{"id":187934,"date":"2006-02-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006"},"modified":"2019-01-06T23:58:33","modified_gmt":"2019-01-06T18:28:33","slug":"s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"S. Manickavasagam vs Special Commissioner And &#8230; on 28 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S. Manickavasagam vs Special Commissioner And &#8230; on 28 February, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 28\/02\/2006\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR\n\nW.P.No.26383 of 2005\n\nS. Manickavasagam              ...                     Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.Special Commissioner and Commissioner\n  of Treasuries &amp; Accounts,\n  Saidapet,  Chennai - 15.\n2.G.Sugumaran\n3.S.Sekaran\n4.N.Kannan\n5.G.Chandrababu\n6.S.Saraswathy          ...                     Respondents\n\n\n        This Writ  petition  came  to  be  numbered  by  way  of  transfer  of\nO.A.No.5441 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a\nprayer  to  call  for  the records pertaining to the order passed by the first\nrespondent in Pdl.24\/2001\/A1 dated 26.8.2002 as modified in Pdl.24\/2001  dated\n19.9.2002  and  the  order passed in Rc.No.Q1\/33488\/20 02-5 dated 3.9.2002 and\nset aside the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.\n\n!For Petitioner :Mr.C.Selvaraju, Sr.Counsel\n                for Mr.S.Mani\n\n^For 1st Respondent :   Mrs.D.Malarvizhi,\n                        Government Advocate\n\nFor Respondents 2 to 6  :M\/s.Sudha Ravi Associates\n\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to  quash  the  order  of  the<br \/>\nfirst respondent in Pdl.24\/2001\/A1 dated 26.8.2002 as modified in Pdl.2 4\/2001<br \/>\ndated  19.9.2002  and the order passed in Rc.No.Q1\/33488\/2002-5 dated 3.9.2002<br \/>\nin so far as the petitioner is concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      The brief facts necessary for disposal of  the  writ  petition<br \/>\nare as follows,\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a)     Petitioner  was  appointed as Handloom Inspector in the office<br \/>\nof the Assistant Director of Handlooms &amp; Textiles, Tirunelveli on 16.7.1  984,<br \/>\nhaving been selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.  He was<br \/>\npromoted  as  Handloom Officer on 3.2.1993, which is equivalent to the post of<br \/>\nSuperintendent.  Petitioner passed B.Com Degree in  the  year  1979,  Accounts<br \/>\nTest  for  Subordinate  Officers  Part I &amp; II in the year 1980 and thus, he is<br \/>\nfully  qualified  to  be  appointed  as  Assistant  Accounts  Officer  in  the<br \/>\ndepartment of Treasuries and Accounts.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b)     In  the  affidavit petitioner stated that in the Department of<br \/>\nTreasuries and Accounts, as  per  the  Special  Rules,  60%  of  the  post  of<br \/>\nAssistant  Accounts  Officer  are  to  be  filled  up from among the qualified<br \/>\nSuperintendents  of  other  departments  on  recruitment  by  transfer  basis,<br \/>\nprovided  they  possess  necessary  qualification  and  the  remaining 40 % of<br \/>\nvacancies are to be filled up by giving promotion to the  persons  working  in<br \/>\nthe Treasuries  &amp; Accounts Department.  The crucial date for filling up of 60%<br \/>\nvacancies on recruitment by transfer basis from other departments is 15th June<br \/>\nof every year.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (c)     Petitioner  further  states  that  for  the  year  2001,   the<br \/>\nDepartment of Treasuries &amp; Accounts called for list of candidates from various<br \/>\ndepartments   from   among   the   Superintendents,   who   possess  necessary<br \/>\nqualification for promotion  to  the  post  of  Assistant  Accounts  Officers.<br \/>\nAccording to the petitioner a circular was issued to the Handloom and Textiles<br \/>\nDepartment,  where  the  petitioner  was  working  and  he  also furnished his<br \/>\nparticulars in the proforma as he possessed the requisite qualification to  be<br \/>\nappointed as Assistant Accounts Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (d)     The  case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit is that<br \/>\nthe respondents 2 to 6, who were working in  the  Social  Welfare  Department,<br \/>\nfiled  O.A.Nos.6836  to  6841  of  2001  before  the Tamil Nadu Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal and prayed for implementation of filling up of 60% vacancies  in  the<br \/>\nTreasuries  &amp;  Accounts  Department,  in strict compliance with the Government<br \/>\nOrder and special rules.  The apprehension expressed by the respondents 2 to 6<br \/>\nis that the Treasuries and Accounts Department may not  fill  up  60%  of  the<br \/>\nvacancies  meant for outsiders after filling up 40% of the vacancies earmarked<br \/>\nfor the department and thus the outsiders will be prejudiced if the  quota  of<br \/>\n60% is  not filled up simultaneously.  The Tribunal ordered to prepare a panel<br \/>\nfor the year 2000-2001 and include the names of the respondents 2 to 6 also in<br \/>\nthe panel and their name can be rejected only if seniors are available in  the<br \/>\nMinisterial service, that is, in other departments.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (e)     Further  case of the petitioner is that the panel for the year<br \/>\n20 00-2001 was published on 13.6.2002 and based on the  panel  petitioner  was<br \/>\npromoted  as  Assistant  Accounts  Officer, inasmuch as his name was placed at<br \/>\nNo.4 in the panel dated 13.6.2002.   According  to  the  petitioner,  all  the<br \/>\npersons  included  in  the panel were seniors to the respondents 2 to 6 herein<br \/>\nand therefore the order of the Tribunal is not in any way violated.  The  case<br \/>\nof  the  petitioner  is  that  the  department  misunderstood the order of the<br \/>\nTribunal as if respondents 2 to 6 should be included in the panel and  thereby<br \/>\nrevised the  panel  by  order  dated  26.8.2002.   Consequently petitioner was<br \/>\nreverted back from the post of  Assistant  Accounts  Officer  by  order  dated<br \/>\n3.9.2002,  but no order of reversion was served on the petitioner and hence he<br \/>\nwas holding the post  of  Assistant  Accounts  Officer  as  per  the  original<br \/>\npromotion.   As one of the respondent&#8217;s name was not included in the panel, he<br \/>\nfiled a contempt application and subsequently the panel was again  revised  on<br \/>\n19.9.2002.   According  to  the  petitioner  the  orders  passed  by the first<br \/>\nrespondent on 26.8.2002, 3.9.2002 and 19.9.2002 having been passed arbitrarily<br \/>\nand with non-application of  mind,  the  same  are  challenged  in  this  writ<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      The  learned counsel for the petitioner argued that 60% of the<br \/>\nvacancies in the Treasuries and Accounts Department in the cadre of  Assistant<br \/>\nAccounts Officer are to be strictly filled up on recruitment by transfer basis<br \/>\nfrom  other  departments  and  strictly  as  per  the  seniority and the State<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal only directed to include the respondents 2 to 6 in the<br \/>\npanel and give them promotion only if they are seniors to the persons found in<br \/>\nthe panel.  Petitioner having been senior to respondents 2 to 6, there  is  no<br \/>\nreason  to  revert  him  for including respondents 2 to 6 in the panel and the<br \/>\nsaid action of the first respondent is without application of mind.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      The learned Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for respondents 2 to 6 submitted that  there  is  no  illegality  or<br \/>\nirregularity in the orders passed by the first respondent and respondents 2 to<br \/>\n6  are  entitled  to  get  promotion  as per the order of the Tribunal made in<br \/>\nO.A.Nos.6836 to 6841 of 2001 dated 27.2.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      A bare reading of the order of the  Tribunal  dated  27.2.2002<br \/>\nand  the  relevant  rule  makes  it  clear  that  60% vacancies in the post of<br \/>\nAssistant Accounts Officer shall be filled up only  from  among  the  eligible<br \/>\ncandidates  of  other  departments  strictly  on the basis of seniority in the<br \/>\ncadre of Superintendents.  In the order passed  by  the  Tribunal  a  specific<br \/>\ndirection is given to include the name of the respondents 2 to 6 only if there<br \/>\nis no  seniors  to them in other departments.  Admittedly petitioner is senior<br \/>\nto respondents 2 to 6, working in the department of Handloom and Textiles.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      The learned Government Advocate pointed out  Rule  11  of  the<br \/>\nTamil  Nadu  State  Treasuries and Accounts Services Special Rules, which says<br \/>\nthat seniority of Superintendents in the department other than Treasuries  and<br \/>\nAccounts  Department  shall  be  fixed  from  the date of regular appointment.<br \/>\nAccording to the learned Government Advocate, since the  petitioner  has  been<br \/>\ntemporarily  promoted  as  Handloom Officer, that is in the feeder category to<br \/>\nthe Assistant Accounts Officer panel and his services  were  not  regularised,<br \/>\nhis  name is not entitled to be considered for the panel prepared for the year<br \/>\n2000-2001 based on the directions issued by the Tribunal dated 27.2.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      A perusal of Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu  State  Treasuries  and<br \/>\nAccounts  Services  Special  Rules  clearly establishes that regularisation is<br \/>\nnecessary either in  the  cadre  of  Special  Treasury  Officer  Grade  II  or<br \/>\nSuperintendent Grade  II  and in the said feeder categories respectively.  For<br \/>\nproper appreciation of the rule, the said rule is extracted hereunder,<br \/>\n        &#8220;11.SENIORITY:  For the purpose of appointment to the  post  in  Class<br \/>\nIV,  the  inter-se-seniority  of  the  persons  selected from the posts of Sub<br \/>\nTreasury Officer Grade I, Superintendents Grade I and from  the  post  in  the<br \/>\nfeeder categories namely, Accountants, Superintendents etc., in the Department<br \/>\nother than Treasuries and Accounts Department shall be fixed with reference to<br \/>\nthe  dates  of  their  regular appointment in the post of Sub Treasury Officer<br \/>\nGrade II or Superintendents  Grade  II  and  in  the  said  feeder  categories<br \/>\nrespectively.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.      It  is  not  the  case of the department that the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nservice was not regularised in the department of Handloom and Textiles.    The<br \/>\ncounter  affidavit proceeds on the basis that the petitioner&#8217;s service was not<br \/>\nregularised in the cadre of Handloom Officer (equivalent  to  Superintendent).<br \/>\nPetitioner having been appointed as Handloom Inspector and his services having<br \/>\nbeen regularised in that cadre, there is no necessity to get regularisation of<br \/>\nthe  services  in  the promoted post of Handloom Officer because in the feeder<br \/>\ncategory his services were  already  regularised.    Therefore,  there  is  no<br \/>\nsubstance  in  the  contention  of  the  department  that  the services of the<br \/>\npetitioner in the cadre of  Handloom  Officer  having  not  been  regularised,<br \/>\npetitioner  is  not entitled to get promotion as Assistant Accounts Officer in<br \/>\nthe Treasuries and Accounts department.   The  above  referred  rule  is  also<br \/>\nconsidered  by  the  Tamil  Nadu  Administrative  Tribunal  in its order dated<br \/>\n27.2.2002 in O.A.No.6836 of 2001 etc., wherein the  qualifications  prescribed<br \/>\nfor  the post of Assistant Accounts Officer are clearly mentioned, which reads<br \/>\nas under,<br \/>\n&#8220;a)     Must possess the minimum General Educational qualification.\n<\/p>\n<p>b)      Must have passed Accountant Test for Subordinate Officers Part I &amp; II.\n<\/p>\n<p>c)      Must have passed  Accountant  Higher  Grade  or  must  be  a  commerce<br \/>\ngraduate from a recognised University.\n<\/p>\n<p>d)      Must have worked as Superintendent\/ Accountant\/ Commercial Accountant\/<br \/>\nAuditors  borne  on  the  Tamil  Nadu Ministerial service or any other similar<br \/>\nsupervisory post carrying pay not less than that of the Superintendent in  any<br \/>\nother  service  in sections dealing with subjects relating to accounts, audit,<br \/>\nbudgeting or control of expenditure for a period of not less than 2 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>e)      Must be as approved probationer in the category from which appointment<br \/>\nmade or in any of the lower  categories  in  that  service  to  which  he  was<br \/>\nrecruited.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  said  rule  also  clearly establishes the right of the petitioner that no<br \/>\nregularisation in the immediate category is necessary, whereas  regularisation<br \/>\nis  required  only in the feeder category or in the lower category in which he<br \/>\nwas recruited.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      For the foregoing reasons, I hold the stand of the  department<br \/>\nis  unsustainable  and  the  respondents  2 to 6 are admittedly juniors to the<br \/>\npetitioner and the reversion of petitioner from the post of Assistant Accounts<br \/>\nOfficer, affecting his seniority, is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.     In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for.  No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nWebsite :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Special Commissioner<br \/>\nand Commissioner<br \/>\nof Treasuries &amp; Accounts,<br \/>\nSaidapet, Chennai &#8211; 15.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S. Manickavasagam vs Special Commissioner And &#8230; on 28 February, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 28\/02\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.No.26383 of 2005 S. Manickavasagam &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- 1.Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Treasuries &amp; Accounts, Saidapet, Chennai &#8211; 15. 2.G.Sugumaran 3.S.Sekaran 4.N.Kannan 5.G.Chandrababu 6.S.Saraswathy [&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-187934","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>S. Manickavasagam vs Special Commissioner And ... on 28 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\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Manickavasagam vs Special Commissioner And ... on 28 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-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=\"2006-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-06T18:28:33+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Manickavasagam vs Special Commissioner And &#8230; on 28 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-06T18:28:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1592,\"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\\\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006\",\"name\":\"S. Manickavasagam vs Special Commissioner And ... on 28 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-06T18:28:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Manickavasagam vs Special Commissioner And &#8230; on 28 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":"S. Manickavasagam vs Special Commissioner And ... on 28 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\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Manickavasagam vs Special Commissioner And ... on 28 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-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":"2006-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-06T18:28:33+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Manickavasagam vs Special Commissioner And &#8230; on 28 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-06T18:28:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006"},"wordCount":1592,"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\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006","name":"S. Manickavasagam vs Special Commissioner And ... on 28 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-06T18:28:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manickavasagam-vs-special-commissioner-and-on-28-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Manickavasagam vs Special Commissioner And &#8230; on 28 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\/187934","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=187934"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187934\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}