{"id":183203,"date":"2006-02-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006"},"modified":"2019-01-14T09:32:23","modified_gmt":"2019-01-14T04:02:23","slug":"a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"A.T. Aiyam Perumal vs The District Educational Officer on 1 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.T. Aiyam Perumal vs The District Educational Officer on 1 February, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 01\/02\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI\n\n\nW.P.(MD).No. 8423 of 2005\n\n\nA.T. Aiyam Perumal\t\t\t.. \tPetitioner\n\n\nVersus\n\n\n1.  The District Educational Officer,\n     Nagercoil,\n     Kanyakumari District.\n\n\n2.  The Chief Educational Officer,\n    Nagercoil,\n    Kanyakumari District.\n\n3.  The Secretary,\n    S.M.S.M. Higher Secondary School,\n    Suchindram-629 704,\n    Kanyakumari District.\t\t.. \tRespondents\n\t\t\t\t\t                   \t\n\n\n\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the\nissuance of  Writ of  Certiorarified Mandamus  to call for the records of the\nIst respondent relating to the communications bearing No.O.Mu.No.11405\/Aal\/04\ndated 30.5.2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the Ist respondent to\napprove the 3rd respondent's proposal dated 21.11.2002 promoting the petitioner\nas Physical Director in S.M.S.M.Higher Secondary School, Suchindram, Kanyakumari\nDistrict from the post of Physical Education Teacher with all consequential\nbenefits.\n\n\n!For Petitioner \t\t....\tMr. G.R.Swaminathan\n\t\n\n^For  Respondents 1 and 2   \t....\tMr.K.V. Vijayakumar,\n\t\t\t\t  \tSpecial Government Pleader.\n\n\t\t\t\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner<br \/>\nand Mr.K.V.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. By consent of learned counsel on either side the writ petition itself<br \/>\nis  taken up for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. This writ petition has been filed  against the order of the first<br \/>\nrespondent dated 30.5.2005 and also for a direction to approve the  proposal<br \/>\ndated 21.11.2002 sent by the 3rd respondent promoting the petitioner as Physical<br \/>\nDirector in the 3rd respondent school from the post of Physical Education<br \/>\nTeacher.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Physical<br \/>\nEducation Teacher in the 3rd respondent school on 30.6.1993 and the said post<br \/>\nhas been approved by the Educational Authority. The third respondent being the<br \/>\nAided School  covered by the Provisions of the  Tamil Nadu Recognised Private<br \/>\nSchools (Regulation) Rules 1974, when there was a vacancy due to the retirement<br \/>\nof one Rupawathi for the post of  Physical Director, the petitioner was promoted<br \/>\nas Physical Director  and the third respondent has sent a proposal dated<br \/>\n21.11.2002 to the first respondent for approval of the  said appointment and<br \/>\npursuant to the said proposal, the first respondent has passed the impugned<br \/>\norder rejecting the proposal on the basis of  Rule 15 (4) (ii) (c) of the Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 stating that the<br \/>\nManagement should have obtained prior approval before promoting the petitioner<br \/>\nto the post of Physical Director and in that view, the papers regarding the<br \/>\nproposal were  returned by rejecting the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner has filed this<br \/>\nwrit petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.The respondents 1 and 2 have filed their counter affidavit along with<br \/>\nthe petition to vacate the interim direction already granted by this court.  As<br \/>\nper the counter affidavit,  it is the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that the<br \/>\n3rd respondent school, being an Aided school should have the strength of more<br \/>\nthan 400 students in the 11th and 12th standard for the purpose of getting the<br \/>\npost of Physical Director. As far as the third respondent school is concerned<br \/>\ntaking into consideration the fact that the  strength of the students in 11th<br \/>\nand 12th standard  was only 360 students during the relevant period of 2002-<br \/>\n2003, for which the proposal was sent and even in the subsequent years 2003-<br \/>\n2004, 2004-2005 the student strength of the 3rd respondent school was 365, 375<br \/>\nrespectively and therefore as per the G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997, the third<br \/>\nrespondent school is not entitled  for the post of Physical Director.  It is<br \/>\nalso reiterated in the counter affidavit that inasmuch as the appointment of the<br \/>\npetitioner is covered under   Rule 15 (4) (ii) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised<br \/>\nPrivate Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974, the non-obtaining of prior approval<br \/>\nbefore promoting the petitioner as Physical Director in the 3rd respondent<br \/>\nschool would amount to violation of the provisions of the said Rule.  Therefore<br \/>\nthe impugned order is in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>  \t7.Mr.G.R.Swamination, the learned counsel for the petitioner would raise<br \/>\nthe points which are as follows:  According to him under the provision of Rule<br \/>\n15 (4) (ii) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules<br \/>\n1974, the question of obtaining prior permission from the District Educational<br \/>\nOfficer is contemplated only in  cases where appointment of teachers are made<br \/>\nfrom other schools or by way of direct recruitment.  According to the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner and inasmuch as it is only the promotion of the<br \/>\npetitioner from the post of physical education  teacher to the post of Physical<br \/>\nDirector  in the same school, it is squarely covered under the Rule 15 (4) (ii)\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)(b)  of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974<br \/>\nand, therefore, the question of getting prior approval is not contemplated as<br \/>\nper said Rules.  Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner,<br \/>\nthe impugned order should be set aside even on this score. That apart, the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner  raised the other contentions, namely, that<br \/>\neven though G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997 contemplates that  to have the post<br \/>\nof Physical Director, there must be a minimum strength of  400  students to be<br \/>\ncounted in 11th and 12th standard.  The Government itself, subsequently passed<br \/>\nanother G.O. 4(d) No.1 School Education Department dated 21.1.2000, which is<br \/>\nalso relating to the appointment of Physical Directors. It is stated that in the<br \/>\nsaid  Government order that Corporation and Aided Schools,  for the purpose of<br \/>\narriving at  the student strength of  400,  the student strength in the 9th to<br \/>\n12th standards is to be counted. Therefore, by virtue of the  subsequent G.O.<br \/>\n4(d) No.1 School Education Department dated 21.1.2000, the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nappointment which  is one relating to  the year 2002-2003, ought to be<br \/>\nconsidered based on the said G.O. 4(d) No.1 School Education Department dated<br \/>\n21.1.2000 and taking into consideration of the student strength of   9th  to<br \/>\n12th standard for the period 2002-2003, the student strength of the 3rd<br \/>\nrespndent school was much more than the required total strength of 400.<br \/>\nAccording to the leaned counsel for the petitioner,  the contention raised in<br \/>\nthe counter affidavit cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Mr.K.V.Vijayakumar, the learned Special Government Pleader for<br \/>\nrespondents 2 and 3, who reiterated the contents in the counter affidavit,<br \/>\nsubmitted that even for the post of Physical Director there is no eligibility<br \/>\nnorms  fixed by the 3rd respondent and it is not mandatory on the part of the<br \/>\nfirst respondent to approve any promotion.  Therefore he would also reiterate<br \/>\nthat the prior approval is required as per Rules.  It is also submitted that<br \/>\ninasmuch as the authority after verification found that the required  student<br \/>\nstrength was not available in the 3rd respondent-school, it is not open to the<br \/>\npetitioner that the promotion is as a matter of right.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Admittedly, the petitioner&#8217;s appointment was as Physical Educational<br \/>\nTeacher in the 3rd respondent school and was well within the sanction strength<br \/>\napproved by the Educational Authority namely the first and second respondents.<br \/>\nNow the question raised in this case is in the vacancy arose due to retirement<br \/>\nof previous teacher as  Physical Director, the petitioner was sought to promoted<br \/>\nas Physical Director in the 3rd respondent school and the same is covered by<br \/>\nRule 15 (4) (ii) (a)(b)  of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools<br \/>\n(Regulation) Rules 1974. Rule  15 (4) (ii) (a)(b)  of the Tamil Nadu Recognised<br \/>\nPrivate Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974  reads  as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;(4) (i) Promotion shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority<br \/>\nbeing considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) Appointments to the various categories of teachers shall be made by the<br \/>\nfollowing methods:-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) Promotion from among the qualified teachers in that school.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) If no qualified and suitable candidate is available by method (i) above,&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) appointment of other persons employed in that school, provided they are<br \/>\nfully qualified to hold the post of teachers;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) Appointment of teachers from any other school; (c) Direct recruitment.<br \/>\nIn the case of appointment from any other school or by direct recruitment the<br \/>\nschool committee shall obtain the prior permission of the District Educational<br \/>\nOfficer in respect of Pre-primary, Primary and Middle School and that of the<br \/>\nChief Educational Officer in respect of High Schools and Higher Secondary<br \/>\nSchools, Teachers&#8217; Training Institutions setting out the reasons for such<br \/>\nappointment.  In respect of corporate body running more than one school, the<br \/>\nschools under that body shall be treated as one unit for purpose of this rule.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>A fair reading of the said Rule would  show that whenever vacancies arise in the<br \/>\ncategories of teacher in a school the first method is that they must be<br \/>\nappointed from among qualified teachers in the same school and in cases where<br \/>\nthere are no suitable candidates available in the same school, then the<br \/>\nappointment should  be made from the other persons who are employed in that<br \/>\nschool, which means not only teaching staff but also non teaching staff who is<br \/>\nqualified. In the absence of such persons available in the same school, then as<br \/>\nstated second above, it is open to make appointment of the teacher from any<br \/>\nother school.  Even if from any other school such candidates are not available<br \/>\nas stated above, the school has to opt  for direct recruitment.   It is only in<br \/>\nrespect of those two  instances prior  approval of the District Educational<br \/>\nOfficer is required.\n<\/p>\n<p>  \t10.Therefore, there is force in the  argument of the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner that in cases where the school seeks approval to promote a<br \/>\nteacher from the same school or any other person from among the qualified<br \/>\nteachers in the same school there is no question of prior approval by the<br \/>\nauthority contemplated under the Rule.  In the present case, admittedly, the<br \/>\npetitiioner is working in the approved vacancy in the 3rd  respondent school and<br \/>\nis sought to be promoted as Physical Director there itself.  Therefore it is<br \/>\nclear as per the said Rule that no prior approval   is legally required.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Therefore, on the face of it, the impugned order is unsustainable and<br \/>\nlooking into any angle it has to be set aside.  Even though the impunged order<br \/>\ndoes not show anything about the strength of the  students, in the counter<br \/>\naffidavit it is submitted about the strength of the students. Normally this<br \/>\ncourt will not allow anything which is not stated in the impugned order to be<br \/>\nexplained in the counter affidavit.  I am inclined to consider even the said<br \/>\nissues raised by the  respondents 1 and 2 in the counter affidavit relating to<br \/>\nthe G.O.Ms.No.525  for the purpose of fixing the sanction strength of student as<br \/>\n400 for approval of appointment of Physical Director and as per the norms<br \/>\ncontemplated under the said G.O.  in respect of 11th and 12th standard should be<br \/>\ntaken into account and  on that basis the first respondent would state  the<br \/>\ntotal student strength in the 3rd respondent school for the  year 2002-2003 is<br \/>\nbelow 400.  It is submitted that even now the third respondent  has not improved<br \/>\nthe student strength and approval is not a matter of right, to appoint the<br \/>\npetitioner as Physical Director.  Apart from the fact that in the Subsequent<br \/>\nG.O.No. 4(d) No. Dated 21.1.2000 while clarifying previous G.O. would show that<br \/>\nthe student strength should be counted from the students 9th standard to 12th<br \/>\nstandard, in this case.  Certainly the sanction strength of the third respondent<br \/>\nschool must be more than 400.  That is not the reason for which the proposal was<br \/>\nrejected.  If really that was an issue considered by the authority for rejecting<br \/>\nthe proposal it is definitely required to be given fair opporutnity  to the 3rd<br \/>\nrespondent to show that during the  relevant point of time it has the student<br \/>\nstrength of more than 400.  In the absence of such  exercise, the impugned order<br \/>\nsuffers from illegality, even on the second count.  Looking at from any angle, I<br \/>\nam not inclined to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents 1<br \/>\nand 2.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. With the result, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition<br \/>\nis allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently the connected<br \/>\nW.P.M.P.9109 of 2005 and WVMP.No. 602 of 2005 are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>mvk<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1) The District Educational Officer,<br \/>\n     Nagercoil,<br \/>\n     Kanyakumari District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2) The Chief Educational Officer,<br \/>\n    Nagercoil,<br \/>\n    Kanyakumari District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3) The Secretary,<br \/>\n    S.M.S.M. Higher Secondary School,<br \/>\n    Suchindram-629 704,<br \/>\n    Kanyakumari District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A.T. Aiyam Perumal vs The District Educational Officer on 1 February, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01\/02\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD).No. 8423 of 2005 A.T. Aiyam Perumal .. Petitioner Versus 1. The District Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2. The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, [&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-183203","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.T. Aiyam Perumal vs The District Educational Officer on 1 February, 2006 - 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-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.T. Aiyam Perumal vs The District Educational Officer on 1 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-14T04:02:23+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=\"10 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-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.T. Aiyam Perumal vs The District Educational Officer on 1 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-14T04:02:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1908,\"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-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006\",\"name\":\"A.T. Aiyam Perumal vs The District Educational Officer on 1 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-14T04:02:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.T. Aiyam Perumal vs The District Educational Officer on 1 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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.T. Aiyam Perumal vs The District Educational Officer on 1 February, 2006 - 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-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.T. Aiyam Perumal vs The District Educational Officer on 1 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-14T04:02:23+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.T. Aiyam Perumal vs The District Educational Officer on 1 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-14T04:02:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006"},"wordCount":1908,"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-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006","name":"A.T. Aiyam Perumal vs The District Educational Officer on 1 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-14T04:02:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-aiyam-perumal-vs-the-district-educational-officer-on-1-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.T. Aiyam Perumal vs The District Educational Officer on 1 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/183203","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=183203"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183203\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}