{"id":17274,"date":"2004-04-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004"},"modified":"2015-04-22T17:12:21","modified_gmt":"2015-04-22T11:42:21","slug":"k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"K.K. Senthilkumaran vs The Secretary on 2 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.K. Senthilkumaran vs The Secretary on 2 April, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  JUDICATURE  AT  MADRAS\n\nDated: 02\/04\/2004\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\n\nW.A. No. 876 of 2001 and W.A. No. 880 of 2001\n\n\n\nK.K. Senthilkumaran                    ...  Appellant in WA 876 of 01\n\nMrs. K. Jayashree Vijaya chitra   Appellant in WA 880 of 01\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe Secretary\nTamil Nadu Public Service Commission    ...   Respondent in\nChennai  2                                    both the appeals\n\n\nAppeals under Cl.15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28-9-2000 in W.P. No.17070\/93 and W.P. No.1718\/95\n\n!For Appellants         --  Mr. T. Visvanatha Rao\n\n^For Respondent         --  Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Delivered by V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.)<\/p>\n<p>                This will be a peculiar case of successful operation but,  the<br \/>\npatient collapsing.  The following are the facts:\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   Appellants herein, who are brother and sister, challenged<br \/>\nthe orders passed  by  the  Tamil  Nadu  Public  Service  Commission  (TNPSC<br \/>\nhereinafter),  by  which  TNPSC  cancelled their provisional selection for the<br \/>\nGovernment service.  Brother Dr.  K.K.    Senthilkumaran,  appellant  in  W.A.<br \/>\nNo.876 of 2001, had applied for being selected as Assistant Surgeon while, the<br \/>\nsister Mrs.  K.    Jayashree  Vijayachitra, appellant in W.A.  No.880 of 2001,<br \/>\nfor the post of Labour Officer.  Both of them were duly  selected  though  not<br \/>\nappointed.   While appearing for the selection, they claimed the status of the<br \/>\nScheduled Caste.  They claimed that they belonged to the  community  Puthirai<br \/>\nVannan, a Scheduled Caste community.  In case of both of them, the Collector,<br \/>\nMadras,  within  whose territorial jurisdiction they were ordinarily residing,<br \/>\nhad confirmed the caste certificates issued by the Tahsildar  that  they  were<br \/>\nbelonging to Puthirai Vannan, which was a scheduled caste community.  At the<br \/>\ntime  of  their  selection,  when  they were directed to produce the community<br \/>\ncertificates,  the  appellants  produced  the  certificates  issued   by   the<br \/>\nHeadquarters Tashildhar,  Mambalam-Guindy  Taluk.    These  certificates  were<br \/>\nexamined by the Coll  ector,  Madras,  who  confirmed  the  said  certificates<br \/>\nholding  that  the  appellants  to  be  belonging  to  Hindu Puthirai Vannan<br \/>\ncommunity.  The order goes on to say:   The community  of  Dr.    Thiru  K.K.<br \/>\nSenthil Kumaran,  s\/o Thiru K.  Krishnan is hereby confirmed as Hindu Puthirai<br \/>\nvannan Scheduled Caste on the basis of enquiry and verification of records.<br \/>\nHence the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, MambalamGuindy  Taluk<br \/>\nin  D.Dis  No.5481\/90 dated 20-2-1990 in favour of the captioned individual is<br \/>\nconfirmed as a bona fide one. Identical is the order in case  of  his  sister<br \/>\nalso.  However,  this  was  not accepted by TNPSC.  TNPSC, it seems, went into<br \/>\nthe issue whether the appellants herein did really belong to Puthirai Vannan<br \/>\ncommunity.  This enquiry was probably initiated because, the community of K.K.<br \/>\nSenthil Kumaran, in his S.S.L.C.  book was mentioned as Vannan.   This  was,<br \/>\nhowever,  got  corrected  earlier on the basis of the application given by the<br \/>\nfather of the appellants.  TNPSC also referred to a certificate issued by  the<br \/>\nTahsildar, Thiruchendur about the nativity of the father of the appellants and<br \/>\nobserved that the appellants father had in fact permanently settled at Madras<br \/>\nand,   therefore,   the  Tahsildar,  Tiruchendur  could  not  have  given  the<br \/>\ncertificate.  Very curiously, TNPSC then went on to record as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>It is seen from the above fact  that  the  Collector  did  not  cause  proper<br \/>\nenquiry in  this  regard.  His report is based on the community certificate of<br \/>\nthe father of the candidate which is not correct.  The Commission has analysed<br \/>\nthe issue in depth and has decided that Dr.    K.    Senthilkumaran  does  not<br \/>\nbelong  to  Puthirai  Vanna  community (scheduled caste) On this basis, TNPSC<br \/>\nissued show cause notices and ultimately cancelled the  provisional  selection<br \/>\nof the  appellants.    The  appellants were also debarred for three years from<br \/>\nappearing for further recruitment to be made by TNPSC.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  Being aggrieved by this, writ petitions came to be  filed,<br \/>\nwhich were  disposed  of by the learned single Judge by a common order.  After<br \/>\nreferring to the facts in details, the learned Judge has, in paragraph 8, held<br \/>\nthat TNPSC had decided the  cases  on  merits  and  the  action  of  TNPSC  in<br \/>\nrejecting  the  applications  and  cancelling the provisional selection of the<br \/>\nappellants to the post of Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical  Service<br \/>\nand  Officer  in  the Labour Service and the punishment imposed were in order.<br \/>\nThere does not appear to be any discussion regarding the merits or the  powers<br \/>\nof TNPSC to issue such an order.  Be that as it may, aggrieved by the order of<br \/>\nthe learned single Judge, these appeals have been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   Learned  counsel for the appellants brought to our notice<br \/>\nthat genuine community certificates were issued in case of both the appellants<br \/>\nby the authorities who had the necessary power to  issue  those  certificates.<br \/>\nLearned  counsel  points out that the genuineness of those certificates issued<br \/>\nby the Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy, Madras was never questioned  by  the  TNPSC<br \/>\nnor is  being  challenged  here also.  Learned counsel further points out that<br \/>\nwhen  a  doubt  was  entertained  in  respect  of  those  certificates,  those<br \/>\ncertificates   were  also  enquired  into  by  the  Collector,  Madras  and  a<br \/>\nfull-fledged enquiry went into for that exercise and the  Collector  had  very<br \/>\nclearly  held those certificates to be genuine certificates and also confirmed<br \/>\nthe  finding  in  those  certificates  that  the   appellants\/writ-petitioners<br \/>\nbelonged to  scheduled  caste  community  called  Puthirai  Vannan.  Learned<br \/>\ncounsel then points out that there was no authority in  the  Commission,  i.e.<br \/>\nTNPSC  to  sit  as  an  appellate  authority to the order passed either by the<br \/>\nTahsildar or by the Collector and to come to its own conclusion on merits that<br \/>\nthe appellants did not belong to scheduled caste community.    He  points  out<br \/>\nthat  TNPSC,  in  cancelling  the  provisional  selection  and  inflicting the<br \/>\npunishment on the basis of the reasoning given by it,  has  travelled  outside<br \/>\nits own  jurisdiction.    Learned counsel points out that TNPSC could not have<br \/>\ncancelled the caste certificates on the ground that they  were  not  correctly<br \/>\ngranted.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  As  against this, Mr.  Paul Vasanthkumar, learned standing<br \/>\ncounsel for TNPSC says that TNPSC had  the  perfect  authority  to  check  the<br \/>\ncertificates  because  it  is only on the basis of those certificates that the<br \/>\nfurther selection and appointment depended.  He relies on Rule 5 (e) of  TNPSC<br \/>\nRules of  Procedure, 1996.  The second and the most attractive argument of Mr.<br \/>\nPaul Vasanthkumar is  that  this  Court  did  not  have  the  jurisdiction  to<br \/>\nentertain  the writ petitions at all because this was a question pertaining to<br \/>\nthe recruitment to Government service and, therefore, any such challenge could<br \/>\nhave been made before the State  Administrative  Tribunal.    Learned  counsel<br \/>\nrelies  on  Sec.15  of  the  Administrative Tribunals Act to suggest that this<br \/>\nsubject essentially falls within the jurisdiction of the State  Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal and, relying on Sec.28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, contended<br \/>\nthat  the  jurisdiction  of  the  High  Court  was completely excluded in this<br \/>\nbehalf.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  There  can  be  no  dispute  that  the  question  actually<br \/>\npertained  to the recruitment of the appellants to the Government service and,<br \/>\ntherefore, covered by Sec.15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.   There  can<br \/>\nbe  further  again  no  question  that  what  TNPSC had done was to cancel the<br \/>\nprovisional selection of the appellants and as such the jurisdiction  of  this<br \/>\nCourt  was  excluded  by  Sec.28  of  the  Administrative  Tribunals  Act and,<br \/>\ntherefore, this Court could not have entertained the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   The  question,  however,  is  whether  TNPSC  could  have<br \/>\nactually  acted  as  the  appellate  authority  to  the  orders  passed by the<br \/>\nTahsildar and the Collector.  If the TNPSC went on to quash the selection  for<br \/>\nthe reasons extraneous or by using the powers which were never there, could it<br \/>\nbe said  to  be  action  within  the  jurisdiction of TNPSC?  Could it even be<br \/>\ncalled to be a bona fide action on the part of TNPSC?  In  our  opinion,  what<br \/>\nTNPSC  has  done in this case is they have assumed to themselves the appellate<br \/>\npowers over the Tahsildars and Collector s orders.  Then  they  went  on  to<br \/>\nexamine the  correctness  of the order of the Collector.  In our opinion, this<br \/>\nwas not possible.  The role of TNPSC in examining the certificates would  only<br \/>\nbe  limited  to  see as to whether the certificates were true and genuine or<br \/>\nnot.  The  correctness of the information given in  the  certificates  could<br \/>\nnot be  tested by the TNPSC.  In this case, the correctness of the community<br \/>\ncertificate of the appellants was tested  by  the  Collector,  Madras,  within<br \/>\nwhose  territorial  jurisdiction  the appellants were ordinarily residing, who<br \/>\nhad the necessary authority to do so.  Once that was  done,  TNPSC  could  not<br \/>\nassume for  itself  the  powers to sit over the judgment of the Collector.  In<br \/>\nour opinion, the whole exercise in cancelling the  provisional  selection  was<br \/>\nabsolutely uncalled  for.    Therefore, the action taken by TNPSC was itself a<br \/>\nnon est action.  The Court could entertain  the  writ  petition  only  to  the<br \/>\nlimited  extent of quashing the finding by the TNPSC that the petitioners were<br \/>\nnot Scheduled Caste candidates.\n<\/p>\n<p>                We cannot, however, grant the relief of quashing the order  of<br \/>\nTNPSC by which the selection was cancelled because, that would be the power of<br \/>\nthe State  Administrative  Tribunal.  We only point out that TNPSCs action in<br \/>\nholding that the appellants did not belong to scheduled  caste  community  was<br \/>\ncompletely  incorrect  and without any justification and without any power and<br \/>\nhence, that order to that extent is erroneous in law.  With this, we allow the<br \/>\nappeals to the extent that we have indicated in the sense that  we  set  aside<br \/>\nthe  declaration  by the TNPSC that the community certificates produced by the<br \/>\nappellants were not correctly granted.  It will be now for the  appellants  to<br \/>\nmove the proper authority for the relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>                The appeals are disposed of.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nWebsite:Yes<br \/>\nJai<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Chennai 600 002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K.K. Senthilkumaran vs The Secretary on 2 April, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 02\/04\/2004 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR and The Honourable Mr. Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA W.A. No. 876 of 2001 and W.A. No. 880 of 2001 K.K. Senthilkumaran &#8230; Appellant in WA 876 [&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-17274","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K.K. Senthilkumaran vs The Secretary on 2 April, 2004 - 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-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.K. Senthilkumaran vs The Secretary on 2 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-22T11:42:21+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\\\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.K. Senthilkumaran vs The Secretary on 2 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-22T11:42:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1538,\"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-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004\",\"name\":\"K.K. Senthilkumaran vs The Secretary on 2 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-22T11:42:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.K. Senthilkumaran vs The Secretary on 2 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@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.K. Senthilkumaran vs The Secretary on 2 April, 2004 - 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-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.K. Senthilkumaran vs The Secretary on 2 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-22T11:42:21+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\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.K. Senthilkumaran vs The Secretary on 2 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-22T11:42:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004"},"wordCount":1538,"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-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004","name":"K.K. Senthilkumaran vs The Secretary on 2 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-22T11:42:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-senthilkumaran-vs-the-secretary-on-2-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.K. Senthilkumaran vs The Secretary on 2 April, 2004"}]},{"@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\/17274","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=17274"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17274\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17274"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17274"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17274"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}