{"id":195289,"date":"1996-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996"},"modified":"2017-08-16T17:38:01","modified_gmt":"2017-08-16T12:08:01","slug":"state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996","title":{"rendered":"State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors. R. &#8230; vs S. Thangavel &amp; Ors. State Of Tamil &#8230; on 29 November, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors. R. &#8230; vs S. Thangavel &amp; Ors. State Of Tamil &#8230; on 29 November, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU &amp; ORS. R. NAMBURAJAN &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS. THANGAVEL &amp; ORS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t29\/11\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nK. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>WITH<br \/>\n\tCIVIL APPEAL ON. 16640,16641 &amp; 16639 OF 1996<br \/>\n     (Arising out of SPL (C) Nos. 9056-57 &amp; 11070 of 1992)<br \/>\n\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n     Ca @ SPL (C) NOS. 18886-87\/91 &amp; 9056-57\/92<br \/>\nLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We have heard learned counsel on both sides.<br \/>\n     Tamil  Nadu   Administrative  Tribunal   at  Madras  by<br \/>\npurported judgment  and, made on June 11, 1991 in T. A. Nos.<br \/>\n123 and\t 127 of\t 1989, has held that under Rule 4 (a) of the<br \/>\nTamil  Nadu   State  and   Subordjnate\tService\t  Rules\t  on<br \/>\npreparation of\tthe panel  either with\tthe names  or  &#8216;nil&#8217;<br \/>\nannual list,  the Government  exhausted their  power to make<br \/>\nanother\t list\tin  the\t same  year  for  promotion  of\t the<br \/>\nsubordinate officers  to the  higher post  in the  State  or<br \/>\nSubordinate service.  The said\tview is in question in these<br \/>\nappeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The admitted  is that  due to bifurcation of new firkas<br \/>\nand upgradation\t of Sub-Taluks\tinto Taluks  23 vacancies of<br \/>\nAssistants had\tarisen in  Pudukottai District.\t The crucial<br \/>\ndate foe  preparation of  the panel  is as prescribed by the<br \/>\nappropriate rules.  It is not in dispute in these cases that<br \/>\nthe crucial  date is  March 15,\t 1979. As on the date, there<br \/>\nwere no\t vacancies  existing  or  anticipated  in  the\tsaid<br \/>\nDistrict.  But\t due  to   bifurcation\tof  the\t firkas\t and<br \/>\nupgradation of\tthe  sub-Taluks\t into  Taluks,\tas    stated<br \/>\nearlier, 23  new posts\twere created  by the  Government for<br \/>\nfilling up the same. list had been drawn and appointments to<br \/>\nthe said post of Assistants came to be made. The respondents<br \/>\nfiled the  OAs in  the Tribunal\t challenging  the  power  to<br \/>\nprepare the list. The Tribunal had held that in the light of<br \/>\nRule 4(a) of the Rules, the Government is devoid of power to<br \/>\nmake  any   supplementary  list.  The  list  once  made,  is<br \/>\nconstrued to  be annual\t list and by operation of provisions<br \/>\nthereof, the  Government is  left with\tno power to make any<br \/>\nalso relied upon the instruction issued by the Government in<br \/>\ntheir G.O. Ms. No.1227 dated December 10, 1981.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri  T.\tHarish\tKumar,\t learned  counsel   for\t the<br \/>\nappellants, contends  that Rule 4(a) would apply in the case<br \/>\nwhere normal  exigencies of  service would  operate in which<br \/>\nevent the  Government of the competent officer would be in a<br \/>\nposition to  asses the\texisting vacancies  of the vacancies<br \/>\nlikely to  arise or  temporary vacancies likely to arise but<br \/>\nin view\t of the creation of the new posts in the year due to<br \/>\nbifurcation of\tthe firkas and upgradation of the sub-taluks<br \/>\ninto taluks  the said  Rule cannot  be strictly\t interpreted<br \/>\ndenuding the  Government of the power to make appointment by<br \/>\npromotion. The\tview taken by the Tribunal is not correct in<br \/>\nlaw. Shri K. Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents,<br \/>\non the\tother hand, has contended that the Rule is operative<br \/>\nwhether for  the existing  vacancies or\t for the anticipated<br \/>\nvacancies including  the new vacancies likely to aries. Rule<br \/>\n39 of  the Rules  gives power to make temporary appointments<br \/>\nand in\tensuing year  they can be promoted on regular basis.<br \/>\nThe Government\thaving issued  the instructions\t is G.O. Ms.<br \/>\nNo.1227\/81  cannot  make  any  appointment  by\tpreparing  a<br \/>\nsupplementary list  which is  not warranted  or contemplated<br \/>\nunder Rule 4(a) of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In view  of the  respective contentions,  the  question<br \/>\nthat arises  for consideration is: whether the view taken by<br \/>\nthe Tribunal  is correct  in law? We have come across number<br \/>\nof judgments  of various  Administrative  Tribunals  in\t the<br \/>\ncountry treating  their orders\tto be &#8220;a judgment and order&#8221;<br \/>\nobviously under\t Section 2(9), CPC. The view seems to be not<br \/>\ncorrect in  law grounds\t of a  decree or order. Section 2(8)<br \/>\ndefines &#8220;Judge&#8221;\t to mean  the presiding\t officer of  a civil<br \/>\ncourt, An  officers, therefore,\t is appointed to preside and<br \/>\nto administer the law in a court of justice and clothed with<br \/>\njudicial authority.  Judgment is  the decision of a court of<br \/>\njustice upon  the respective right and claims of the parties<br \/>\nto an  action in  a suit  submitted to it for determination.<br \/>\nThe word  &#8220;Judgment&#8221; denotes  the reasons  which  the  court<br \/>\ngives for  its decision.  The members of the Tribunal cannot<br \/>\nbe considered  to be  Judges and  their statement  cannot be<br \/>\ntreated to  be a  decree; it  may be construed to be only an<br \/>\norder for the purpose of decision arrived at by the Tribunal<br \/>\nunder  the   Administrative  Tribunal\tAct.   Under   these<br \/>\ncircumstances, we must hold that the Tribunal&#8217;s order cannot<br \/>\nbe treated  to be  a judgment  or decree  but they should be<br \/>\nonly an order.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In this  case, Rule 4(a) of the Rules contemplates that<br \/>\nall first  appointments to a service or class or category or<br \/>\ngrade  thereof\tState  or  Subordinate,\t whether  by  direct<br \/>\nrecruitment or\tby recruitment\tby transfer or by promotion,<br \/>\nshall be  made by  the appointing  authority from  a list of<br \/>\napproved candidates.  Such list\t shall be  prepared  in\t the<br \/>\nprescribed manner  by the  appointing authority or any other<br \/>\nauthority empowered in the special rules in that behalf. The<br \/>\nlist shall  be published  in the case of Gazetted Officer in<br \/>\nthe State  Gazette and in the case of Subordinate officer on<br \/>\nthe notice  board of  the  respective  office.\tIt  is\talso<br \/>\ncontemplated to\t communicate such  a  list  to\tall  persons<br \/>\nobviously to put them on notice that such a list was made so<br \/>\nthat, if  they\tfeel  aggrieved,  they\tmay  take  necessary<br \/>\ncorrective measures according to low.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The provision  contemplate that  the list\tof  approved<br \/>\ncandidates for\tappointment by\tpromotion and by recruitment<br \/>\nby transfer  to all  the categories of posts in the State of<br \/>\nSubordinate services  shall be prepared annually against the<br \/>\nestmiated number  of vacancies\texpected to arise during the<br \/>\ncourse of  a  year.  The  estimate  of\tvacancies  shall  be<br \/>\nprepared taking\t into account  the total number of permanent<br \/>\npost in\t a  category;  the  number  of\ttemporary  posts  in<br \/>\nexistence, the anticipated sanction of new posts in the next<br \/>\nyear,  the   recruitment  post\t of  leave   reserves;\t the<br \/>\nanticipated vacancies  due to retirement and promotion, etc.<br \/>\nin the\tcourse of  the year. It would, thus, be seen that in<br \/>\nnormal circumstances,  a list  shall be annually prepared in<br \/>\nthe prescribed\tmanner taking  into  account  the  vacancies<br \/>\nexisting or  anticipated as  on the  prescribed date  due to<br \/>\ncontingencies enumerated  therein. That\t does not  mean\t the<br \/>\ngovernment is denuded of its power to make the list when new<br \/>\nsituation had  arisen Undoubtedly,  in\tthis  case,  on\t the<br \/>\nprescribed date\t there were  on exigencies and, therefore, a<br \/>\nlist could not be prepared. But due to creation of new posts<br \/>\non account of administrative exigencies, namely, bifurcation<br \/>\nof the firkas and upgradation of the sub-taluks into taluks,<br \/>\nnew  posts   were  created.  Consequently,  new\t posts\twere<br \/>\nrequired to  be filled\tup. As\ta result,  the\tauthorities,<br \/>\ninstead of  making temporary promotions under Rule 39 of the<br \/>\nRules, filled them up on regular basis from all the eligible<br \/>\ncandidates. Under  those circumstances,\t the preparation  of<br \/>\nthe list cannot be said to be unwarranted due to aforestated<br \/>\nexigencies. The\t G.O. Ms. No.1227\/1981 has no application to<br \/>\nthese facts.  Under these  circumstances, the  view taken by<br \/>\nthe Tribunal is not correct.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appeals  are accordingly  allowed. The order of the<br \/>\nTribunal is set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>     CA @ SLP (C) NO.11070\/92<br \/>\nLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This appeal  by special leave arises from the orders of<br \/>\nthe Tamil  Nadu Administrative\tTribunal at  Madras, made on<br \/>\nMarch 19, 1992 in T.A. No.268 of 1990.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The admitted  position  is\t that  the  respondent,\t for<br \/>\npromotion as  a Deputy Tehsildar, was to qualify and in fact<br \/>\nqualified as  on September 15, 1982. A list was prepared two<br \/>\ndays before  the due  date and\tthe was\t made ineligible  on<br \/>\naccount of  the preparation made in advance of the due date.<br \/>\nRespondent had\tthen filed  O.A. It  was  contended  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant that\tsince annual  list was\talready prepared  on<br \/>\nSeptember 13,  1982 on\twhich date, he was not qualified, he<br \/>\nis not eligible to be included in the list. It was negatived<br \/>\nby the\ttribunal and  it was directed to include his name in<br \/>\nthe list. The view of the Tribunal is perfectly correct, the<br \/>\nlist was  prepared two\tdays prior  to the  due date, Since,<br \/>\nadmittedly, the respondent was qualified as on the due date,<br \/>\nnamely, September  15, 1982, he is entitled to be empanelled<br \/>\nin the\tlist for  promotion, after due consideration, as per<br \/>\nrules. Therfore,  the direction\t given by  the\tTribunal  to<br \/>\ninclude his name in the list is not vitiated by any error of<br \/>\nlaw warranting interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appeal\t is accordingly\t dismissed in  view  of\t the<br \/>\naforestated facts. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors. R. &#8230; vs S. Thangavel &amp; Ors. State Of Tamil &#8230; on 29 November, 1996 Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU &amp; ORS. R. NAMBURAJAN &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: S. THANGAVEL &amp; ORS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU &amp; ORS. DATE OF [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-195289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors. R. ... vs S. Thangavel &amp; Ors. State Of Tamil ... on 29 November, 1996 - 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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors. R. ... vs S. Thangavel &amp; Ors. State Of Tamil ... on 29 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-16T12:08:01+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors. R. &#8230; vs S. Thangavel &amp; Ors. State Of Tamil &#8230; on 29 November, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-16T12:08:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1444,\"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\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996\",\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors. R. ... vs S. Thangavel &amp; Ors. State Of Tamil ... on 29 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-16T12:08:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors. R. &#8230; vs S. Thangavel &amp; Ors. State Of Tamil &#8230; on 29 November, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors. R. ... vs S. Thangavel &amp; Ors. State Of Tamil ... on 29 November, 1996 - 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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors. R. ... vs S. Thangavel &amp; Ors. State Of Tamil ... on 29 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-16T12:08:01+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors. R. &#8230; vs S. Thangavel &amp; Ors. State Of Tamil &#8230; on 29 November, 1996","datePublished":"1996-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-16T12:08:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996"},"wordCount":1444,"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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996","name":"State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors. R. ... vs S. Thangavel &amp; Ors. State Of Tamil ... on 29 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-16T12:08:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-r-vs-s-thangavel-ors-state-of-tamil-on-29-november-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors. R. &#8230; vs S. Thangavel &amp; Ors. State Of Tamil &#8230; on 29 November, 1996"}]},{"@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\/195289","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=195289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195289\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}