{"id":212017,"date":"2005-01-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005"},"modified":"2015-04-14T23:03:37","modified_gmt":"2015-04-14T17:33:37","slug":"r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005","title":{"rendered":"R.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 07\/01\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ            \n\nWRIT PETITION No.7399 OF 2001    \nAND  \nW.M.P.No.10566 OF 2001.   \n\n1.  R.Kumar \n2.  M.Malathi\n3.  C.Munirathina Praba\n4.  M.Gurunathan \n5.  A.Narasimhan \n6.  S.S.Sridhar\n7.  M.Mohamed Ismail  \n8.  B.Sasikala\n9.  A.Sultan Saleem \n10. V.Chandrasekaran  \n11. G.Sankara Subramanian  \n12. V.Malarvizhi\n13. K.Jayashree \n14. V.Thulasi Bai\n15. A.R.Rajani\n16. K.S.Vishvaksenan \n17. A.Stephen Arputharaj\n18. S.Ramesh  \n19. Manjula Pramod \n20. R.Kalavathy\n21. S.Ramamoorthy  \n22. E.Logashanmugam   \n23. C.D.Suriyakala\n24. T.Nageswara Rao  \n25. M.A.Dorairangaswamy   \n26. M.Sumathi \n27. M.Sundararajan \n28. G.Padmavathi \n29. Chaya Kulkarni\n30. N.Muthukrishnan \n31. D.Jessintha\n32. S.Ramalatha \n33. Latha Parthiban\n34. P.Angusta Sophy  \n35. Usha Bhanu N. \n36. V.Murali Bhaskaran \n37. A.M.J.Md.Zubair Rahman  \n38. S.Varadhaganapathy  \n39. N.K.Karthikeyan \n40. S.Pasupathy \n41. S.Venkatasalam  \n42. S.Palanisamy \n43. V.Balaji\n44. C.Jegadheesan  \n45. V.Balasubramanian  \n46. A.S.Rajavenkata Subramanian  \n47. A.Somasundaram   \n48. K.R.Baskaran \n49. S.Devaki\n50. C.Kalaiarasan\n51. R.Sivasubramanian \n52. P.Sathiamurthi\n53. S.P.Arul\n54. R.Ashokan \n55. Mrs.Devika Sivakumar \n56. I.S.Avinan\n57. Nasreen Kaleem  \n58. Sharmila Sankar \n59. H.Jain Alaudeen\n60. P.K.Kumaresan  \n61. A.Nagappan  \n62. M.Kannan  \n63. G.Maria Dhayana Latha  \n64. P.Selvam \n65. R.Samson Ravindaran  \n66. J.Joshva Gnana Sekaran  \n67. S.Mohan \n68. T.Sheela                                    ... Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   rep. by The Secretary,\n   Higher Education,\n   Fort St. George,\n   Chennai-9.\n\n2. The Director of Technical Education,\n   Guindy, Chennai-25.\n\n3. The Government of India,\n   Ministry of Human Resources Development, \n   Department of Education,\n   New Delhi.\n\n4. The Registrar,\n   Birla Institute of Technology and Science\n   Pilani, Rajasthan.\n\n5. The Registrar,\n   University of Madras, Madras.\n\n6. The All India Council for\n   Technical Education,\n   Shastri Bhavan,\n   Haddows Road, \n   Chennai-34.\n\n7. The Registrar,\n   Anna University,\n   Chennai.\n\n8. Association of Indian\n   Universities,\n   AIU House,\n   No.16 Kotla Marg,\n   New Delhi-2.                                 ... Respondents\n\n        Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of  the  Constitution  of  India\npraying for the relief as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioners        :  Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior counsel\n                for M\/s.  L.Chandrakumar\n\n^For R.1 & R.2          :  Mr.R.Lakshmi Narayanan\nFor R.3                 :  Mr.R.Santharaman,\n                        S.C.G.S.C.\nFor R.4                 :  Mr.Vedavalli Kumar\nFor R.5                 :  Mr.N.Rajan\nFor R.6                 :  Mr.Vijay Narayan, S.C.\n                        for M\/s.R.Parthiban\nFor R.7                 :  Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal for\n                        M\/s.G.M.Mani Associates\nFor R.8                 :  No appearance\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
        The above Writ Petition has been filed praying  to  issue  a  Writ  of
\nCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of
\nthe  second  respondent  made in Letter No.5000\/CDC\/2000, dated –.10.2000 and
\nquash the same and consequently direct the respondents to recognize the degree
\nof the 4th respondent for all  purposes  including  appointments,  promotions,
\nhigher studies and for doing Ph.D.  etc.  with all consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Petitioners, numbering 68, are all B.E\/B.Tech.  graduates and  are
\nall  working  as  Lecturers in various colleges and with permission from their
\nrespective college they joined the M.S.  Degree  Course  (  Computer  Science,
\nElectronics  Control  etc.,  systems  and  Information,  Software  System  and
\nTechnological Operations) by distance education system  of  the  BITS,  Pilani
\n(Rajasthan)  and have completed the course also and when it came to the matter
\nof recognition, the Director of Technical Education, by  the  impugned  order,
\nhas informed  the  petitioners  that  the M.S.  Degree awarded by BITS, Pilani
\nthrough correspondence programme is not considered  as  equivalent  degree  to
\nthat of M.E.   Degree awarded by the Tamil Nadu Universities.  Challenging the
\nsaid order, the present writ petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The case of the petitioners is that the said degree  was  obtained
\nby  them by undergoing the regularly sponsored distance learning programmes of
\nthe BITS, Pinali, while being employed as  Lecturers  in  various  Engineering
\nColleges  and Polytechnics in pursuance of the employers having met the entire
\nacademic pursuit to do the M.S.  sponsored distance learned programme of BITS,
\nPilani; that BITS Pilani is a ‘ Deemed University’ and the degrees  which  are
\nawarded  are  automatically recognized and no formal orders of recognition are
\nrequired, as per Office Memorandum No.6\/1\/64-Estt.D.   dated  29.4.1964;  that
\nthe  order  of second respondent in treating the degree awarded by the pioneer
\nUniversities to have been not  equivalent  to  the  M.E.\/M.Tech  Degree  which
\nhitherto  was  considered  equivalent  is  illegal  and  that  apart, the said
\nInstitution has been established by an Act of Parliament in the year 1971  and
\nwas  accorded  the status of ‘Deemed University’ under the Universities Grants
\nCommission  Act,  and  hence  the  order  of  the  second  respondent  suffers
\njurisdictional and for non-application of mind.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The petitioners would further submit that any degree set up by an
\nAct of Parliament or a State Legislature are automatically recognized and  the
\nM.S.   Degree  of  the  BITS,  Pilani  was recognized equivalent to M.E\/M.Tech
\ndegree of various other Universities; that  the  Madras  University  and  Anna
\nUniversity are, by and large, slowly and steadily adopting the system that has
\nbeen  in  vogue  in  BITS,  Pilani and convert to that of the BITS system, but
\ninsofar  as  the  recognition  and  equalisation  is  concerned,  the   second
\nrespondent  would  say  that  the  number of subjects is 12 insofar as regular
\nclass candidates are concerned and as far as BITS, they are eight inclusive of
\nproject work ( desertion) in III Semester like all other Universities  whereas
\nthe  fact  remains that in Anna University and Indian Institute of Technology,
\nChennai, the subjects are only five and the total number of credits  that  are
\naccorded  for  consideration are 25 units insofar as BITS and 15 units insofar
\nas the Anna University and the Indian Institute of Technology are concerned.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  During arguments, the learned senior counsel for  the  petitioners
\nwould submit that the impugned order suffers for the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n
1.   The  second  respondent  has  no  jurisdiction  or  authority to pass the
\nimpugned order.\n<\/p>\n
2.  Even assuming that he got the jurisdiction, he cannot straight  away  pass
\nthe  order,  without  giving an opportunity and hearing to the petitioners and
\ntherefore it is in violation of the principles of natural  justice  since  the
\nvery same Degree had been recognised by them for the past six years; and\n<\/p>\n
3.   Even assuming that the second respondent has jurisdiction and he can pass
\nthe order, the impugned order can have only a prospective operation and cannot
\naffect  the  degrees  already  received  and  recognised  by  them,  being  an
\nadministrative order and not a statutory power.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   The learned senior counsel would refer to the Official Memorandum
\nNo.GAD 6 SDR 71, Bangalore, dated 16.11.1971 published in the  Mysore  Gazette
\nand submit  that  BITS,  Pilani  is a ‘deemed University’.  The learned senior
\ncounsel would further cite a letter No.F-18-15\/82\/T-7, dated 7.6.1982  of  the
\nGovernment  of India addressed to all the Vice Chancellors of the Universities
\nwherein i t has been mentioned that ‘ as per  the  Ministry  of  Home  Affairs
\nO.M.No.6-1-64   Estt.D   dated   the   19   th  April  1964  in  the  case  of
\ndegrees\/diplomas awarded by Universities in India which are incorporated by an
\nAct of the Central  or  State  Legislature  in  India  and  other  educational
\nInstitutes,  established  by  an Act of Parliament or declared to be deemed as
\nUniversities under Section 3 of the University Grant Commission Act (1956), no
\nformal orders recognising such degrees\/diplomas need be issued by Govt.   Such
\ndegrees\/diplomas  should  be  recognised  automatically  for  the  purpose  of
\nemployment under the Central Government….’<\/p>\n
        7.  The learned senior counsel would also cite the  Office  Memorandum
\nin  Ref.Senate  77\/MS, dated 26th August 1988 issued by the Registrar of BITS,
\nPilani wherein it has been stated that ‘The Master of Science  (M.S.)  degrees
\nawarded  by  the  Birla  Institute  of Technology & Science are Higher Degrees
\noperated through Distance Learning Programmes.  All  the  M.S.degrees  in  the
\nspecific branches   are   equivalent   to   M.E.\/  M.Phil.\/M.Pharm.    in  the
\ncorresponding branches of the formal system.  The holders of M.S.  Degrees are
\neligible to seek admission to Ph.D.  Programmes of the Institute.’<\/p>\n
        8.  The learned senior counsel would also refer to a letter  NO.F.19-1
\n\/90\/TD-V, dated 13.11.1991 addressed by the Deputy Educational Adviser (Tech),
\nGovernment  of  India,  Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of
\nEducation) to one V.Senthur wherein it has been  stated  that  ‘…    degrees
\nawarded  by  a  University  set  up  under  an  Act  of  Parliament or a State
\nLegislature are automatically  recognised  for  purpose  of  employment  under
\nCentral Government.    The  Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani is
\nsuch a University’.  The learned senior counsel would further submit that  one
\nof the  Tamil  nadu  Universities  has  recognised  the M.S.  computer science
\ndegree given by BITS and would refer to the Letter in Ref:MSU\/BS  1\/93,  dated
\n1.4.1993  issued  by  the  Registrar of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
\nKokkirakulam,  Tirunelveli  wherein  it   has   been   mentioned   that   ‘for
\nrecruitment\/promotion\/higher studies,  the M.S.  Computer Science degree given
\nby Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, may be  treated  on  par
\nwith PG Computer Science degree’.\n<\/p>\n
        9.    The  learned  senior  counsel  would  further  submit  that  the
\nAssociation of Indian Universities, New Delhi by their letter  No.EV\/VII(5)\/95
\n\/11664  dated 26.9.1995 has also clarified that ‘the certificate issued by the
\nBITS Pilani on the equivalence of their MS degree should be acceptable to  all
\nconcerned.   In  case of any further information, kindly request your employer
\nto write to us.’<\/p>\n
        10.  The learned senior counsel would further refer to the  letter  in
\nO.No.410\/Raj-16\/BOS  (PG)\/92,  dated 31.7.1995 of the Adviser of the All India
\nCouncil for  Technical  Education  addressed  to  The  Registrar,  Kurukshetra
\nUniversity, Kurukshetra wherein it has been clarified in the following manner:\n<\/p>\n
“The Council has received some queries regarding the equivalence of M.S.degree
\nof  BITS,  Pilani,  which  is  not included in the list of approved courses of
\nAICTE.  In this regard, I may clarify that as council  has  not  received  any
\nproposal from  BITS,  Pilani for approval of above programme.  However, as per
\nGovt.  of India communication No.F.19-3\/9 0-TD dated July 13,  1990  addressed
\nto the  Commissioner  and  Director  of  Technical  Education Govt.  of Andhra
\nPradesh it has been made clear that
\n        The Degrees awarded by  the  Universities  set  up  under  an  Act  of
\nParliament or a State Legislature are automatically recognised for the purpose
\nof employment  under  Central  Govt.    The  Birla  Institute  of Technology &
\nScience, Pilani, is such a University.\n<\/p>\n
        I hope that this resolves the question of its recognition by Govt.  of
\nIndia’<\/p>\n
        11.  The learned senior counsel  for  the  petitioners  would  further
\nrefer  to  a  letter  addressed by BITS, Pilani to one Mrs.Asha Maria, 32 Venu
\nGopalsamy Street, Perambur, Chennai-11 which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“BITS is a deemed University and is authorized to offer any degree  programme.
\nBeing  a deemed university all degrees offered by BITS are to be automatically
\nrecognised.  Please find enclosed papers to support this view.\n<\/p>\n
The UGC  does  not  recognise  specific  degree  programmes.    However,   UGC
\nrecognises BITS to be a deemed university.\n<\/p>\n
AICTE  is  to  grant  recognition  to degree programmes offered by engineering
\ncolleges or polytechnics.  Universities do  not  have  to  take  any  specific
\nrecognition from AICTE.  This is according to Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act.”\n<\/p>\n
        12.   Citing all the above correspondences, the learned senior counsel
\nwould request the Court to consider the  language  employed  in  the  impugned
\norder  in  the  light of the above submitted factual position and would submit
\nthat absolutely no reason as to  why  having  recognised  and  accepted  those
\ndegrees as  a  an equivalent to M.E.  for more than six years, the respondents
\nhave issued the impugned  order  and  would  pray  to  allow  the  above  writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   The  first  respondent  would file a counter wherein it has been
\nstated that the All India Council for Technical Education has  stated  in  its
\nletter  No.410\/Rej.16\/BOS(pa)\/92 dated 31st July 1995 that the Council has not
\nreceived any proposal from Birla Institute of Technology and  Science,  Pilani
\nfor  approval  of  the  above  programmes  and  the  degrees  awarded  by  the
\nUniversities set up under an Act of Parliament or  as  State  Legislature  are
\nautomatically   recognised   for  the  purpose  of  employment  under  Central
\nGovernment and not for the State Government (State Level Committee); that  the
\nSub-Committee’s  report  constituted  by  the  University  of  Madras  in this
\nconnection is awaited; that in the resolution of General Academic  Matters  of
\nthe  Syndicate  Meeting  of the University of Madras held on 22.12.1999 it was
\nresolved that ‘ the number of subjects  in  M.S.    Degree  offered  by  BITS,
\nPilani,  through  Distance Education in various discipline contains only eight
\nsubjects which is less when compared to M.E.  Degree course  which  offers  12
\nsubjects  in two Semester and Project work for one full semester by the Madras
\nUniversity and also the duration of M.S.Programme in BITS, Pilani  is  two  to
\nfour Semesters  and  hence  the  M.S.   Degree offered by BITS, Pilani through
\nDistance Education cannot be considered as equivalent to M.E.\/M.Tech.   Degree
\nof   respective   discipline   of   Madras   University  for  the  purpose  of
\nappointment\/Higher Studies’.  Relying on the said resolution, this  respondent
\nwould pray to dismiss the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   The  fourth respondent\/BITS, Pilani would file a counter thereby
\nsupporting the case of the petitioners and further submitting  that  BITS  has
\nbeen  established  by  the  Act  of  Parliament and was accorded the status of
\n‘Deemed University’ by the Act of Parliament  under  the  Universities  Grants
\nCommission   Act;   that  the  degrees  awarded  by  the  4th  respondent  are
\nautomatically recognized for the  purpose  of  employment;  that  as  per  the
\nCentral  Government  Act, BITS, Pilani is a recognized University and the M.S.
\nDegree of the said University has been recognized as equivalent to M.E.\/M.Tech
\ndegree of various other Universities; that BITS  as  a  Deemed  University  is
\nempowered  to  conduct degree programmes and offer degrees and hence it is not
\nnecessary for Director  of  Technical  Education,  Tamilnadu  to  specifically
\nrecognize  these  degrees;  that  BITS as a Deemed University started offering
\nprogrammes under Distance Learning Scheme  specifically  for  Human  Resources
\nDevelopment  of  the collaborating organizations with the same rigour in terms
\nof duration, number of courses, course contents, evaluation  of  the  students
\netc.  as that of the programmes offered on campus.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   This  respondent would further submit that the Distance Learning
\nProgrammes in technological areas have not only the approval of the nation but
\nthe institute has been given fund support by the UGC, MHRD  etc.;  that  these
\nprogrammes  aim  at  Manpower  development  of employed personnel who are duly
\nsponsored by their employers; that many countries conduct such programmes  and
\nthere  are  also  institutions  in  India  like Jawaharlal Nehru Technological
\nUniversity,  Saifabad  which  conducts   Distance   Learning   Programmes   in
\nengineering  Sciences;  that it enables the favourable interaction between the
\nInstitute and Industries and paves way for the  Institute’s  participation  in
\nthe  continuing  education  of  working Manpower with an aim of human resource
\ndevelopment; that BITS has framed regulations with  regard  to  DLP  and  this
\nbrochure  gives details of the regiment and rigor which a student undergoes to
\nget the degree under this programme; that  DLP  Division  also  issues  course
\nhandout to the students for each semester for each course and apart from, each
\nstudent  has  a  mentor  and  he  is  evaluated through credit based system of
\nevaluation under CGPA; that BITS degree is recognized  throughout  the  world;
\nthat  the  Tamil  Nadu  Services  annual  Schedule  II to Tamil Nadu State and
\nSubordinate Service Rules in relation to recognized Units and Institute by UGC
\nare concerned would recognize the BITS Pilani at Sl.No.1 in the institution to
\nbe a recognized one and MHRD had also reiterated that BITS is  recognized  for
\nall purposes  including  that  of  Ph.D.   and M.Phil; that the impugned order
\nderecognizing the degree awarded by BITS is illegal and without any  authority
\nof  jurisdiction;  that  the  impugned order has not assigned any reason; that
\nright from the inception of  BITS,  it  has  been  recognized  by  the  second
\nrespondent  and  all  of a sudden, the second respondent chose to de-recognize
\nthe degree and the same is unsustainable since amounting to discrimination  if
\nit is made operative.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   This  respondent  would  further  submit  that  BITS is a deemed
\nUniversity and it does not receive any maintenance grant either from the State
\nof Rajasthan or from the Central Government and is controlled and  managed  by
\nitself  and  there  is  no  interference  of  the  State  in any manner in the
\nday-to-day affairs, administration and management of the institute; that it is
\nnot creation of any statute, as such, it is not a State within the  definition
\nof  Article  12  of  the Constitution of India and is not amenable to the writ
\njurisdiction of this Court and this Court should be slow to interfere  in  the
\nday-to-day  affairs  of  the institute in its extraordinary jurisdiction under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India.  On such  grounds,  this  respondent
\nwould pray to quash the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
        17.   The  fifth  respondent\/University of Madras would file a counter
\nthereby submitting that the writ petition is not maintainable in law; that the
\nPrincipal, Thanthai Periyar Government Institute of Technology, Vellore in his
\nletter dated 13.1.1993 and the Registrar, Hindustan Institute  of  Engineering
\nTechnology,  Chennai  in his letter dated 6.12.1993 had sought a clarification
\nwhether the M.S.  Degree awarded by the  4th  respondent  under  the  distance
\nlearning programme could be considered as equivalent to the M.E.\/M.Tech degree
\nof  respective discipline of the University of Madras and this was referred to
\nthe then Chairman, Board  of  Studies  in  Engineering  for  his  remarks  and
\nthereafter  as per his suggestion, the matter was placed before the meeting of
\nthe Board of studies in Engineering  held  on  31.3.1994  and  the  Board  had
\nconstituted   a  Sub-Committee  to  go  into  the  details  such  as  entrance
\nqualification, curriculum content, regulations, scheme of examination, passing
\nrequirements etc.  under  the  chairmanship  of  Dr.S.    Natarajan,  but  the
\nSub-Committee  did  not  convene  the  meeting;  that  the Board of Studies in
\nEngineering in its meeting held on 30.7.1999 resolved that if  the  M.S.    of
\nspecific  discipline  has  comparable  subjects  of  study  both in number and
\ncontents in corresponding discipline of M.E.  in Madras University and if  the
\nM.S.   Programme  is done after a four year degree programme in Engineering in
\nthe respective branches of study, then such individual cases may be considered
\nas  equivalent  for  the  purpose  of  appointment\/higher  studies  and   such
\nindividual  cases  have  to  be  referred  to  and  assessed  by  the Board of
\nEngineering of respective branch and the said resolution was approved  by  the
\nSyndicate  on  20.8.1999;  that the said matter was once again referred to the
\nChairman, Board of Studies in Engineering, since there is only  one  Board  of<\/p>\n
studies in Engineering and no separate Board of Engineering for each branch at
\nthat  time,  for  his  suggestion  and the Chairman in his letter No.9970\/Z\/99
\ndated 30.11.1999 has suggested as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“…  granting of recognition to M.S.  degree in various discipline awarded by
\nBITS, Pilani, through distance learning programme as equivalent to M.E.\/M.Tech
\nDegree of the discipline concerned of Madras  University  is  a  major  policy
\ndecision  to  be  taken  and  to  be approved by the appropriate bodies of the
\nUniversity.  Hence it is suggested that this issue may be  placed  before  the
\nensuing Board of Studies in Engineering Meeting”.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  This respondent would further submit that the Board of Studies in
\nEngineering  at  its meeting held on 8.12.1999 has considered the above matter
\nand resolved as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“The number of subjects in M.S.    Degree  offered  by  BITS,  Pilani  through
\nDistance Education in various discipline contains only eight subjects which is
\nless when  compared  to  M.E.    degree course which offers 12 subjects in two
\nsemester and a project work for one full semester by the Madras University.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  Also the duration of M.S.  Programme in BITS, Pilani  is  two  to
\nfour semesters.   Hence  the  M.S.    degree  offered by BITS, Pilani, through
\nDistance Education cannot be  considered  as  equivalent  to  M.E.\/M.    Tech.
\nDegree  of  respective  discipline  of  Madras  University  for the purpose of
\nappointments\/higher studies.”\n<\/p>\n
        20.   This  respondent   would   further   submit   that   the   above
\nrecommendation  of  the  Board  of  studies in Engineering was approved by the
\nSyndicate at its meeting held on 22.12.1999; that the Board of Studies can  be
\nsubstituted  by  the  Syndicate by means of an ordinance under Section 25-A of
\nthe Madras University Act, 1923; that it  is  an  expert  body  consisting  of
\neminent academicians; that it has power, among others, to make recommendations
\nin  regard  to courses of study and examinations in the subject, with which it
\ndeals; that inasmuch as the said recommendation of the  Board  of  studies  in
\nEngineering  dated  8.12.1999,  is approved by the Syndicate by its resolution
\ndated 22.12.1999, it is binding on the University of Madras;  that  the  above
\nwrit  petition  is  not  maintainable in law inasmuch as there is no provision
\nunder the University Grants Commission Act 1956 requiring the fifth respondent
\nUniversity to recognize the degree of other Universities; that Section  22  of
\nthe  said  Act  vests  only  the  right on Universities and other institutions
\nrecognized as such under Section of the Act to confer or grant  degrees;  that
\nit   does  not  create  a  corresponding  obligation  on  the  part  of  other
\nUniversities  to  recognize  those  degrees;  that  other  Universities   will
\nrecognize  the  degree  of  another  University  only when they conform to the
\nstandard, prescribed by them under their statutes or regulations  or  if  they
\nare  found  to be equivalent by the expert bodies like the Board of studies of
\nthe fifth respondent University; that inasmuch a decision has  been  taken  by
\nthe Syndicate of the fifth respondent University that the M.S.degree conferred
\nby  the  fourth respondent is not equivalent to its M.E.\/M.Tech degree, on the
\nbasis of the resolutions of the Board of studies, dated  8.12.1999,  no  legal
\nobligation to recognize the said degree, arises as far as the fifth respondent
\nUniversity  is  concerned  and  as  a result, no writ would lie as against the
\nfifth respondent University and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  The seventh  respondent\/Anna  University  would  file  a  counter
\nthereby  submitting  that  since  the  above  Writ  Petition  has  been  filed
\nchallenging the communication of the Director  of  Technical  Education,  this
\nrespondent  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  the  same; that as far as this
\nrespondent is concerned, the Syndicate of Anna University after  perusing  the
\nreport  of  the  Expert  Committee  have  resolved  vide  Syndicate Resolution
\nNo.105.13.1 dated December 1995 not to recognise BITS, Pilani M.S.  Degree  as
\nequivalent  to  other  M.E.\/M.Tech  degrees  and  hence the graduate with M.S.
\nDegree from BITS, Pilani are not  entitled  to  be  admitted  into  the  Ph.D.
\nprogramme  of  the  respondent  University;  that  various  distance education
\nprogrammes are normally equivalent to only  part-time  degree  programmes  and
\nmostly  teachers  of  Engineering  colleges  and  persons  who are employed in
\nindustries undergo the M.S.Distance education programme in BITS  Pilani;  that
\nthe M.S.    Degree  programme  is  a specially designed programme conducted to
\ncater to the specific needs of various industries as per  their  requirements,
\nfunding  and  the  course  is  also sponsored by the industries and therefore,
\nthere is no fixed syllabi or curriculum that is being followed for the purpose
\nof awarding M.S.  Degree in BITS, Pilani.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  This respondent would further submits that to  the  knowledge  of
\nthis respondent, the courses offered by BITS, Pilani have not got the approval
\nof AICTE;  that since M.S.  degree programme of BITS, Pilani being primarily a
\nsponsored programme, the rigor  of  test  and  required  level  of  competence
\napplicable to  regular  M.E.    Degree  programmes are not present in the M.S.
\nDegree  programme;  that  the  petitioners  have  also   not   presented   the
\nauthenticated  syllabi,  the  qualification  of  teaching faculty, duration of
\nteaching  and  practical  training  of  various  subjects,   the   examination
\nadministered,  the  marks  required for pass and class for categorization etc.
\napplicable to the degree course undergone by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  Further giving the example of M.E.\/M.Tech part-time programme  as
\nof  5  semesters with Regular campus attendance of the Anna University whereas
\nit is only 3 semesters for the M.S.  of BITS, Pilani and giving a  comparative
\nchart of both the courses; this respondent has bodies such as Academic Council
\nand  Syndicate  which  are  vested  with  the  powers  of evaluating, deciding
\nmatters, such as recognising degrees awarded by various Universities in  India
\nand abroad as recognised and equivalent for the purpose of higher education in
\nthe  University  and  accordingly,  the  University after due deliberation and
\napplication of mind have decided not to consider M.S.  Degree awarded by  BITS
\nPilani and  certain  other  Universities as equivalent to M.E\/M.Tech.  degrees
\nawarded by Anna University.  On such grounds, this respondent  would  pray  to
\ndismiss the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        24.   The  petitioner  would  file  a  rejoinder  as against the above
\ncounter filed by the 7th respondent thereby submitting that the  statement  of
\nthe  7th  respondent that insofar as the impugned order is concerned it cannot
\nbe held responsible is false in view of the fact that  the  admission  to  the
\nEngineering   Courses,   approval   of   the   students,   grant   of  various
\ncourses,monitoring of all Technical Institutions with  the  qualifications  of
\nthe Lecturers,  Assistant  Professors  and  Professors  etc.   are checked and
\ninspected by the second respondent and the same is forwarded for  approval  to
\nthe  respective  affiliating  Universities  and without approval of the second
\nrespondent, no technical Institute can be affiliated to the  University;  that
\nthe  Syndicate of the Anna University is said to have resolved vide Resolution
\nNo.105.13.1 during December 1995 not to recognise BITS, Pilani M.S.  degree as
\nequivalent to M.E.\/M.Tech degree and that the said Graduates of  BITS,  Pilani
\nare not entitled to be admitted into the Ph.D.  courses of Anna University and
\nthe  said  resolution having been passed during December 1995 and that all the
\npetitioners having possessed M.S.  degree prior to  the  said  resolution  can
\nhave  only  prospective  operation  without  in  any way affecting the accrued
\nrights of the petitioners; that the Government by an Act  had  affiliated  all
\nthe  Engineering Colleges throughout the Tamil Nadu to the Anna University and
\nconsequent upon that, no orders have been issued to persons who are undergoing
\nPh.D.  degree on the basis of M.S.  degree of BITS, Pilani and  in  fact,  the
\nDirector  of  Technical  Education had sponsored few Central Polytechnic Staff
\nfor admission to the said courses and the 7th respondent  had  also  sponsored
\nand  therefore,  having chosen to do so, there cannot be a different treatment
\nto similarly placed persons, which would violate Articles 14  and  16  of  the
\nConstitution of India apart from resulting in hostile discrimination; that the
\ncomparison  made by the seventh respondent is a farce since M.S., BITS, Pilani
\nis a full time sponsored programme with a fixed syllabi having  been  approved
\nby Distant Education Council (DEC) and Ministry of Human Resources Development
\nhad accepted and given that the said qualification as equivalent to M.E.\n<\/p>\n
        25.  The fourth respondent\/BITS, Pilani would also file a rejoinder to
\nthe counter filed by the 7th respondent thereby furnishing the list of various
\nauthorities and<\/p>\n
Universities which have recognized BITS, Pilani and the unique features of the
\noff-campus distance  learning  and  collaborative programmes.  This respondent
\nwould further submit that BITS, Pilani being a deemed University, it does  not
\nrequire  any  approval  from  AICTE; that under clause 10(k) of the AICTE Act,
\n1987 it is empowered to grant approval  for  starting  courses  in  ‘Technical
\nInstitutions’  which are other than ‘Universities’ as per definitions 2(h) and\n<\/p>\n
(i) of the said Act; that the Universities do not come under  the  purview  of
\nthe  clause  10(k)  of  the AICTE Act, 1987 for approval and the same view has
\nbeen upheld by the Honourable Supreme  Court  in  its  judgment  delivered  in
\nBHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY  AND  ANOTHER  vs.    ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL
\nEDUCATION AND OTHERS<\/a> reported in (2001) 8 SCC 676.\n<\/p>\n
        26.  The seventh respondent would also file a reply affidavit  to  the
\nrejoinder filed by the petitioners thereby reiterating their stand and further
\nsubmitting  that  the  University  which conferred a degree on the petitioners
\nalone is to answer the petitioners  grievance;  that  the  petitioners  before
\npursuing  the  degree  programme ought to have verified the recognition of the
\ndegree and accordingly decided not to opt for the degree and there is  neither
\nany  privity  of  contract  nor  legal  right  to  seek the prayer in the writ
\npetitioner against the seventh respondent; that  no  University  or  a  deemed
\nUniversity  or  its graduates can compel or demand as a matter of fact the 7th
\nrespondent University to recognise the degrees  of  such  University  and  the
\npetitioners have no right to invoke writ jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
        27.   This  respondent  would  further  submit  that  assuming without
\nadmitting that the impugned order  is  quashed,  it  would  not  automatically
\nconfer  any  right  on  the  petitioners for their degrees to be recognised as
\nequivalent by  the  concerned  University  since  considering  equivalence  of
\ndegrees  is a matter of academic expertise which has to be done by the experts
\nof the respective University concerned because certain other Universities have
\nrecognised the degree of the University wherein the petitioners  had  studied,
\nit   is  not  incumbent  on  every  University  to  likewise  recognise  since
\nrecognition and equivalence being academic matters have  to  be  done  by  the
\nrespective  University  for  which powers are conferred in the University Act;
\nthat the Anna University is acting as a nodal agency  for  and  on  behalf  of
\nGovernment  of  Tamil  Nadu  for engineering admission and is not in-charge of
\ngranting approval of students, which is done by the Directorate  of  Technical
\nEducation  and  the  prescription  of  qualifications of faculty is within the
\npurview of AICTE; that the University  is  empowered  to  grant  and  withdraw
\naffiliation  as per the provisions of the University Act; that the petitioners
\nare not entitled to question the validity of the Syndicate resolution  of  the
\nUniversity  in  a  writ  petition  wherein  it  is  not  the subject matter of
\nchallenge; that it is not obligatory on the University  to  grant  recognition
\nfor  a  course  on  the  sole  ground  that other non-statutory bodies such as
\nAssociation of Indian Universities have granted recognition.\n<\/p>\n
        28.  During arguments, the learned senior counsel for the  petitioners
\nwould  submit  that  no  reasons  have been assigned in the impugned order and
\nwould cite a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered in MOHINDER SINGH
\nGILL AND ANOTHER vs.  THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW  DELHI  AND  OTHERS<\/a>
\nreported in AIR 1978 SC 851     wherein it has been held:\n<\/p>\n
“When  a  statutory  functionary  makes an order based on certain grounds, its
\nvalidity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented
\nby fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.  Otherwise, an  order
\nbad  in  the  beginning  may,  by  the  time it comes to court on account of a
\nchallenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.”\n<\/p>\n
        29.  On behalf of the learned  counsel  for  the  7th  respondent\/Anna
\nUniversity,  the  learned counsel would cite a judgment of the Honourable Apex
\nCourt delivered in RAJENDRA  PRASAD  MATHUR  vs.    KARNATAKA  UNIVERSITY  AND
\nANOTHER reported in AIR 1986 SC 1448 wherein it has been held:\n<\/p>\n
        “It  is  for  each University to decide the question of equivalence of
\nexaminations and it would not be  right  for  the  Supreme  Court  to  sit  in
\njudgment  over  the  decision  of the University because it is not a matter on
\nwhich the Court possesses any expertise.  The University  is  best  fitted  to
\ndecide  whether  any  examination  held  by  a University outside the State is
\nequivalent to an examination held  within  the  State  having  regard  to  the
\ncourses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard
\nof examination.    It  is  an  academic question in which the Court should not
\ndisturb the decision taken by the University.”\n<\/p>\n
        30.  In consideration of the  facts  pleaded,  having  regard  to  the
\nmaterials  placed  on  record  and  upon  hearing the arguments of the learned
\ncounsel for the petitioners and the respondents as well what comes to be known
\nis that the petitioners have filed the above writ petition  praying  to  quash
\nthe  proceedings  of  the 2nd respondent made in letter No.5000\/CDC\/2000 dated\n<\/p>\n
–.10.2000 and consequently direct the respondents to recognise the degree  of
\nthe 4th respondent for all purposes including appointments, promotions, higher
\nstudies and for doing Ph.D.  etc.  with all consequential benefits<\/p>\n
        31.   The  petitioners  numbering  68,  all  of  whom  are B.E\/B.Tech.
\ngraduates and working as Lecturers in various colleges under  the  control  of
\nthe respondents  1,  2,  5  and 7 have joined M.S.  degree courses in Computer
\nScience, Electronics Control etc., systems and  Information,  Software  System
\nand  Technological  Operations  and when it came into question of recognition,
\nthe second respondent by the impugned order has informed the petitioners  that
\nthe  MS  Degree  awarded  by  BITS,  Pilani (Rajasthan) through correspondence
\nprogramme is not equivalent to that of M.E., degree awarded by  the  Tamilnadu
\nUniversities  and  hence  the  above  writ  petition  praying  for  the relief
\nextracted supra.\n<\/p>\n
        32.  The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would argue to the
\neffect that the said degree was conferred  on  them  by  regularly  undergoing
\nsponsored  Distance Learning Programme of the BITS, Pilani in pursuance of the
\nemployer having met the entire Academic pursuit to do the said programme; that
\nBITS, Pilani is a ‘Deemed University’  and  the  degrees  awarded  by  it  are
\nrecognised  and  no  formal orders are required as per the Official Memorandum
\nNo.6\/1\/64 Estt.  D.  dated 19.4.1964 and that the order of the 2nd  respondent
\nin  treating  the  degrees  awarded  by  the  such pioneer universities as not
\nequivalent to  the  M.E.\/M.Tech.    Degrees  which  hitherto  were  considered
\nequivalent  and  since the said institution has been established by the Act of
\nParliament  and  was  accorded  status  of  ‘Deemed  universities’  under  the
\nUniversities-Grants-Commission  Act,  the  order of the 2nd respondent suffers
\njurisdictional and for non-application of mind.\n<\/p>\n
        33.  The petitioners besides the other  arguments  would  cite  letter
\ndated  13.11.1991  addressed  by  the  Deputy Educational Adviser ( Technical)
\nGovernment of India to an individual stating that the  degrees  awarded  by  a
\nUniversity  set  up  under  an  Act  of  Parliament  or  State Legislature are
\nautomatically  recognised  for  the  purpose  of  employment   under   Central
\nGovernment  and  another  letter  dated  1.4.1993  issued  by  the  Registrar,
\nManonmaniam Sundaranar University equivalent wherein  it  has  been  mentioned
\nthat  for recruitment\/promotion\/higher studies, the MS Computer Science degree
\ngiven by BITS, Pilani may be treated  on  par  with  P.G.    Computer  Science
\nDegree.   The petitioners counsel would further cite such instances of letters
\naddressed by the Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi, The Adviser of
\nAll India Council for Technical Education and from BITS,  Pilani  would  state
\nthat the certificates and degrees issued by the BITS, Pilani are equivalent to
\nthat of  the  M.S.  Degree should be accepted by the Universities of Tamilnadu
\nsince it is a ‘Deemed university’  and  is  authorised  to  offer  any  degree
\nprogramme  and  on  such  arguments  the petitioners counsel would request the
\nCourt to consider the case of the petitioners in  the  light  of  the  factual
\nposition  since  according  to  them,  there is absolutely no reason as to why
\nhaving recognized and accepted  those  degrees  awarded  by  BITS,  Pilani  as
\nequivalent to M.E.Degree for nearly six years, the respondents have now issued
\nthe  impugned  order  contrarily  and would ultimately pray to allow the above
\nwrit petition, quashing the impugned letter dated –.10.2000.\n<\/p>\n
                34.  On the other hand on behalf of the respondents 1,2, 5 and
\n7 it would be strongly argued to the effect that by the communication received
\nfrom the AICTE dated 31.7.1995, when it is stated that  the  council  has  not
\nreceived  any  proposal  plan  from  the  BITS,  Pilani  for  approval  of the
\nprogrammes and the degrees awarded by the Universities set up under the Act of
\nParliament or a State Legislature are automatically recognised for the purpose
\nof employment.  In this connection,  a  resolution  of  the  General  Academic
\nmatters  of  the  syndicate  meeting  of  the  University  of  Madras  held on
\n22.12.1999 cast resolving number of subjects in M.S.  Degrees offered by BITS,
\nPilani.  Therefore distance education in various disciplines contained only  8
\nsubjects which is less when compared through M.E.  Degree Courses which offers
\n12  subjects  in two semesters and a project work for one full semester by the
\nMadras University and the duration of M.S.  Degree in BITS,Pilani is  2  to  4
\nsemesters and  hence  M.S.    Degree  offered by BITS, Pilani through distance
\nEducation cannot be considered as  equivalent  to  M.E.\/M.    Tech  degree  of
\nrespective    discipline   of   Madras   University   for   the   purpose   of
\nappointment\/higher studies.    Various  instances  would  be  cited  by  these
\nrespondents  in  consummation  of  their arguments that the degrees awarded by
\nBITS, Pilani are not equivalent to that of  the  M.E.\/M.Tech  degrees  of  the
\nrespective discipline of Madras University.\n<\/p>\n
        35.   It  would  further be submitted on the part of these respondents
\nthat the courses offered by BITS, Pilani have not got the approval from AICTE;
\nthat since the  MS  Degree  Programmes  of  BITS,  Pilani  being  primarily  a
\nsponsored  programme,  the  rigor  of  test  and  required level of competence
\napplicable to regular M.E.  Degree Programmes are not present in M.S.   Degree
\nprogramme;  that  the  petitioners  have  also not presented the authenticated
\nsyllabi, the qualification of  teaching  faculty,  duration  of  teaching  and
\npractical  training  of  various  subjects,  the examination administered, the
\nmarks required for pass and class for categorization etc., applicable  to  the
\ndegree course undergone by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
        36.   Cases would also be cited on the part of the petitioners and the
\nrespondents as well, so far as the proposition alleged to have  been  held  in
\nthe  case cited by the petitioners counsel reported in MOHINDER SINGH GILL AND
\nANOTHER VS.  THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI AND OTEHRS  (AIR  1978
\nSC 851) are only suggestion in nature and not held as ruling so as to help the
\npetitioners nor  could  it  be  done in the circumstances of the case.  On the
\nother hand, in the case cited on the  part  of  the  respondents  reported  in
\nRAJENDRA PRASAD  MATHUR  vs.    KARNATAKA  UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER (AIR 1986 SC
\n1448), it has been held that it is for each University to decide the  question
\nof equivalence of examinations and it would not be right for the Supreme Court
\nto  sit  in  judgment  over the decision of the University because it is not a
\nmatter on which the Court possesses any expertise but the University  is  best
\nfitted  to  decide  whether  any  examination held by a University outside the
\nState is equivalent to an examination held within the State having  regard  to
\nthe  courses;  the  syllabus,  the  quality of teaching or instruction and the
\nstandard of examination.  It is an academic question in which the Court should
\nnot disturb the decision taken by the University.\n<\/p>\n
        37.  The above judgment of the Honourable Apex Court is not  only  the
\nlaw  of the land but also squarely applies to the case in hand and needless to
\nmention that the petitioners cannot compel the  respondents  particularly  the
\nrespondents 1, 2, 5 and 7 with such impositions that they should recognise the
\ndegree conferred by the BITS, Pilani for any purpose much less for the purpose
\nof appointment\/ promotions\/  higher  studies  for  doing  Ph.  D.  etc., It is
\nrelevant to mention that no University or ‘Deemed University’ or its graduates
\ncould compel or demand any other university to recognise the degrees of  other
\nuniversities.   It  aptly  applies to the petitioners as well and therefore no
\nmention need be necessary that the petitioners have no case to offer.    Hence
\nthe above writ petition becomes only liable to be dismissed.
\nIn result,\n<\/p>\n
        (i)  The above writ petition, for all the above reasons assigned, does
\nnot merit acceptance but only becomes liable to be dismissed and is  dismissed
\naccordingly;\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)   Consequently,   connected  W.P.M.P.No.10566  of  2001  is  also
\ndismissed;\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) There shall be or order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                        07.01.2005
\nks
\nIndex:Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
Copy to:\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary,
\nThe State of Tamil Nadu,
\nHigher Education,
\nFort St.George,
\nChennai-9.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Director of Technical Education,
\nGuindy, Chennai-25.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Government of India,
\nMinistry of Human Resources Development,
\nDepartment of Education,
\nNew Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Registrar,
\nBirla Institute of Technology and Science
\nPilani, Rajasthan.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Registrar,
\nUniversity of Madras, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The All India Council for
\nTechnical Education,
\nShastri Bhavan,
\nHaddows Road,
\nChennai-34.\n<\/p>\n
7.  The Registrar,
\nAnna University,
\nChennai.\n<\/p>\n
8.  Association of Indian Universities,
\nAIU House,
\nNo.16 Kotla Marg,
\nNew Delhi-2.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07\/01\/2005 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ WRIT PETITION No.7399 OF 2001 AND W.M.P.No.10566 OF 2001. 1. R.Kumar 2. M.Malathi 3. C.Munirathina Praba 4. M.Gurunathan 5. A.Narasimhan 6. S.S.Sridhar 7. M.Mohamed Ismail 8. […]<\/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-212017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-14T17:33:37+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=\"33 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-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-14T17:33:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005\"},\"wordCount\":6316,\"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-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005\",\"name\":\"R.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-14T17:33:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2005\"}]},{\"@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.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-14T17:33:37+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":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2005","datePublished":"2005-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-14T17:33:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005"},"wordCount":6316,"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-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005","name":"R.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-14T17:33:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-7-january-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2005"}]},{"@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\/212017","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=212017"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212017\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}