{"id":210009,"date":"2010-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-02-08T04:07:43","modified_gmt":"2016-02-07T22:37:43","slug":"r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"R.Y.Sudhakar vs The Inspector Of Matriculation &#8230; on 26 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R.Y.Sudhakar vs The Inspector Of Matriculation &#8230; on 26 February, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 26\/02\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\n\nW.P.(MD)No.5106 of 2009\nand\nW.P.(MD)No.5107 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1  &amp; 2 of 2009\n\n\nR.Y.Sudhakar                ... Petitioner  in W.P.No.5106\/09\n\nS.Pushpam Sudhakar           ... Petitioner  in W.P.No.5107\/09\n\nVs\n\n1.The Inspector of Matriculation School,\n   Virudhunagar.\n\n2.The Chairman,\n   South India Union of Seventh-Day Adventists,\n   Board of Education,\n   197 GST Road,\n   Vandalur,\n   Chennai-48.\n\n3.S.Sundar Singh,\n   Zonal Educational Officer,\n   Seventh-Day Adventists,\n   T-62, Ellis Nagar,\n   Madurai-10.\n\n4.The Principal,\n   P.S.Thambakarnar Memorial\n   Seventh-Day Adventist Matriculation\n   Higher Secondary School,\n   Mallanginar Road,\n   Virudhunagar-626 001.                    ... Respondents in both W.P.<\/pre>\n<p>Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.5106 of 2009<\/p>\n<p>Writ Petition has been filed under<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of<br \/>\nCertiorarified  Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned<br \/>\nTransfer Order passed by the second respondent, dated 15.05.2009 and quash the<br \/>\nsame and consequent direction to the 2nd respondent permitting the petitioner to<br \/>\nwork in the 4th respondent school.\n<\/p>\n<p>Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.5107 of 2009<\/p>\n<p>Writ Petition has been filed under<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of<br \/>\nCertiorarified  Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned<br \/>\nTransfer order passed by the second respondent, dated 15.05.2009 and quash the<br \/>\nsame and consequent direction to the 2nd respondent permitting the petitioner to<br \/>\nwork in the 4th respondent school.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\n!For petitioner in Both W.Ps.  ...   M\/s.Raj &amp; Pathy\n^For 1st Respondent            ...   Mr.M.Rajarajan\n                                     Government Advocate\n\nFor R2 to R4                   ...   Mr.T.Vadivelan\n\n\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n\n\tHeard both sides.\n\t\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t2.These two writ petitions are filed by the petitioners, who are the<br \/>\nhusband and wife, challenged the order of transfer by which they were<br \/>\ntransferred from SDA School, Virudhunagar to SDA School, Kalpakkam. as Teacher.<br \/>\n\tThe petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5106 of 2009 has stated that he was appointed<br \/>\non 12.06.1979 as teacher in the Seventh-Day Adventist Matriculation Higher<br \/>\nSecondary School at Thanjavur, which is run by the 2nd respondent and he was<br \/>\ntransferred to various schools in Tamil Nadu, which are run by the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent and in the year 2003, he was transferred to the 4th respondent school<br \/>\nat Virudhungar.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.According to him, he made some allegations against the Principal of the<br \/>\nschool that the Principal in connivance with the 3rd respondent, indulging in<br \/>\nmalpractices in the administration of the school and therefore, the 3rd<br \/>\nrespondent and the Principal of the school have got grudge against him and at<br \/>\nthe instance of the 3rd respondent, he was placed under suspension, by order,<br \/>\ndated 27.02.2007 and the order of  suspension was quashed by this Court in<br \/>\nW.P.(MD)No.2260 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.It is further stated that in May 2008,  he sustained injury in the right<br \/>\nKnee and as a result, an artificial limb was fitted in the right Knee and he was<br \/>\nallowed to join the duty on 05.01.2009 and the 3rd respondent insisted the<br \/>\npetitioner to go on voluntary retirement and due to hostile attitude of the<br \/>\nPrincipal and the 3rd respondent towards him, the petitioner was transferred to<br \/>\nSDA School, Kalpakkam, and the transfer order is a non-speaking order and<br \/>\ntherefore, it is liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5107 of 2009 is the wife of the petitioner<br \/>\nin W.P.(MD)No.5106 of 2009 and she also stated that she is working as teacher in<br \/>\nthe Seventh Day Adventist Matriculation High Secondary School, Virudhunagar, run<br \/>\nby the 2nd respondent and she was also transferred along with her husband to the<br \/>\n4th respondent school as they had made some allegations against the 3rd<br \/>\nrespondent about the irregularities committed by him and therefore, the 3rd<br \/>\nrespondent has got grudge against her husband and at his instance, she and her<br \/>\nhusband were transferred to Kalpakkam school and the said transfer order is<br \/>\nagainst the provisions of the Code of Regulation for Matriculation School and<br \/>\nthe transfer order is a mala-fide one and is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.The respondents 2 to 4 filed a common counter wherein they denied the<br \/>\nallegations of mala-fide and it is stated that the petitioners were transferred<br \/>\nto various schools for the past 23 years and there was no complaint made by them<br \/>\nand not only the petitioners, but also the other teachers were transferred to<br \/>\nother schools and it is a routine transfer. It is further stated that the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent is having schools all over Tamil Nadu and the teachers are<br \/>\ntransferred to various schools due to administrative reasons and  in a normal<br \/>\ncourse, the petitioners were transferred to Kalpakkam school and the petitioners<br \/>\nafter relieved from Virudhunagar SDA school went to Kalpakkam SDA School and met<br \/>\nthe Principal of that school on 01.06.2009 and expressed their wiliness to join<br \/>\nin that school.  Further, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5107 of 2009 also<br \/>\nreceived a sum of Rs.10,000\/- as advance from the Principal of Kalpakkam school<br \/>\nfor shifting their household things to Kalpakkam and after receiving the amount,<br \/>\nthese writ petitions were filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.It is further stated that the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5106 of 2009 was<br \/>\nalso paid his all allowances, while he was relieved from the school at<br \/>\nViruidhunagar and he received a total sum of Rs.51,205\/- and he also received<br \/>\nadvance of Rs.10,000\/- from the Kalpakkam school for shifting his household<br \/>\narticle and therefore, it cannot be stated due to mala-fide reasons, the<br \/>\npetitioners were transferred. It is further stated that in the place of the<br \/>\nPetitioners, Mrs.S.Jeeva Christy and Mrs.S.Deepalakshmi were appointed and even<br \/>\nbefore getting the stay order from this court, the petitioners were relieved and<br \/>\nthe order of transfer is a routine one made on administrative grounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the<br \/>\njudgement reported in 2003(4) CTC 65  in the case of The Manger, R.C. Schools,<br \/>\nSalem Social Services Society, Alagapuram, Salem and another vs. G.Vicent<br \/>\nPaulraj and another and 2007(1) MLJ 463  in the case of Y.Balachandra Babu and<br \/>\nanother vs. District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai Educational District and<br \/>\nMarthandam, Kanyakumari District &amp; others, in support of their contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both<br \/>\nthe counsels.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.It is admitted by the petitioners that the 2nd respondent is running<br \/>\nvarious schools at various places in Tamil Nadu and in the past, the petitioners<br \/>\nwere also transferred to various schools.  Therefore, when the management is<br \/>\nhaving various schools and teachers are transferred from one school to another<br \/>\nschool in the same management, the transfer is an incident of service and the<br \/>\nsame cannot be challenged, unless some mala-fide is attributed against the<br \/>\nmanagement or the transfer order is punitive in nature.  It is seen from the<br \/>\norder that the transfer orders are purely simple transfer and the transfer<br \/>\norders were issued on administrative grounds. It is also well settled that when<br \/>\nthe transfers are made on administrative grounds, there is no need to give any<br \/>\nreason.  In this case also, no reason was stated for transferring the<br \/>\npetitioners and therefore, it cannot be stated that the order of transfer is<br \/>\nvitiated by  malafide or is a punitive transfer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.It is contented by the learned counsel appearing for the revision<br \/>\npetitioners that the petitioner in W.P,(MD)No.5106 of 2009 had made allegations<br \/>\nagainst the 3rd respondent and therefore, the 3rd respondent has got grudge<br \/>\nagainst the petitioners and to settle his score against the petitioners and at<br \/>\nhis instance, the petitioner and his wife were transferred.  When allegations<br \/>\nare made attributing mala-fide against the person in management, it is the duty<br \/>\nof the person, who is making such allegations to prove the same.  In this case,<br \/>\nexcept the allegations made in the affidavit, the petitioners are not able to<br \/>\nprove or substantiate the said charges against the 3rd respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.Further, it is stated by the respondents 2 to 4 that not only the<br \/>\npetitioners, but other teachers were also transferred along-with the petitioners<br \/>\nand that would also prove that the petitioners were not singled out and it is<br \/>\nseen from the typed set of papers that along-with  the petitioners six other<br \/>\nteachers were transferred to various schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.It has been held in the judgment reported in 2003(4) CTC 65,  in the<br \/>\ncase of The Manger, R.C. Schools, Salem Social Services Society, Alagapuram,<br \/>\nSalem and another vs. G.Vicent Paulraj and another,  when the management is<br \/>\nrunning various schools in various places and teachers were transferred from one<br \/>\nschool to another under the same management, the same cannot be questioned.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.As stated supra, in this case, it is admitted that the petitioners were<br \/>\ntransferred in the past and they are working in the school from 2003 onward and<br \/>\nhence, the management though it fit to transfer the petitioners to their school<br \/>\nat Kalpakkam,  Further, by reason of the transfer order, it is not stated that<br \/>\nthe petitioners&#8217; service condition are affected and unless, the transfer is<br \/>\nexpressly barred by service conditions, the petitioners are not entitled to<br \/>\nchallenge the same,<\/p>\n<p>\t15.In the judgment reported in  2007(1) MLJ 463,  in the case of<br \/>\nY.Balachandra Babu and another vs. District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai<br \/>\nEducational District and Marthandam, Kanyakumari District &amp; others, it has been<br \/>\nheld that under provision of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools<br \/>\n(Regulations) Act, the corporate body running more than one school should be<br \/>\ntreated as one unit for the purpose of the Rule relating to qualifications,<br \/>\nconditions of service of teachers and other persons employed in the aided<br \/>\nprivate schools and therefore, the order is not against the provision of the<br \/>\nAct.  The same analogy can be applied to the 2nd respondent school as<br \/>\nadmittedly, the 2nd respondent is running various schools and in the past, the<br \/>\npetitioners were transferred. Therefore, in my view, no reason has been stated<br \/>\nby the petitioners questioning the order of the transfer and the transfer order<br \/>\nis not passed by way of of punishment and it is only a routine transfer made in<br \/>\nthe course of service and the same cannot be challenged.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.Hence, the order of  transfer passed by the 2nd respondent is upheld<br \/>\nand accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.  Consequently, connected<br \/>\nmiscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>er<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Inspector of Matriculation School,<br \/>\n   Virudhunagar.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Chairman,<br \/>\n   South India Union of Seventh-Day Adventists,<br \/>\n   Board of Education,<br \/>\n   197 GST Road,<br \/>\n   Vandalur,<br \/>\n   Chennai-48.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.S.Sundar Singh,<br \/>\n   Zonal Educational Officer,<br \/>\n   Seventh-Day Adventists,<br \/>\n   T-62, Ellis Nagar,<br \/>\n   Madurai-10.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Principal,<br \/>\n   P.S.Thambakarnar Memorial<br \/>\n   Seventh-Day Adventist Matriculation<br \/>\n   Higher Secondary School,<br \/>\n   Mallanginar Road,<br \/>\n   Virudhunagar-626 001.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.The Government Advocate,<br \/>\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n   Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court R.Y.Sudhakar vs The Inspector Of Matriculation &#8230; on 26 February, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26\/02\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.5106 of 2009 and W.P.(MD)No.5107 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 &amp; 2 of 2009 R.Y.Sudhakar &#8230; Petitioner in W.P.No.5106\/09 S.Pushpam Sudhakar &#8230; Petitioner in W.P.No.5107\/09 Vs [&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-210009","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>R.Y.Sudhakar vs The Inspector Of Matriculation ... on 26 February, 2010 - 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\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Y.Sudhakar vs The Inspector Of Matriculation ... on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-07T22:37:43+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\\\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Y.Sudhakar vs The Inspector Of Matriculation &#8230; on 26 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-07T22:37:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1644,\"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\\\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010\",\"name\":\"R.Y.Sudhakar vs The Inspector Of Matriculation ... on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-07T22:37:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Y.Sudhakar vs The Inspector Of Matriculation &#8230; on 26 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"R.Y.Sudhakar vs The Inspector Of Matriculation ... on 26 February, 2010 - 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\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Y.Sudhakar vs The Inspector Of Matriculation ... on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-07T22:37:43+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\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Y.Sudhakar vs The Inspector Of Matriculation &#8230; on 26 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-07T22:37:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010"},"wordCount":1644,"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\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010","name":"R.Y.Sudhakar vs The Inspector Of Matriculation ... on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-07T22:37:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-y-sudhakar-vs-the-inspector-of-matriculation-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Y.Sudhakar vs The Inspector Of Matriculation &#8230; on 26 February, 2010"}]},{"@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\/210009","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=210009"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210009\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210009"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}