{"id":18020,"date":"1997-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997"},"modified":"2017-12-28T16:17:08","modified_gmt":"2017-12-28T10:47:08","slug":"the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997","title":{"rendered":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs S.Arumugham & Ors on 20 November, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs S.Arumugham & Ors on 20 November, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: M S Manohar.<\/div>\n
Bench: Sujata V. Manohar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS.ARUMUGHAM & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t20\/11\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nSUJATA V. MANOHAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t       THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar
\n\t      Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa
\nR.  Mohan,   Sr.  Adv.,\t  M.A.\tKrishnamoorthy,\t J.B.  Ravi,
\nRajsekaran, Advs. with him for the appellants.
\nMs. Asha Jain Madan, B.P. Singh, R.A. Perumal, Advs. for the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     J U D G M E N T S
\n     The following judgment of the Court wad delivered:
\nMrs. Sujata V. Manohar. J.\n<\/p>\n
     These appeals  arise from\tthe order dated 30.4.1991 of
\nthe Tamil  Nadu Administrative\tTribunal in O.A.  Nos. 1969,
\n3631, 3975,3976\t all of 1990 O.A. No. 192 of 1991. All these
\napplications had  been filed  by persons who were working as
\nSuperintendents in  the office of the Director of Urban Land
\nCeiling and Urban Land Tax.  They challenged G.O.Ms. No. 145
\n(Revenue) dated\t 29.1.1990 issued  by the appellant State of
\nTamil Nadu  increasing the  quota of Superintendents working
\nin various specified offices for deputation as Tehsildars in
\nthe Tamil  Nadu Revenue\t Subordinate Service since they were
\nnot satisfied  with the\t quota for which they were eligible.
\nThe Tribunal  has set  aside G.O.Ms. No. 145 (revenue) dated
\n29.1.1990 and  has directed  the appellants  to review their
\nscheme as  far as the Secretariat staff is concerned and has
\ndirected them  to evolve a different scheme which would give
\nthe staff  a wider  perspective in  all aspects of executive
\nworks which, according to the Tribunal, would be more useful
\nto  the\t staff\tin  the\t Secretariat  working  in  different
\ndepartments. The  Tribunal has\talso  directed\tall  Revenue
\nofficers to  be clubbed into one group and for the manner of
\ndeputing  officers   from  that\t group\tit  has\t also  given
\ndirections as  to how  such  grouping  could  be  made.\t The
\ndecision of  the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal has been
\nchallenged by the appellants before us.\n<\/p>\n
     Those  who\t have  been  deputed  as  Tehsildars  become
\neligible for  further promotion\t as Deputy  Collector in the
\nTamil Nadu  Civil Service. The post of Tehsildar is governed
\nby  the\t  Tamil\t Nadu  Revenue\tSubordinate  Service  Rules.
\nRecruitment to\tthis post  is from  two\t sources  –  (1)  by
\npromotion from\tDeputy Tehsildars  in the Tamil Nadu Revenue
\nsubordinate  Service  or  (2)  by  deputation  from  amongst
\nSection Officers in the Secretariat and t he Superintendents
\nin the\toffice of the Board of Revenue (Land Revenue), Board
\nof Revenue  (food   production), Board of Revenue Settlement
\nof  estates,  the  Commissioner\t   of  Civil  Supplies,\t the
\nDirector of Service Settlements, the Director of Harijan and
\nTribal\twelfare,  the  Director\t of  Backward  Classes,\t the
\nDirector of Rehabilitation, the Commissioner of Agricultural
\nIncome-tax, the\t Director of  Urban Land  Ceiling and  Urban
\nLand Tax  and the  Board of  Revenue (land Reforms), who had
\nrendered satisfactory  service as such for two years and who
\nare otherwise  qualified for  appointment as  Tehsildar. The
\nBoard of Revenue was abolished with effect from 1.12.1980 by
\nreason of the Tamil Nadu Board of Revenue (Abolition) Act of
\n1980. Prior  to its abolition the Board of Revenue Comprised
\nthe following branches:-\n<\/p>\n
     (1) Land Revenue including excise;
\n     (2) Commercial Taxes;
\n     (3) Food Production ;
\n     (4) Settlement of Estates;
\n     (5) Transport;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (6) Agricultural income-tax;
\n     (7) Urban\tLand Ceiling  and  Urban
\n     Land Tax; and
\n     (8) Land reforms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Land Revenue branch of the Board of Revenue enjoyed
\na pre-eminent  position because\t the Land Revenue branch was
\nin overall  control of\tthe entire Revenue Department, while
\nthe other  branches had\t specific functions  and, therefore,
\nhad a  limited field of activity. After the abolition of the
\nBoard of  Revenue the  Land Revenue branch has been replaced
\nby the\toffice of  the Special Commissioner and Commissioner
\nof Revenue  Administration. the\t other\tbranches  also\thave
\nbecome separate.  Some sections are headed by commissioners,
\nsuch as,  the Commissioner  of Agricultural  Income-tax, the
\ncommissioner of Land Administration and so on. The branch of
\nUrban Land  Ceiling and\t urban land Tax has been replaced by
\nthe Directorate of Urban Land Ceiling and Land Tax.\n<\/p>\n
     Under G.O.\t Ms. No.  276 (Revenue)\t dated 31.1.1950 the
\nappellants  decided   that  the\t  Superintendents   of\t the
\nSecretariat and\t the Superintendents of the Board of Revenue
\nwho were  qualified for\t appointed  to\tthe  Madras  Revenue
\nSubordinate Service  as was  then being\t done, be deputed to
\nundergo training  in the  districts for\t a total  period  of
\nthree years  in\t the  Madras  Revenue  Subordinate  Service,
\nnamely, six  months as\tDeputy\tTehsildars,  six  months  as
\nStationary Sub-Magistrate  and two years as Tehsildars. They
\nshould then  be reverted  to the Secretariat or the Board of
\nRevenue, as the case may be, and be considered for inclusion
\nin the\tDeputy Collectors’  list. The G.O.Ms. further stated
\nthat in\t order to  safeguard the prospects of the men in the
\nmofussil the  deputation of  the city-men  working in  these
\noffices should\tbe restricted  to 3  or 4 a year. The number
\nwas subsequently restricted to 3 per year. Under G.O.Ms. No.
\n1154 (Revenue) dated 16.4.1959 the number of Superintendents
\nto be so deputed as Tehsildars was increased from 3 to 6 per
\nyear. By  another G.O.Ms.  No. 2584 (Revenue) dated 4.9.1959
\nthe Government\treserved two  posts   out  of  six  for\t the
\nRevenue secretariat  on the  ground  that  the\ttraining  of
\nSuperintendents of  the Revenue\t Secretariat in\t the  Madras
\nRevenue Subordinate  Service Will  increase the\t standard of
\nefficiency in  the Revenue  Secretariat which  is  concerned
\nwith  most   of\t the   subjects\t that\tare  dealt  with  by
\nTehsildar\/Deputy Tehsildar in the district.\n<\/p>\n
     By\t G.O.Ms.  No.2982  (Revenue)  dated  28.10.1968\t the
\nnumber to  be sent  on deputation  was once  again increased
\nfrom 6\tto 8. It was further decided that as a convention, 2
\nvacancies shall\t be reserved  for the Board of Revenue, Land
\nRevenue branch.\t By  this  G.O.Ms.  Superintendents  in\t the
\nDirectorate  of\t  Harijan  Welfare  were  also\tincluded  to
\naccommodate a  wider  Zone  of\tselection.  In\tthe  Board’s
\nproceedings dated  22.2.1975 one  post was  reserved for the
\nSuperintendents of  the Food  production branch in the Board
\nof Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t G.O.Ms.   426\t(Revenue)  dated  24.2.1975  it\t was
\nmentioned that\tthe facility  of inclusion  in this  list is
\navailable to  the staff\t employed in the office of the Board
\nof Revenue  specifying the  different branches which were so
\neligible. For  the first  time, the  staff of the Urban land
\nCeiling and urban Land Taxes branch was also included.\n<\/p>\n
     Under G.O.Ms.  No. 299  (Revenue) dated  10.2.1977 some
\nmore offices  were brought within the purview of the scheme.
\nThe total  number of  deputationist was\t increased to 10 and
\nthe allocation was as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     3 – Departments of the Secretariat;
\n     3 – Board of Revenue (Land Revenue)
\n     4 – Other City Offices.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This G.O.Ms.  sets out  in detail\tthe reasons for such
\nallocation. It also sets out that there will be difficulties
\nin preparing  a common\tlist of Superintendents in the order
\nof seniority  amongst  different  Section  Officers  of\t the
\nSecretariat and\t the Superintendents  of other\toffices and,
\ntherefore, they\t have prescribed  the quota. It is necessary
\nto note\t that under  this G.O.Ms.  in 1977  itself the\tLand
\nRevenue branch\tof the Board of Revenue was given a specific
\nallocation of three posts while the other City offices were,
\nbetween them, given an allocation of 4 posts.\n<\/p>\n
     This  allocation\twas  revised   by  G.O.Ms.  No.\t 145<\/span><\/p>\n
(Revenue) dated\t 29.1.1990 which  is under  challenge before
\nus. The reason why a fresh G.O.Ms. was required to be issued
\nwas that  the Government  decided to  increase the number of
\nposts from 10 to 16 for the City list because of the overall
\nexpansion in  the posts\t of Tehsildars. This G.O.Ms. retains
\nthe classification  which was  in existence  right from 1977
\nunder the  G.O.Ms. of  10.2.1977. But the departments of the
\nSecretariat the\t original allocation  of 3  posts  has\tbeen
\nincreased now  to 5 posts. In the erstwhile Board of Revenue
\n(Land Revenue) branch which originally had 3 posts under the
\nG.O.Ms. of 1977 these posts have now been increased to 5. In
\nview of the abolition of the Board of Revenue. these 5 posts
\nhave gone  to the  office of  the Special  Commissioner\t and
\ncommissioner  of   Land\t Revenue  Administration  which\t has
\nreplaced the  Land Revenue  branch of  the Board of Revenue.
\nthese 5\t posts have  gone  to  the  office  of\tthe  special
\nCommissioner and Commissioner of Land Revenue Administration
\nwhich has  replaced the\t Land Revenue branch of the Board of
\nRevenue. The  other city  offices have\tnow been  allotted 6
\nseats instead of 4 seats.\n<\/p>\n
     In their  affidavit which\twas filed  by the appellants
\nbefore the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal the appellants
\nhave explained in detail the ration of such allocation. They
\nhave pointed  out that\tthe  Special  Commissioner  and\t the
\nCommissioner of\t Land  Revenue\tAdministration,\t occupies  a
\nspecial\t place\t in  this   programme  because\tit  is\tthis
\ndepartment (originally\tthe land Revenue branch of the Board
\nof Revenue)  which handles the overall control of the entire
\nRevenue\t  Department.\tTraining   as\tDeputy\t Tehsildars\/
\nTehsildars  is\t of  special  relevance\t for  the  efficient
\nfunctioning of\tthis department.  The appellants  have\talso
\npointed out  that the avenues for promotion in the office of
\nthe special  Commissioner and  Commissioner of\tland Revenue
\nAdministration\tare   more  limited   than  the\t avenues  of
\npromotion in  all other departments. In their affidavit they
\nhave set out in detail the avenues of promotion available in
\neach of\t the offices  which are\t governed by  the scheme  in
\norder to substantiate this submission.\n<\/p>\n
     The contention  of the  Superintendents working  in the
\nDirectorate of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax appears
\nto be  that they  also originally formed a part of the Board
\nof Revenue  and , therefore, they should not be clubbed with
\nthe other  city offices\t under this  G.O.Ms. They  should be
\nclubbed with  the  superintendents  in\tthe  office  of\t the
\nSpecial\t Commissioner\tand  Commissioner  of  Land  Revenue
\nAdministration. They  are forgetting that even under G.O.Ms.
\nof 1977\t the separate allocation of 3 seats was only for the
\nLand Revenue  Branch of the Board of Revenue and not for all
\nthe branches  of the Board of Revenue. In 1977 they had been
\nclubbed along  with other city offices for the allocation of
\nseats. if the reasoning of the respondents is to be accepted
\nother offices which also formed a part of the original Board
\nof Revenues  would also\t have to be similarly treated. There
\nis no  justification  at  all  for  any\t grievance  in\tthis
\nconnection because  right from\tthe beginning of the scheme.
\nIt has\tbeen clearly provided that the original Land Revenue
\nAdministration, ad  a special  nexus with the functioning of
\nthe  office  of\t the  Tehsildar\/Deputy\tTehsildar;  and\t the
\ntraining they  would obtain  on deputation would be directly
\nrelevant for  the purpose  of improving\t their efficiency in
\nthe parent  department. it is also clear that at no point of
\ntime there  was any  allocation made  in proportion  to\t the
\nnumber f  Superintendents in  any office. The allocation was
\nmade for  the purpose  of ensuring,  first of  all, that the
\nSuperintendents in  the office of the Board of Revenue, Land
\nRevenue branch got a reasonable allocation for deputation in
\norder to  improve their\t efficiency; and secondly to give to
\nSuperintendents\t working   in  other  offices,\tand  in\t the
\nSecretariat,  an   additional  avenue\tof  promotion.\t The
\nallocation has\talso been made on the basis of the prospects
\nof promotion  available in  various offices in the city. The
\nallocation has been in force since 1977 and it has stood the
\ntest of time.\n<\/p>\n
     The  tribunal   itself  came  to  the  conclusion\tthat
\ncombining all  the departments and having a common seniority
\nlist was  neither justified  nor feasible.  But it has given
\ndirections  for\t  a  different\tkind  of  allocation  and  a
\ndifferent  scheme.   These  directions\t pertain  to  policy
\nmatters.  The  Tribunal\t ought\tnot  to\t have  directed\t the
\nGovernment to  change its policy. The Government has a right
\nto  frame   a  policy\tto  ensure   efficiency\t and  proper
\nadministration and to provide suitable channels of promotion
\nto officers working in different departments and offices. In
\nIndian Railway\tService of  Mechanical Engineers Association
\nand Ors.  vs. Indian Railway Traffic Service Association and
\nAnr.<\/a> (1993  Supp. 4 SCC 473), this Court reiterated that the
\ncorrectness of\ta policy  should not  be questioned  by\t the
\nTribunal. The  appellants  in  their  affidavit\t before\t the
\nTribunal  have\t given\tin   detail  the  history  of  these
\nprovisions and the justification for these provisions in the
\ninterests  of  efficiency  and\tproper\tadministration.\t The
\nTribunal cannot\t substitute its\t own views  for the views of
\nthe Government or direct a new policy based on the Tribunal’
\nview of\t how the allocation should be made. The three groups
\nwhich have  been formed\t as far\t back as  in  1977  for\t the
\npurposes  of   allocation  consist  of\tofficers  performing
\ndifferent  functions  and  having  different  prospects\t and
\ndifferent avenues  of promotion.  They cannot be equated for
\nthe purpose  of Article\t 14 or\t16. In\tthe case  of  Govind
\nDattatray Kelkar  & Ors.  vs. Chief  Controller of Imports &
\nExports &  Ors.<\/a> (1967  [2] SCR 29), this Court held that the
\nconcept of  equality in\t the  matter  of  promotion  can  be
\npredicated only\t when promotees\t are  drawn  from  the\tsame
\nsource. if  the preferential  treatment\t of  one  source  in
\nrelation to the other is based on the difference between the
\ntwo sources,  the recruitment can be justified as legitimate
\nclassification.\t This  reasoning  directly  applies  in\t the
\npresent\t case.\t Therefore,  the  scheme  does\tnot  violate
\nArticles 14  or 16,  nor is  it arbitrary.  The quota  which
\nshould be  fixed or  the allocation which should be made for
\nthe purpose  of deputing  officers to the Tamil Nadu Revenue
\nSubordinate Service  is\t basically  in\tthe  domain  of\t the
\nexecutive.  Unless   there  is\ta  clear  violation  of\t any
\nprovision of  the Constitution,\t the Tribunal  ought not  to
\nhave given  directions for  formulating a  new policy  and a
\ndifferent quota.\n<\/p>\n
     The impugned  order of  the Tribunal  is, therefor, set
\naside and  the applications  filed before  the Tribunal\t are
\ndismissed. The appeals are allowed accordingly with costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs S.Arumugham & Ors on 20 November, 1997 Author: M S Manohar. Bench: Sujata V. Manohar PETITIONER: THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: S.ARUMUGHAM & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/11\/1997 BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 20TH DAY OF […]<\/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-18020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs S.Arumugham & Ors on 20 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs S.Arumugham & Ors on 20 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1997-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-28T10:47:08+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\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs S.Arumugham & Ors on 20 November, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-28T10:47:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997\"},\"wordCount\":2300,\"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\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997\",\"name\":\"The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs S.Arumugham & Ors on 20 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-28T10:47:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs S.Arumugham & Ors on 20 November, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs S.Arumugham & Ors on 20 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs S.Arumugham & Ors on 20 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-28T10:47:08+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\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs S.Arumugham & Ors on 20 November, 1997","datePublished":"1997-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-28T10:47:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997"},"wordCount":2300,"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\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997","name":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs S.Arumugham & Ors on 20 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-28T10:47:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-anr-vs-s-arumugham-ors-on-20-november-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs S.Arumugham & Ors on 20 November, 1997"}]},{"@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\/18020","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=18020"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18020\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}