed in his attempts, to persuade changed<br \/>\nhis argument altogether into a new line.     The said argument is based upon the<br \/>\nGovernment directive containing in G.O. Ms. No.111 Higher Education Department<br \/>\ndated 24.3.1999.    In that order, after accepting the recommendation of the<br \/>\nUniversity Grants Commission, the State Government has informed the Colleges to<br \/>\nfollow the method of selection prescribed therein, viz., for selecting the<br \/>\nPrincipal, a special Committee will have to be constituted and according to the<br \/>\npetitioner, G.O. 111 Higher Education Department dated 24.3.1999 was  valid and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the selection is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.\tFirst of all, the petitioner never raised objection before<br \/>\nparticipating in the selection process.    Secondly, in the affidavit, there is<br \/>\nno reference to any pleading in this regard.     Assuming that the said G.O. is<br \/>\nin existence as to how far it will replace the statutory rules framed under the<br \/>\nPrivate Colleges Act will have to be gone into and the further question whether<br \/>\nthe University Grants Commission&#8217;s [for short,&#8217;UGC&#8217;] recommendations as accepted<br \/>\nby the State Government, can be enforced in the teeth of the existing statutory<br \/>\nRule for which the State Legislature has powers will also have to  be examined.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.\tWhile undoubtedly the UGC can issue guidelines in respect of the<br \/>\nacademic excellence and coordination of standards in respect of Entry 66 of List<br \/>\n1 prescribed under Schedule 7 of the Constitution, but the power of the State<br \/>\nlegislature to make laws relating to Entry 25 of List 3 of 7th Schedule relating<br \/>\nto education cannot be totally ruled out.    The selection for the post of<br \/>\nPrincipal, teachers and other non-teaching staff squarely vests with the College<br \/>\nCommittee and by the executive fiat, the College Committee cannot be replaced.<br \/>\nUnless these issues are gone into, mere production of a G.O. issued by the<br \/>\nGovernment without there being any pleadings on that score, will not help the<br \/>\ncase of the petitioner  and also considering the fact that the petitioner had<br \/>\nparticipated in the interview conducted by the selection committee constituted<br \/>\nby the College Committee, it is too late for the petitioner to make objection<br \/>\nregarding the selection made in favour of the fourth respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.\tIn the above circumstances, the writ petition fails and deserves to<br \/>\nbe dismissed.    Accordingly, the same is dismissed.    However, there will be<br \/>\nno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>gri<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Director of Collegiate Education<br \/>\nDirectorate of Collegiate Education<br \/>\nCollege Road, Nungambakkam<br \/>\nChennai<\/p>\n<p>2.The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education<br \/>\nMadurai Region<br \/>\nMadurai<\/p>\n<p>3.Secretary<br \/>\nLakshmi College of Education<br \/>\nGandhigram<br \/>\nDindigul<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A.J.M. Innocentia vs The Director Of Collegiate &#8230; on 1 October, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01\/10\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P (MD) No.9605 of 2006 A.J.M. Innocentia &#8230; Petitioner vs. 1.The Director of Collegiate Education Directorate of Collegiate Education College Road, Nungambakkam Chennai [&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-159713","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>A.J.M. Innocentia vs The Director Of Collegiate ... on 1 October, 2007 - 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\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.J.M. Innocentia vs The Director Of Collegiate ... on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-05T17:34:10+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.J.M. Innocentia vs The Director Of Collegiate &#8230; on 1 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-05T17:34:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2040,\"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\\\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007\",\"name\":\"A.J.M. Innocentia vs The Director Of Collegiate ... on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-05T17:34:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.J.M. Innocentia vs The Director Of Collegiate &#8230; on 1 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"A.J.M. Innocentia vs The Director Of Collegiate ... on 1 October, 2007 - 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\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.J.M. Innocentia vs The Director Of Collegiate ... on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-05T17:34:10+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.J.M. Innocentia vs The Director Of Collegiate &#8230; on 1 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-05T17:34:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007"},"wordCount":2040,"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\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007","name":"A.J.M. Innocentia vs The Director Of Collegiate ... on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-05T17:34:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-j-m-innocentia-vs-the-director-of-collegiate-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.J.M. Innocentia vs The Director Of Collegiate &#8230; on 1 October, 2007"}]},{"@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\/159713","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=159713"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159713\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}