{"id":193996,"date":"2007-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007"},"modified":"2015-01-16T05:35:35","modified_gmt":"2015-01-16T00:05:35","slug":"the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"The General Manager vs S.Selvaraj on 21 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The General Manager vs S.Selvaraj on 21 August, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 21\/08\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR\n\n\nWRIT APPEAL (MD) No.344 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD).No.2 of 2007\n\n\n\n1.The General Manager,\n  Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,\n  Kumbakonam Division,\n  Karaikudi Region.\n\n2.The Managing Director,\n  Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,\n  Kumbakonam Division,\n  Karaikudi Region.\t\t\t... \tAppellants\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nvs.\n\n\nS.Selvaraj,\nS\/o.Santhanam\t\t\t\t... \tRespondent\n\n\n\t\tWrit Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of\nthe learned Single Judge dated 06.04.2006 made in W.P.No.5550 of 2005.\n\n\n!For Appellants   \t...  \tMr.Saravanan for\n\t\t\t\tMr.K.Jayaraman\n\t\t\t\n^For Respondent   \t...  \tMr.R.Saravanan\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nP.R.SHIVAKUMAR,J)<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThis writ appeal is directed against the order dated 06.04.2006 in<br \/>\nW.P.No.5550 of 2005 whereby the appellants herein were directed to provide<br \/>\nalternative employment to the petitioner with continuity of service, pay<br \/>\nprotection and all other attendant benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ appeal<br \/>\ncan be stated thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t(i) The respondent herein was appointed as a driver in the erstwhile<br \/>\nPallavan Transport Corporation, Chennai through Employment Exchange by an order<br \/>\ndated 14.10.1991 after conducting driving skill test and after verification of<br \/>\neducational qualification and physical fitness. He was confirmed in the said<br \/>\nservice on 24.08.1992. Thereafter, due to bifurcation of Pallavan Transport<br \/>\nCorporation, he was absorbed in the erstwhile Dr.Ambedhkar Transport<br \/>\nCorporation, Chennai. Subsequently on his request, he was transferred to Marudhu<br \/>\nPandiyar Transport Corporation, Karaikudi at present, now renamed as Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nTransport Corporation, Kumbakonam, on 28.01.1995. While so, on 17.02.2003 he was<br \/>\ndirected to undergo medical examination including eye test before the Medical<br \/>\nBoard of Sivaganga. Accordingly, the Medical Board in its report dated<br \/>\n29.03.2003 had opined that the respondent\/writ petitioner had colour vision<br \/>\ndefect making him unsuitable for continuing in service as a driver. Based on the<br \/>\nsaid report of the Medical Board, after giving a show cause notice, the<br \/>\nrespondent\/writ petitioner was removed from service holding him unfit to<br \/>\ncontinue as a driver. Aggrieved by the said order of removal, whereas the actual<br \/>\ndate of superannuation would fall on 29.02.2020, the respondent\/writ petitioner<br \/>\nmade several representations to the appellants seeking suitable alternative<br \/>\nemployment. His representations were turned down at last on 18.06.2004.  Hence,<br \/>\nthe respondent\/writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the above said<br \/>\npetition W.P.No.5550 of 2005 for the above said relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t(ii) The said writ petition was resisted by the respondents therein<br \/>\ncontending that providing alternative employment with continuity of service<br \/>\nwould arise only in case of disability acquired during the course of employment<br \/>\nand the respondent\/writ petitioner would not be entitled to such relief because<br \/>\nthe defect was congenital. It was also averred in the counter-statement that<br \/>\nthere was no vacancy to provide alternative employment to the writ petitioner<br \/>\nand whenever vacancy arose, alternative employment would be provided to the writ<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t(iii) The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, relying on<br \/>\nthe judgment of the Supreme Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of India and another<br \/>\nreported in 2003(4) SCC 524, allowed the writ petition and issued a direction<br \/>\nagainst the appellants as stated above. Hence this writ appeal at the instance<br \/>\nof the appellants herein\/respondents in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. We have heard the submissions made by Mr.Saravanan, learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the appellants and by Mr.R.Saravanan, learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the respondent and paid our anxious considerations to the same. We<br \/>\nhave also perused the records including the relevant rules and the judgment of<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the<br \/>\ndisability with which the respondent is now  found is not the one acquired by<br \/>\nhim in the middle of service but was found from birth as a congenital disorder<br \/>\nand therefore, he shall not be entitled to seek alternative employment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend<br \/>\nthat at the time of his entry into service as a driver, he was not found with<br \/>\nany such disorder and that even at the time of confirmation which was done after<br \/>\ngetting medical opinion, the above said defect was not found and hence it should<br \/>\nbe presumed that the disorder of defective colour vision was a disability<br \/>\nacquired in the middle of the service.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. After paying our attention to the rival submissions made on<br \/>\nbehalf of both parties, we are of the considered view that the above said<br \/>\nargument put forth on behalf of the appellants by the learned counsel has got to<br \/>\nbe discountenanced. The learned Single Judge has assigned elaborate and valid<br \/>\nreasons for coming to the conclusion that the appellants had failed to<br \/>\nsubstantiate their contention that the disability was found from birth. We are<br \/>\nnot in a position to disagree with the learned Single Judge in this regard. The<br \/>\nrespondent was appointed as a temporary driver on 14.10.1991. Only after the<br \/>\nmedical officer confirmed his physical fitness, his services were confirmed on<br \/>\n24.08.1992. Thereafter, for more than 10 years he was continuing in the service.<br \/>\nOnly on 29.03.2003 he was found to suffer from colour vision defect by the<br \/>\nMedical Board, which was constituted at the request of the appellants. The<br \/>\nappellants have not produced any expert opinion to show that colour vision<br \/>\ndefect could not be acquired in the middle of one&#8217;s life. From the fact that the<br \/>\nrespondent was medically found fit and his services were confirmed in 1992<br \/>\nitself and 10 years thereafter, he was found to have colour vision defect, it is<br \/>\nobvious that there is substance and force in the submission made by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondent that the deformity should have been acquired in the<br \/>\nmiddle of his service. Therefore, we do not agree with the contention of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the appellants that the respondent herein shall not be<br \/>\nentitled to seek alternative employment based on the disability with which he is<br \/>\nnow found.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. The next contention raised on behalf of the appellants before the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge was that the respondent\/writ petitioner had to produce an<br \/>\nindependent disability certificate, apart from the report given by the Medical<br \/>\nBoard to seek alternative employment. The said requirement, according to our<br \/>\nconsidered view, is not only superfluous but also aimed at protracting the claim<br \/>\nof the respondent\/writ petitioner for getting suitable alternative employment.<br \/>\nThe disability certified by the Board falls under Sub Clause u of Section 2 of<br \/>\nthe &#8220;Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and<br \/>\nFull Participation) Act, 1995&#8221;. When the Medical Board itself has given a report<br \/>\nthat the respondent\/writ petitioner is found with a disability of defective<br \/>\ncolour vision and based on the said report, the appellants have chosen to remove<br \/>\nhim from service holding him unfit to continue in the post of driver, there is<br \/>\nno necessity to get a further certificate from an authorised medical officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. In fact, the appellants themselves in their counter-statement<br \/>\nfiled in the writ petition have not denied their liability to provide<br \/>\nalternative employment to the respondent\/writ petitioner. Paragraph &#8211; 4 of the<br \/>\ncounter-affidavit reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Regarding the averments in Para-5, it is submitted that, at this juncture<br \/>\nthere is no vacancy to provide alternative employment to the writ petitioner.<br \/>\nWhenever the vacancy arises alternative employment will be provided to the writ<br \/>\npetitioner.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhat the appellants had stated before the learned Single Judge in the<br \/>\ncounter-affidavit was that there was no vacancy at present to accommodate the<br \/>\nrespondent\/writ petitioner in an alternative employment and that whenever<br \/>\nvacancy arose, he would be accommodated in a suitable post in future.  It is the<br \/>\nfurther contention of the appellants that the respondent\/writ petitioner shall<br \/>\nbe entitled to compensation alone as there is no vacancy to accommodate him. The<br \/>\njudgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the respondent\/writ petitioner is an<br \/>\nanswer to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in case<br \/>\nof non-availability of suitable vacancy, the respondent\/writ petitioner shall be<br \/>\nentitled to compensation alone. The Honourable Supreme Court, in the above said<br \/>\ncase, has gone to the extent of stating that in case of non-availability of a<br \/>\ncadre post, a supernumerary post should be created for accommodating the<br \/>\ndisabled workman till a suitable alternative post is found for him and that the<br \/>\nsame should be done with continuity of service, pay protection and all other<br \/>\nattendant benefits. The said judgment of the Honourable Apex Court squarely<br \/>\napplies to the facts of the case on hand.  Applying the said ratio laid down by<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court, we do hereby express our opinion that the appellants have got<br \/>\nno merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed, confirming the<br \/>\njudgment of the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected M.P.No.2 of 2007 is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>gb\/SML<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The General Manager,<br \/>\n  Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,<br \/>\n  Kumbakonam Division,<br \/>\n  Karaikudi Region.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Managing Director,<br \/>\n  Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,<br \/>\n  Kumbakonam Division,<br \/>\n  Karaikudi Region.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The General Manager vs S.Selvaraj on 21 August, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21\/08\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR WRIT APPEAL (MD) No.344 of 2007 and M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2007 1.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division, Karaikudi Region. 2.The [&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-193996","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>The General Manager vs S.Selvaraj on 21 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The General Manager vs S.Selvaraj on 21 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-16T00:05:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The General Manager vs S.Selvaraj on 21 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-16T00:05:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1417,\"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\\\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007\",\"name\":\"The General Manager vs S.Selvaraj on 21 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-16T00:05:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The General Manager vs S.Selvaraj on 21 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The General Manager vs S.Selvaraj on 21 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The General Manager vs S.Selvaraj on 21 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-16T00:05:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The General Manager vs S.Selvaraj on 21 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-16T00:05:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007"},"wordCount":1417,"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\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007","name":"The General Manager vs S.Selvaraj on 21 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-16T00:05:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-s-selvaraj-on-21-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The General Manager vs S.Selvaraj on 21 August, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193996","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=193996"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193996\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193996"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193996"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193996"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}